Liberal Democrats in coalition: education

‘The school of hard knocks’: the role of Liberal Democrats in the coalition’s education policy Simon Griffiths

n December 2010, Michael Gove, the Con- David Laws (Liberal of education policy. In this article, I focus on servative Secretary of State for Educa- Democrat Schools the coalition’s policies on schools and higher Ition, wrote that it has become fashionable Minister 2012–15) education in England. (Education is a devolved ‘to refer to the coalition as a Maoist enterprise. and Michael Gove responsibility in the UK, with Scotland, Wales Not so much because the government is inhab- (Conservative and Northern Ireland operating different sys- iting the wilder shores of the Left, but because Secretary of State for tems.) There is much else that could have been of the relentless pace of modernisation being Education, 2010–14) written about education policy between 2010 pursued across government’.1 Gove may have and 2015 – the disagreements over curriculum been the pilot of school reform in England, but reform, the scrapping of the Education Main- Liberal Democrat education ministers in his tenance Allowance, or reforms to GCSEs and department were often willing first officers. A-Levels – however, in this very brief article it is Over the next five years, the coalition govern- the pro-market radicalism of the reforms to the ment undertook one of the most radical periods system of schools and higher education that is of structural reform to the education system in likely to be one of the most significant legacies of recent history, driving through a marketising the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition. agenda from the centre across significant areas This article explores the Liberal Democrats’ role

16 Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education in these policies and the impact that involvement Over the next five attract students as consumers, regardless of had on the party. whether it is carrying out work in the public years, the coali- good. For Liberal Democrats on the left of the party, this policy caused significant ideological Higher education: markets and party splits tion government discomfort. The coalition government carried out sweep- undertook one of In courting the Liberal Democrats as poten- ing reforms to marketise higher education in tial partners in the coalition, the Conservatives England. The Browne Review – more formally the most radical recognised that the future funding of higher Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: an education was a divisive issue. The Liberal independent review of Higher Education Funding and periods of struc- Democrats went into the 2010 general election Student Finance – published its findings in October on a manifesto pledge to ‘scrap unfair univer- 2010. Amongst other things, the review argued tural reform to sity tuition fees’. Every Liberal Democrat MP that there should be no limit on university fees, elected in 2010 – much to their subsequent col- and that government should underwrite fees up the education lective embarrassment – signed a pledge organ- to £6,000, with universities subject to a levy on ised by the National Union of Students stating all fees charged above that level. In addition, a system in recent that they would ‘vote against any increase in fees new body, the Higher Education Council, would history, driving in the next parliament and pressure the govern- be responsible for investing in priority courses, ment to introduce a fairer alternative’. Opposi- enforcing quality levels and improving access. through a mar- tion to increased tuition fees was a potent vote It should have the power to bail out struggling winner for the party, especially among student institutions and would be able to explore options ketising agenda voters. As such, the coalition agreement noted such as mergers and takeovers