Explore Candidates → United Kingdom → Liberal Democrats on Education
Liberal Democrats on Education
"An Academy is supposed to replace a failing school but non-failing schools who can't get a place on an early cycle of the Building Schools for the Future programme are opting to be Academies because it's the only way they can get their hands on cash for new buildings."
"It is not the 'Academy' that brings any success, but the injection of cash and the freedom to create their own curriculum. Removing schools from LEA control makes collaboration - something we value - between schools (and colleges) harder, if not impossible, to manage."
"As the Liberal Democrat party we have concerns about: Undue influence of sponsors with particular axe to grind [and] negative Impact on neighbouring schools - Academies offering better pay to attract best staff and cherry picking the better performing pupils."
"Extending the freedom to innovate to all schools, while ensuring a level playing field on admissions and funding through a new model of Sponsor Managed Schools, which would replace Academies, and which would end Labour's unfair two-tier system and restore strategic Local Authority oversight and commissioning."
"Taking action to ensure that every neighbourhood is served by a good local school or college by giving Local Authorities a clear strategic responsibility for oversight of school performance, along with appropriate powers of intervention. "
David Laws, Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary: “We need a fully independent Education Standards Authority with the teeth to stand up to ministers to end the dumbing-down debate one and for all.”
David Laws, Liberal Democrat Shadow Children, Families and Schools Secretary: "Recent years have seen the credibility of the exam system has been undermined, reinforcing the need for a fully independent educational standards authority to restore public confidence."
"Liberal Democrat Shadow Children, Families and Schools Secretary, David Laws:"Exam results are so important to young people that there must be a high level of confidence in the reliability of their results."
Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for education: "'What we see is the ultimate result of government policy which is about showing the government in a good light rather than serving students and schools,' he said, claiming that schools were driving students to take 'easier' exams because of the pressure to do well in the league tables."
Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for education, told EducationGuardian.co.uk that the results showed "staggering levels of success" with "underlying trends [which] worry me deeply."
Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat education spokesman: "The reason we cannot have a debate on the purpose and quality of higher education is because of this millstone."
Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat education spokesman: "The exercise is a giant con-trick to cover the tracks of a prime ministerial pledge that was not based on empirical evidence. Since 2000, the Department for Education and Skills has been busy trying to work back from 50 per cent in 2010 and create definitions to match."
"Stephen Williams, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said: 'The Government's target is fatuous when we have a situation where some schools in this country send 100 per cent of their students to universities, and some send none at all.'"
Edward Davey, MP: "Cameron's commitment to academic selection will damage disadvantaged children's chances once again.”
Liberal Democrat Shadow Education Secretary Edward Davey MP said: "As David Cameron is forced to detail what he actually stands for his mask of compassionate conservatism slips.”
Nick Clegg, MP: "His party would do away with selection in academies, trust and foundation schools so that "a minority of schools don't skim off the brightest pupils at will."
"Allowing parents and pupils to choose schools, and not schools to choose pupils, by stopping the establishment of new schools which select by ability, aptitude or faith, and by introducing policies radically to reduce all existing forms of selection."
David Laws, the Liberal Democrats' education spokesperson, argues that giving schools and colleges extra money to educate the most disadvantaged teenagers would be better than raising the leaving age.
"Forcing teenagers to stay on in school until they are 18 will lead to greater disaffection amongst pupils, more disruption in classrooms and fail to address the real problems of literacy, numeracy and unqualified school-leavers, the Welsh Liberal Democrat Education Spokesperson, Peter Black, has said."
"Scrapping the Labour Government's plan to criminalise young people who leave education before age 18, and replacing it with a more flexible entitlement for young people to take the additional two years of post-16 education when they wish to do so."
"David Laws MP, the Lib Dem education spokesman, said: 'The current league tables are clearly flawed, but the Tories’ proposal to exclude vocational qualifications risks replacing one inadequate system with another.'"
Liberal Democrat, Phil Willis MP: "Harder subjects are being rejected in favour of exams that are certainly easier. The system is now so warped that all that matters is the short term currency of the exam results rather than skill building."
Annette Brooke, Liberal Democrat children’s spokesman: “The drop in pupils taking an A-level in modern languages or physics is very worrying. It is already hitting universities that are struggling to find enough students and risks undermining the country’s skills base in the years to come.”
"The Liberal Democrat shadow universities secretary, Stephen Williams, said: '... Only the Liberal Democrats want to scrap tuition fees and will fight any attempt to raise the cap.'"
"The Liberal Democrat shadow universities secretary, Stephen Williams, said: 'The NUS is right that Labour and the Tories have colluded to keep tuition fees off the agenda until after the election.'"
Summary of "Liberal Democrats back plans to scrap university tuition fees:" As of the September 2009 Party Conference there is still an underlying principled commitment to abolishing tuition fees but it cannot be a priority until the public finances are in a healthier condition.