Schools

David Cameron made a spirited defence of school sport this morning when he appeared on LBC radio. Waving a sheet of paper triumphantly, the Prime Minister argued that the 20 school playing field sales that Michael Gove had signed off were actually schools that had closed, surplus fields and 'surplus marginal school land'. He also defended the decision to remove a compulsory target for all children to take part in two hours of sport a week: Well, look, we haven't done that, you know, sport is part of the national curriculum and we want schools to deliver sport and I think that's very important, but frankly, and we're putting a lot of money in, there's a billion pounds going into school sport over the next four years. But frankly if the only problem was money, you'd solve this with money.

None of us would accept being treated by a doctor or by a nurse who hadn’t had extensive training, nor would we want legal advice from someone who hadn’t been through law school. Nor would we be comfortable with our company accounts being managed or audited by anyone not trained to a high level in accountancy. So why should we accept teachers coming into our schools who haven’t been properly professionally taught how to teach in a college or university? Schooling is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and poor teachers, as research shows, destroy life chances. How can we play dice with our children’s lives?

The furore surrounding the news - which James broke on Coffee House this afternoon - that academies will now be able to employ teachers who are not qualified was so brilliantly predictable that we could have written the unions' press releases for them. Christine Blower of the National Union of Teachers slammed it as a 'clear dereliction of duty' and a 'cost-cutting measure that will cause irreparable damage to children's education'. Blower and her union colleagues are not clear why education will be so badly damaged by this, though. Top schools in the private sector regularly employ staff who have gone through no formal training at all. But parents have to pay for this privilege: it is not available to them in the state system.

The argument about grammar schools had been stuck in a rut. Opponents argued that the division between grammar schools and secondary modern was too binary. But with the advent of free schools this argument has lost its force. There is now a diversity of provision meaning that there’ll be no return to the old stark grammar/secondary modern split. Free grammars would also boost the number of state school children going to our best universities and unleash a new wave of educational philanthropy.

13 years of Labour rule taught us two vital lessons about school reform. The first is that there is no direct link between money and results. Funding per pupil more than doubled under the last government: But for all that extra cash, Britain's schools have slipped down the international league tables over the past decade. Every three years, the OECD rates countries according to student performance. Of the 31 with scores for both 2000 and 2009, here is the top twenty in mathematics for 2009, along with changes since 2000: So if money doesn't work, what does? The Blair/Adonis City Academy reforms — which themselves stem from the Major/Baker reforms — show that stunning results are achievable if the tuition changes.

On Tuesday next week, The Spectator will hold its third annual Schools Revolution conference. On the agenda will be the striking failure of new 'free schools' to keep pace with the rising pupil demand. Michael Gove, the education secretary, will be our keynote speaker. To book tickets, click here. A couple of month's ago, Fraser warned that the recent baby boom would lead to a schools crisis, with demand for places outstripping supply. Today's new figures from the Department for Education show that the crisis has already begun. This year, there are more primary school pupils than there were 30 years ago, but 3,800 fewer primary schools.

Primary school children studying subordinate clauses and foreign languages? What an outlandish but suddenly very real idea. Michael Gove announced earlier this week a curriculum reshuffle to restore rigour and aptitude to primary education. But why is liberalising Gove instigating a top-down approach, prescribing what teachers teach?   It’s not the first time that Gove’s policies have become contradictory. Earlier this year, Tristram Hunt MP wrote a magazine article about the Tory divide over forcing secondary schools to teach British history while also increasing their freedom.   The Times’ Alice Thompson (£) provides an answer for these dilemmas in her column this week.

Does it matter that academy schools are defying Jamie Oliver's fatwa against sweets? An organisation called the School Food Trust has found 89 of 100 academies guilty of harbouring tuck shops. Selling crisps, chocolate and even cereal bars. The Guardian is shocked and has made the story its page two lead. Schools with tuck shops, says the Trust's director, ‘should be named and shamed for profiteering at the expense of pupils’ health… Mr Gove is putting ideology above children’s wellbeing’.   I plead guilty to having once been behind the counter at the tuck shop of Rosebank Primary in Nairn, blissfully unaware that I was poisoning Highland children with this filth.

Good teaching matters; that’s something we don't need to be taught. But how much does it matter? What are its measurable benefits? Today’s education select committee report collects some striking, if pre-existing, research into just those very questions, and it is worth reading for that reason. There is, for example, the IPPR’s suggestion that ‘having an “excellent” teacher compared with a “bad” one can mean an increase of more than one GCSE grade per pupil per subject.’ Or there’s the American study which found that the best teachers can ‘generate about $250,000 or more of additional earnings for their students over their lives in a single classroom of about 28 students.