Why Teachers Do Not Need To Be Licensed

With the call this week by Labour's Shadow Education Secretary, Tristram Hunt, for teachers to be 'Licensed', I can only begin to imagine the uproar that will ensue. I have heard it described as being like an MOT.

I can see where he's coming from, but he's got it all wrong.

Yes, of course we should be absolutely clear about the standards required of our teaching staff, but I believe that a move towards licensing will only increase bureaucracy, and do nothing towards ensuring that this translates into better teaching and improved educational attainment for our children.

To pursue the MOT analogy, a car might have an up to date MOT, but this is no guarantee that the following day it won't break down. I know, it happens to me all the time.

As a long standing governor of two schools (both outstanding), I am fully aware of the increasing demands on teachers in relation to ensuring that the highest standards of teaching and learning are achieved. However, I do feel that in any well run school the approriate measures will naturally be in place to monitor performance levels, either by peer review, lesson observation, and of course the dreaded OFSTED inspection. It has also recently been brought to my attention that if teaching performance is not up to scratch parents will vote with their feet. There can no clearer indication than that of dissatisfaction. To my mind, when you stop learning, you stop living, and there is of course the argument that any self-respecting teacher would naturally want to continue to improve and develop their knowledge and skill base, presmably with a view to promotion at some point. A teacher who qualified 20 years ago would not be able to function adequately nowadays without development. Procedures are in place to ensure CPD (continuing professional development) but I think these are not always rigid enough. One way in which to resolve the issue would be to introduce performance related pay, rather than the current automatic incremental rise. Otherwise know as payment by results. However, this needs to take into account a whole host of other factors.

Teachers are now required to ensure pupil progression, but this is entirely different from attainment. Well motivated, smart kids, with good parental support and a stable family life will naturally find academic achievement easier. By contrast, children with mild learning difficulties, or worse, and with little other support, as keen as they may be, will find it much harder to demonstrate achievement, but it is the overall result that counts, and the recognition that there are other routes to achievement than just through the exam system, and a university place. In our society there is a clear need to recognise vocational skills. In this context we must find a way to acknowledge teachers in schools like Wadham, where pupils, of their own volition, praise the pastoral care provided, which can make or break a child's future.

In my own case, it was my primary school teacher, Mrs. Elizabeth Mary Sharpe, who put me forward for the public school scholarship, and with whom I maintained contact for the rest of her life. She was, and remained, my main source of inspiration, and although for a number of reasons I never went onto university, I am still, nearly 50 years later, the only person in my entire family who has achieved the minimum academic standard, and gone onto further education. Likewise, at a recent governors' day at Fiveways Special SchooI in Yeovil, I was present when a child with profound learning difficulties kicked his foot for the first time to indicate that he wanted the teaching assistant to continue to bounce him on the trampoline. Now that was an achievement, and yes, once again, it brought tears to my eyes. You cannot license that type of achievement. It is all down to perseverence and of course, attitude.