if institutions faced that ‘If the response of the government to Lord financial failure. There was also scope for new from the centre Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats providers to enter the system. Browne proposed cannot accept, then arrangements will be made that students should not have to pay any tuition across significant to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in fees up front, but would begin to pay their loans any vote’. This broke the earlier pledge, which back (with interest) once their earnings reached areas of educa- promised the party would vote against any £21,000. tion policy. increase in fees, rather than simply abstaining. , the Liberal Democrat Secre- However, this went largely unnoticed amidst the tary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, bigger story of coalition formation. At the very responded that he accepted the ‘broad thrust’ of least, Liberal Democrats were not bound to sup- the Browne Review. Cable had previously been port any increase in tuition fees. seen as favouring a . However, by the The Liberal Democrat leadership accepted the time the proposals reached parliament in Novem- Revised Browne Review, but were prepared to ber 2010, certain concessions had been made, for abstain in the parliamentary vote on the measure, which the Liberal Democrats claimed credit. In in line with the coalition agreement. However, particular, the government put forward an abso- when it became clear that a significant number of lute cap on fees of £9,000 per year. In an effort Liberal Democrat MPs would vote against any to mitigate criticisms that the review would dis- increase in fees, in line with their public prom- courage poorer people from applying, the gov- ise, the leadership called on the party to support ernment also proposed that universities charging the legislation to ensure that it passed. The party fees of over £6,000 per year would have to con- split. When it came to the vote in December tribute to a National Scholarships programme and 2010, twenty-eight Liberal Democrats supported introduced a stricter regime of sanctions encour- the government’s proposals – despite their pre- aging high-charging universities to increase par- election pledge – with twenty-one breaking the ticipation. Despite government assurances that government line to vote against. It was the most this would lead to price variation in the market, serious split the coalition had faced and destroyed the overwhelming majority of universities charge many voters’ trust in the Liberal Democrats. In fees at the top rate. 2012, the party leader, , apologised for The adoption of a ‘Revised Browne Review’ breaking the tuition fee pledge. It made no differ- introduced a new model of marketised higher ence to his party’s fortunes: the damage had been education. While earlier reforms under New done and the legislation remained in place. The Labour ended ‘free’ university education, coa- party’s poll figures, which had fallen on entering lition policy had radical implications for the government, fell further – often to single digits. way in which higher education is provided in The Liberal Democrats flatlined in the polls until England. Gone was the idea that higher edu- their collapse at the 2015 general election. The cation was a public good, determined by aca- episode damaged Clegg’s and the party’s reputa- demics, and paid for from public funds. In tion for the remainder of the coalition (and per- its place was the view that consumer choice, haps beyond). determined by student numbers, would decide The split reflected an ideological division in which institutions, subjects and modules would the Liberal Democrats between the more pro- survive in a market context. A university, like market ‘Orange Book’ Liberals – who had long any other business, can now fail if it does not viewed the policy of opposing tuition fees as a

Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 17 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education

low priority, and unaffordable given the eco- community groups, with another 112 pending, all nomic context – and the more social democratic with the same freedoms as academies.3 ‘Academi- wing of the party. The election of Nick Clegg as sation’ under the coalition is on a different scale to party leader and the decision to go into coalition anything that went before. with the Conservatives over a tired Labour Party The reforms were controversial. Critics of the marked the triumph of these Orange Book Liber- academy and free school models have, amongst als. Strategically, however, even the party’s most other things, attacked the freedoms these new vehement defenders admitted that accepting a schools have – described by one teachers’ leader form of the Browne Review, despite being given as the ability to teach ‘creationism instead of an explicit opt out in the coalition agreement, was literacy’.4 For some analysts, the academy pro- a disaster for the party.2 gramme, with its extensive use of private com- panies to run schools, meant ‘the beginning of the end of state education’.5 Yet for Liberal Dem- Schools policy: academies and the pupil ocrats in government, the freedom that schools premium would have from state control outweighed these Schools policy has been dominated by the hol- concerns. David Laws, from the economically lowing out of local authority power, which liberal right of the party, in particular, backed was passed upwards to the Secretary of State his Secretary of State, Michael Gove, and was a and downwards to academies operating in a committed partner in prising schools from per- quasi-market system. While the Conservative, ceived state interference. Michael Gove, led these reforms with revolu- A second significant policy development was tionary zeal, Liberal Democrat ministers in his the introduction of a ‘pupil premium’. The policy department – Sarah Teather and then David is most associated with the Liberal Democrats, Laws – were in no way reactionary opponents. but was put forward by both coalition partners The Academies Act (2010) was one of the first in their 2010 manifestos – although the Liberal pieces of legislation to be passed by the coalition. Democrats described it as a ‘priority policy’.6 The The Act made it possible for all state schools in introduction of the pupil premium was confirmed England to gain ‘academy status’. Academies are in the Comprehensive Spending Review on 22 publicly funded independent schools that have November 2010, committing government to ‘a significant autonomy from the state. Schools substantial new premium worth £2.5 billion, tar- can either convert to academies on their own or geted on the educational development of disad- as part of a ‘chain’, run by private or charitable vantaged pupils’.7 This was expanded upon in the organisations. Most academies are at secondary Schools’ White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, level, although there are some at primary level published two days later. However, the White too. In May 2010, Gove wrote to every head Paper also noted that, ‘This money will not be teacher in England to encourage them to apply ring-fenced at school level, as we believe that for academy status. schools are in the best position to decide how the The Academies Act also made possible the premium should be used to support their pupils.’8 introduction of ‘free schools’ – an even more radi- The redistributory nature of the pupil pre- cal move. This was part of the coalition agree- mium means that some schools with pupils from Schools policy has ment, which promised to ‘promote the reform of predominantly better off backgrounds had to schools in order to ensure that new providers can make significant cuts. Indeed, the Institute for been dominated enter the state school system in response to paren- Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated that 87 per cent tal demand’. Derived from charter schools in the of secondary pupils and 60 per cent of primary by the hollow- USA and free schools in Sweden, English free pupils were attending schools where funding had schools are all-ability state-funded schools, free of fallen.9 The extent of the changes in the schools ing out of local local authority control. Under the plans it became budget led to a backlash against the pupil pre- authority power, much easier for charities, businesses, or groups of mium, particularly in the right-wing press – parents, for example, to set up new schools. which strongly associated the scheme with the which was passed To some degree, ‘academisation’ is an exten- Liberal Democrats, despite its existence in both sion of the grant maintained schools programme coalition partners’ manifestos.10 upwards to the introduced by former Conservative Secretary Support for the policy was stronger in theory of State for Education Kenneth Baker in 1988, than in practice. The IFS was cautious, arguing Secretary of which already gave some schools considerable that, whilst in principle a pupil premium could freedom from local authorities, and a continua- narrow the achievement gap between advan- State and down- tion of the academies brought in by New Labour taged and disadvantaged pupils, the policy was from 2000. However, the coalition pushed for- not enough to lead to schools actively recruit- wards to acad- ward with the idea more strongly than the previ- ing more disadvantaged pupils. According to IFS emies operating ous Labour administration. The result has been a models, the premium would need to be higher to dramatic rise in the number of academies. By late sufficiently reduce the disincentive for schools to in a quasi-market 2014 there were around 4,000 academies, almost attract disadvantaged pupils. As such, they con- twenty times as many as in 2010. In addition, cluded, the pupil premium was unlikely to signif- system. 250 free schools have been created by parents or icantly reduce social segregation at the rate it was

