The “trad” versus “prog” wars were a gift to former schools minister Nick Gibb. While they were being fought by only a minority of the profession, the fierceness of the debates and the loudness of the arguments suggested a much larger fight for the soul of the sector.
Gibb took advantage of that in a way previous ministers had not, by situating the debate in classrooms, not policy debates or university lecture theatres.
He pushed the trad group of teachers, which he was naturally aligned with, as the evidence-backed, social justice-supporting, standards-raising, true view of “proper” teachers. He characterised “progs” as the opposite and made it very difficult for anyone who opposed his views not to be labelled as one of them.
It was a wildly successful strategy and enabled him to push through his ideological policy agenda with relative ease.
The strong legacy of this utilisation of a relatively niche (in schools, at least) pedagogic war has not been helpful to education secretary Bridget Phillipson. In fact, it’s now beginning to cause her a considerable headache.
Across her time at the Department for Education, she has attempted to maintain a neutral stance on the trad versus prog wars, mainly because she appears to align with most teachers in not seeing it as a substantial educational issue. Far from it.
The trouble is, every time she tries to do anything that can be seen as vaguely related to the topics at the heart of those wars – particularly around curriculum and assessment reform – the language of the Gibb era weighs heavy on proceedings.
It’s why the Francis curriculum and assessment review became such a political football.
Before it was released, nervous advisers scrutinised every line and judged each according to Gibb’s framing of the ideological debate. “Skills” was deemed a trigger word. Single sentences were agonised over in case they saw Labour outed as prog and not on the same side as high standards teaching.
When it was released, opponents and supporters of each side of the debate then translated it for their own agenda, and because those involved shouted the loudest, that became the framing of its reception.
The programmes of study, currently being written, and the just-launched key stage 3 commission are already facing the same fate. Internally, the same fears are being raised, and externally, the same entrenched positions are being dug, all before anything has actually been published.
It’s a cycle that benefits no one in the long run. Policy will inevitably be poorer as a result.
What the sector needs is a strong sense of what Labour actually believes about education – unfiltered – and then sensible debate as to whether the majority of teachers believe that is the right path, without the ghost of Gibb presiding over the courtroom.
That can happen if Labour is braver about the language it uses and the explanations it gives for what it wants to achieve. It shouldn’t be afraid, also, to challenge Gibb’s framing head-on.
The silent majority of the sector, meanwhile, needs to engage more with policymaking and make its voice heard so Labour has a true sense of sector feeling. The minority in the trad versus prog wars is a vital part of the debate, but it should not be its entirety.
And that minority needs to recognise that not every move a politician makes is ideological. Judging initiatives by what they are, not what they might signal, is critical.
What may have been true of Gibb is not necessarily true of all.
Jon Severs
Editor, Tes
Bluesky: @jonsevers.bsky.social
Twitter/X: @jon_severs
