Patrick Kingsley on Everything
Those who can, don’t preach
Cameron’s elitist new education policies have angered the commentariat. Both sides, however, have missed the point.
Would Doris have passed Dave's test?
“Brazenly elitist” – that’s how David Cameron describes his latest education policies. For once, he’s spot on: the Tories’ plans – which include banning graduates from former polytechnics, and all those with thirds, from the teaching profession – utterly reek of academic snootiness. I’m tempted not to get too worked up, though: at least he knows he’s a snob.
Others, however, have given him slightly shorter shrift. Francis Gilbert, writing in the Guardian, says Cameron’s plan confirms “he doesn’t know anything about teaching.” Professor Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor at the University of Bedfordshire, is equally forthright: “these proposals show an amazing ignorance.” And Wes Streeting, formerly of this parish, and now head of the NUS, goes even further: “The message the Conservatives are sending to the majority of students is that if you didn’t go to a university attended by members of the shadow cabinet, they don’t believe you’re worth as much.” Always a bruiser, that Streeting.
Bruising or not, though, the commentariat’s right so far. Russell Group students may have a more intense academic experience while at university, but good teaching isn’t really about how much you know. It’s about being able to communicate with clarity what little you do know, and to make that communication inspiring and exciting for your students. Would-be teachers from the pollies may not have got three As at A-Level, but it’s idiocy to suggest that many of them don’t have the communication and leadership skills needed in the classroom. Besides, people end up at Bedfordshire, or Luton, precisely because they were badly taught and weren’t inspired at school; aren’t these, then, exactly the chaps Dave’s interested in helping, rather than excluding?
Yet, if Cameron’s a snob, then so too are some of his detractors. One of the Tories’ better ideas is in their support for programmes such as Teach First, which sees recent graduates – like me, incidentally – being fast-tracked into understaffed, “challenged” secondary schools. It mostly attracts graduates from Russell Group, true, and many of them don’t have long-term teaching ambitions, but Teach First is a worthy scheme, and one which needs support and expansion. Instead, however, it often attracts a kind of inverse snobbery – ironically, not least from the very people who earlier criticised Cameron’s own elitism. Francis Gilbert, for instance, mocks the colleague with “a first-class degree from Oxford and a penchant for oatmeal jackets and cravats” whose students had not “the slightest idea what he was talking about”, while Chris Keates, of the Nasuwt teachers’ union, scathingly says that “attending a Russell Group university doesn’t automatically make a good teacher.”
Brazen elitism works both ways: if Cameron’s wrong for excluding ex-poly grads from teaching, then so too are those who imply a posh degree is a bar to teaching success. As one of Cameron’s chosen mortarboard babes, I may well turn out to be a classroom klutz. But I’d rather not be written off before term even starts.
So, frankly, they’re all wrong: criticising would-be teachers for being either too academic, or for not being academic enough, is missing the point. The problem in state schools isn’t whether the teachers did or did not write 15 essays a term at Cambridge. The problem’s that there aren’t enough teachers in the first place.
Topics: Conservatives, Education, Politics
“but good teaching isn’t really about how much you know”
I agree to some extent. However, this then allows teachers who know nothing and can not teach, at least if they have a degree the knowledge sometimes seaps out unconsciously. Although a degree from a russell group uni doesn’t guarantee natural teaching prowess, I do think it makes it more likely. 100 teachers from russell, 100 teachers from not russell, generally the former will come out on top. And policies like this can only ever be acted on using these type of flawed and uncomfortable generalisations. This would be a very different debate if large numbers of russell group graduates were going into teaching, but, teachfirst aside, they’re not so have to be actively recruited. Ditto other public sectors, especially social work, where course acceptance standards are particularly low and where teachfirst style schemes are desperately needed.
“those who can, preach” – last time i checked the dictionary, i didn’t realise you spelt “teach” with a “p”?
methinks someone needs to brush up on their typing skills before they start “prying pro preach teople”!
Rodney, I believe the author intended the title to read “don’t preach” because all the ‘commentariat’ seem to be off the mark with their recommendations. He writes, in the final paragraph, “So, frankly, they’re all wrong: criticising would-be teachers for being either too academic, or for not being academic enough, is missing the point.” Isn’t the problem more accurately described as a lack of teachers? Isn’t a teacher with a lower class degree and strong leadership skills better than a steady rotation of supply teachers? This is the situation many challenging schools are facing.