18 Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education set.11 It may be that wider austerity measures dur- While senior figures in the party felt that they While the policies ing the coalition hindered the investment needed had tempered the policy, the public – particu- for progressive measures, such as the pupil pre- larly student voters – missed these nuances. As put forward by mium, to make a significant difference. such, the Liberal Democrat’s decision to support There is some degree of policy continuity the Conservatives on higher education policy, the coalition on between the coalition and New Labour on schools despite an explicit opt out, proved electorally education policy policy. Academies mark a long-term move from disastrous, and the party – already being pun- a (theoretically) universal service to one in which ished by former supporters for their decision to demonstrated the school system is shaped by parental choice, enter into coalition – never recovered. with the quasi-market subsidised by a premium a pro-market for poor pupils to increase social justice. (A more Dr Simon Griffiths is a Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths, radical application came from the comedian Paul University of London. He teaches and writes about Brit- radical zeal, they Merton, who once joked that it would sometimes ish politics and public policy. His latest book is Engag- be easier if parents were given choice of children, ing Enemies: Hayek and the Left (Rowman and were largely rather than just schools.) However it is the scope Littlefield International, 2014). and radicalism of the coalition reforms – rolling supported by out a market-based system to all schools – that 1 M. Gove, ‘Michael Gove: my revolution for culture senior Liberal constitutes a step-change from anything that in classroom’, The Telegraph (28 Dec. 2010). Retrieved went before. This marketising approach is consist- 1 Jul. 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educa- Democrats ent with the radical reform of higher education tion/8227535/Michael-Gove-my-revolution-for-cul- undertaken during the same period. ture-in-classroom.html 2 D. Laws, Coalition: The Inside Story of the Conservative–Lib- eral Democrat Coalition Government (Biteback, 2016). Conclusions 3 The Economist, ‘The new school rules’ (11 October 2014). The coalition’s legacy in education will be sig- Retrieved 1 Jul. 2016, from http://www.economist. nificant. The administration used the power com/news/britain/21623766-academies-programme- of a strong central state to marketise the edu- has-transformed-englands-educational-landscape-new- cation system in England. On schools’ policy, school-rules the coalition is likely to be remembered for the 4 K. Sellgren, ‘Tory free schools “barking mad”; says academies programme, which is increasingly teachers’ leader’, BBC News (31 Mar. 2010). Retrieved severing the link between schools and the demo- 1 Jul. 2016, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/educa- cratically accountable local authorities that once tion/8597572.stm ran them. In many cases, the local authority has 5 S. J. Ball, ‘The reluctant state and the beginning of the been replaced by private companies, which run end of state education’, Journal of Educational Administra- chains of academies, effectively privatising some tion and History, 44(2), 2012. schools. This marks a radical departure from the 6 Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010: politics of the recent past. In higher education, Change that works for you building a fairer Britain (2010). this marketising approach went further, turning Retrieved 24 Dec. 2014, from http://network.libdems. university education into a lightly regulated mar- org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf: 7, ket, structured around student choice. In office, 34, 101. the coalition used the strong central state to push 7 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010. Cm 7942. 2010. through market-based reforms that are funda- Retrieved 24 Dec. 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/gov- mentally changing the structure of education in ernment/publications/spending-review-2010, 7. England. 8 Department for Education, The Importance of Teaching: While the policies put forward by the coa- The Schools White Paper 2010 (HMSO, 2010). Retrieved 24 lition on education policy demonstrated a Dec. 2014, from http://www.education.gov.uk/publica- pro-market radical zeal, they were largely sup- tions/eOrderingDownload/CM-7980.pdf, 81. ported by senior Liberal Democrats. In par- 9 A. Harrison, ‘Most pupils in schools which will face cuts, ticular, while there was disagreement around claims IFS’, BBC (22 Oct. 2010). Retrieved 24 Dec. 2014, the margins on various specific policies, Liberal from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11607269 Democrat ministers in the Department for Edu- 10 T. Shipman, ‘School cash cuts hit middle classes twice as cation – particularly David Laws – were firmly government reveals funding and building programmes behind the flagship policy to radically shake up will be slashed’, The Daily Mail (25 Oct. 2010). Retrieved the organisation of schools through academisa- 1 Jul. 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti- tion and free schools. On higher education, the cle-1323438/School-cash-cuts-hit-middle-classes-twice- implementation of a revised Browne Review government-reveals-funding-slashed.html was more difficult for the party. While there 11 H. Chowdry, E. Greaves, L. Sibieta, The pupil premium: was a group around the leader who felt that the assessing the options (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2010). policy was sensible and ideologically sound, Retrieved 1 Aug. 2016, from http://www.ifs.org.uk/ more than any other single issue, higher educa- publications/4776 tion policy highlighted the ideological fissures within the party and destroyed the high trust ratings the party leader in particular once held.

Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 19 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education Commentary: former minister David Laws

n my view, Simon Griffiths significantly wider curriculum choice; and they allow spaces understates Liberal Democrat education for non E-Bacc and vocational subjects. These Iachievements and rather exaggerates the sig- changes may presently be poorly understood by nificance of the so-called marketisation of schools both the media and by the public, but in time they and higher education. could be as important and beneficial as anything There were three big Liberal Democrat suc- which the coalition government delivered in edu- cesses under the coalition in education – and most cation policy. teachers and head teachers would I think share Simon Griffiths focuses a lot of attention on this view. Simon has only mentioned one of these changes to school structures. This tends to be a achievements, and even here has reached the general political preoccupation and ignores other wrong conclusion. important policy changes. In my view, Simon has Firstly, the Liberal Democrats insisted on an also wildly exaggerated the significance of what excellent funding deal for schools. We rejected he describes as the marketisation and privatisa- Conservative plans to cut the real education tion of English education. It is true that Michael budget (by freezing school spending in cash Gove, Andrew Adonis and I all agreed that the terms), and insisted instead on a £2.5bn pupil minority of very poorly performing local author- premium, to help narrow the gap between dis- ity schools could be improved by selecting high- advantaged pupils and other students. This quite quality academy sponsors to take over the schools deliberately focused extra resources on the schools – usually with new, much stronger, leadership and in greatest need, but it is simply not accurate to governance (more important, in my view, than suggest that most other schools received signifi- the marginal extra autonomy granted to most cant cuts. With rising pupil numbers and frozen academies). pay, most schools found that they were exempted The latest academic data, from the reputable The Liberal Dem- from the service impact of public-sector austerity LSE, shows that the generation of Labour-spon- – thanks entirely to the Liberal Democrats. Mean- sored academies delivered real and significant ocrats insisted while, the pupil premium was (amongst teachers) gains in attainment, particularly for poor pupils. probably the most popular coalition education This programme continued under the coali- on an excellent policy – and early evidence suggests that it is help- tion, but was probably less successful, as in the ing to narrow the disadvantaged gap, particularly early days sponsor quality may have been com- funding deal in primary schools. promised to deliver change quickly. But the The second big Lib Dem contribution was big increase in academy numbers which Simon for schools. We in Early Years education. Here, Nick Clegg and draws attention to did not involve much change rejected Conserv- Sarah Teather insisted on expanding early edu- at all – certainly not privatisation. Most coali- cation to 2 year olds in the most disadvantaged tion academies were so called converter acade- ative plans to cut households. And later in the parliament we mies – generally the same schools, with the same introduced an Early Years pupil premium. Both leadership, but no longer under local authority the real educa- changes were achieved in the face of active Con- oversight. I was dubious that this programme servative opposition. Both will help to narrow would deliver big gains in attainment, as the tion budget (by the gap where it currently opens fastest – in the schools saw little real change – indeed many earliest years. Other planned changes to improve converted only for financial reasons. The lat- freezing school the Early Years workforce were, sadly, either est LSE data shows that ‘outstanding’ converter vetoed by Michael Gove or suffered from budget academies (as assessed by Ofsted) did better than spending in constraints. comparable local authority schools, but that for cash terms), and The third huge Liberal Democrat achievement ‘good’ and ‘requires improvement’ converter was in the area of qualifications and accountabil- academies the programme made little difference insisted instead ity. Not only did Nick Clegg veto Conservative either way. plans to restore the old O-Level/CSE divide, but My view was that both academy chains and on a £2.5bn pupil thanks to Lib Dem efforts we announced reforms local authorities could be good or bad. I wanted to to the key accountability measures for schools. see a contestable middle tier of both local authori- premium, to This meant moving from judging schools only ties and chains, where poor providers of either on raw attainment (which favours schools in leafy type could be replaced by a better performer. But help narrow the areas), to looking more closely at the progress Michael Gove could not stomach any role for made by all pupils. In place of Labour’s flawed local authorities, so we reached stalemate on this gap between threshold target – the five A*–C threshold meas- issue – with Liberal Democrats vetoing Conserv- disadvantaged ure – came new Progress 8 and Attainment 8 ative attempts to essentially academise the whole measures. These have multiple benefits: they are school system. pupils and other fairer to schools in tough areas; they give schools I have written about the sad tale of Liberal an incentive to help all students, and not just those Democrat higher education policy in my book, students. on the C/D grade borderline; they incentivise a Coalition (Biteback, 2016). In my view, investing

20 Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education extra resources at a time of austerity to abolish Simon suggests that our tuition fees and higher Simon suggests tuition fees would have been a crazy education education policy was some sort of dramatic boost policy. Extra money should clearly be targeted at to the marketisation of the system. It was no such that our tuition the early years and in school, to have a real impact thing. It was simply a continued development of on spreading opportunity. The party was foolish the clear policy direction previously set by the fees and higher not to dump this policy before the 2015 election. 1997–2010 Labour government. And the higher education policy However, I accept that having made the mani- education system continues to be part funded by festo commitment which we did, we should have government. Indeed, a direct impact of our politi- was some sort of vetoed any fee rise during the coalition. This was cal u-turn was that English higher education has a serious political mistake – though most of our never been so strong and so well funded. dramatic boost decline in the opinion polls occurred before the The Liberal Democrats can be proud of our tuition fees fiasco of late 2010. influence on education policy under the coali- to the marketisa- However, the policy devised by Vince Cable tion. The decisions we took will significantly and others was carefully calibrated to protect improve the quality of education over time, and tion of the sys- the interests of those from low-income families are strongly progressive – helping those who most and those who would have low earnings in the need the support of the state. tem. It was no future. As a consequence, there was no adverse such thing. It was impact on access for disadvantaged pupils – David Laws was Liberal Democrat Schools Minister indeed exactly the opposite. Compare that to 2012–15 and is currently executive chairman of the Edu- simply a contin- free tuition Scotland, where student numbers cation Policy Institute and the Education Partnerships have had to be cut. Group. ued development of the clear policy direction previ- Commentary: critic ously set by the Helen Flynn 1997–2010 Labour t is a problem when you put two parties significant number of senior members who were government. together – one driven by values and one in fact pro-tuition fees, including Nick Clegg. Idriven by ideology – in a coalition, particu- Recognising this split in the party and the fact larly when the ideologically driven party is so that virtually all Lib Dem PPCs had pledged their much larger than the values-driven party. So support to the NUS ‘no rise in tuition fees’ cam- what happened to the Liberal Democrats in coa- paign, Clegg negotiated the right in the coalition lition can serve as a cautionary tale to any other agreement to abstain on any vote on tuition fees. future ‘would-be’ junior coalition partner. If it But when it came to the Commons vote some Lib looks as if you have ‘sold out’ on your values, you Dem MPs abstained (eight) but twenty-one voted will be punished at the ballot box. against and twenty-eight voted for the policy—it In the educational arena, we became particu- was chaotic. larly unstuck from a values perspective in Simon Surely the right and sensible approach should Griffiths’ two areas of focus: academisation in have been for all Lib Dem MPs, whether involved the schools sector and tuition fees in the higher in government or not, to abstain on the vote? education sector. However, he unfairly ignores This is, after all, what Clegg had negotiated. other areas of radical reform, evidence and val- Even though there was a group of Lib Dem MPs ues-based, where the Liberal Democrats achieved ready to rebel and vote against the rise, arguably some success. I would be disappointed if David Clegg and his colleagues in government would Laws in his commentary here were to not focus have been more true to the Lib Dem position and on these areas to defend the Liberal Democrat would have emerged more unscathed had they all record. abstained. But as a party member, with a particular inter- The fact that our leadership was left looking est in education, the question is: given the cir- to the general public like a party who could so cumstances, could we have done more to exert easily row back on pledges was not the right tac- influence in these key areas, so that we could have tic – politically or morally – for a values-based emerged with our values largely intact, both to party. And there was a heavy, heavy price to pay improve our electoral prospects and also to have for it. We must have looked like political ingénues had a wider impact on education policy? to the more experienced Conservatives, particu- With reference to tuition fees, the Conserva- larly as the net effect of the way we voted was to tives had long been advocates of tuition fees in the have no real effect as a party on the eventual vote. higher education sector and were enthusiastic sup- It was breathtaking naivety to assume we could porters of the Labour Party when they introduced get away with it, especially with the right-wing them. The Liberal Democrats at grass-roots level media waiting to exploit any stumble from us. It had always opposed them, though there were a left party members squirming and there was to

Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016 21 Liberal Democrats in coalition: education

For the party be an immediate and ongoing price to pay at local was not enacted until after the summer recess. elections. Rarely can any bill have reached royal assent leadership to The Conservatives had also been keen sup- so quickly – a mere ten weeks after the general porters of the academies that Labour had intro- election. have got it so duced in 2002, as they built on the Conservative Many commentators argue that the Academies policy of City Technical Colleges which had been Act is the most significant development in edu- instinctively introduced in the 1988 Education Reform Act. cation reform since the Butler Education Act of wrong on the Grass-roots members of the Lib Dems opposed 1944. Maybe the Liberal Democrats were too new academies, seeing them as undermining local to government to have stopped it outright, but way to handle government and not being sufficiently pub- surely more could have been done to both slow it licly accountable, though some senior members, down and amend it? the tuition fees including Clegg, were not opposed to academies. It is a shame that these Conservative-led, ide- No one, however, in the Lib Dem party was advo- ological, pro-market reforms so heavily domi- issue, and not to cating that all schools become academies, but it is nate the general analysis of coalition education very clear now from the speed and alacrity with reforms, as the Liberal Democrats did have a sig- have foreseen which Michael Gove introduced the academies nificant input and arguably punched above their bill so soon after the general election that this was weight in many areas of education reform. Much the legacy of the his ‘project’. Could Clegg have done more to stop of politics, however, is about instinct, and under- Academies Act the steamroller? standing what the big issues really are – the ones Arguably, he could have installed at the you need to fight tooth and nail. and how it would Department of Education (DfE) a minister with For the party leadership to have got it so more experience of education and education pol- instinctively wrong on the way to handle the tui- so radically over- icy, rather than Sarah Teather who had limited tion fees issue, and not to have foreseen the legacy experience and concentrated her efforts almost of the Academies Act and how it would so radi- haul the English solely on the Special Educational Needs brief she cally overhaul the English schools system has, by had been given. It effectively left us flying blind any account, tested the loyalty of some Liberal schools system at the DfE, and without an advocate who could Democrat members severely, and undoubtedly … undoubtedly more effectively fight the Lib Dem corner. For a played a significant role in the fate of the party at party that had campaigned extensively on being the 2015 general election. played a signifi- the ‘party for education’, more should have been done to install an education ‘heavyweight’ in a Helen Flynn is an executive member of the Liberal cant role in the ministerial post at the DfE at the first opportu- Democrat Education Association and chair of the Social nity. (After he was appointed Schools Minister in Liberal Forum. She has stood twice as a parliamentary fate of the party 2012, David Laws was to show just what such an candidate for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and 2015, education specialist could achieve.) was an elected Harrogate Borough Councillor (2012– at the 2015 gen- Maybe Clegg himself, as deputy prime minis- 2016), and served on the Federal Policy Committee ter, could also have exerted more power to slow between 2013 and 2015. eral election. the juggernaut down, and to ensure that the bill

Liberal History 350 years of party history in 36 pages The Liberal Democrat History Group’s pamphlet, Liberal History: A concise history of the Liberal Party, SDP and Liberal Democrats, has been revised and updated to include the coalition and its impact and the 2015 election and its aftermath. The essential introduction to Liberal history.

Liberal History is available to Journal of Liberal History subscribers for the special price of £2.50 (normal price £3.00) with free p&p. Order via our website (www.liberalhistory.org. uk), or by post from LDHG, 54 Midmoor Road, London SW12 0EN (cheque payable at ‘Liberal Democrat History Group’).

22 Journal of Liberal History 92 Autumn 2016