Should an Education Minister have worked in education

[Faultymain5]

before becoming an education minister. Seen the government-leaked proposal for September, and having only gone through school appeals process, I see the flaws. Should it be a requirement for a an MP in charge of education, defence, health at the very least have some connection to the field? Gavin Williamson was the MD of a pottery company. Should he not be minister of commerce or trade and industry?

I totally agree OP, but my experience working for a government agency for 15 years is that the more senior you become, the less important your experience in the field. 🤷‍♀️

Should the hoem secretary have experience of being in prison?

Should the health sec have run a hospital?

Cuts down the field somewhat doesn't it?

Yes for sure ! I think this is the main problem with all of our governments and decision makers. No real life experience of their field.

The civil service do the work though; it matters much less what the head of dept has done as long as they will listen to advice. If they have experience then they are more likely to challenge .

Public confidence in politicians increases when there is clear experience in a field, though.

@fartyface

Should the hoem secretary have experience of being in prison?

Should the health sec have run a hospital?

Cuts down the field somewhat doesn't it?

I don’t think it is practical to appoint in that way. However if it was it should not only managed the service. For example have been a porter/nurse/doctor on front line or one of those and in management.

No. I studied Politics and experience in your portfolio is not considered an advantage.

A big problem with the way schools have been managed during lockdown is due to the powers that be making decisions that no educationalist would have made.

So yes, in the case of education specifically experience is a must.

*home

My typo is offending me.

I can't see any argument that education is a special case. (surely that is how they got into this mess, being treated as special types of public servants, while everyone else just got on with it?)

Not necessarily as long as ministers consult with experts (in this case, on the ground face-to-face teachers). It seems very unlikely this happened...

I think the most important requirement really is intelligence, both in terms of brain and emotions.

The chief problem we have is any real problem raised is just portrayed as being too gloomy. We can't make progress because almost all energy goes into denying problems exist.

@chancechancechance

I think the most important requirement really is intelligence, both in terms of brain and emotions.

This. I’ve worked with some excellent Ministers and some terrible ones; the excellent ones were the ones who were willing to listen and learn, no matter what their politics were.

I think that would be brilliant, but impractical. What would be good though is if they has a panel of people who worked in schools in different roles (teachers, TAs, headteachers etc) from a range of schools in different area to consult before making changes. Eg ask them "what are the major issues in your school? What works? What doesn't? What resources do you need? And so on.
Likewise a panel of nurses, doctors and so on to consult about the NHS and the equivalent for other departments like defence.

This will never happen though because they are more concerned about doing things that appeal to their voters and getting re-elected than actually doing something to improve those services.

What would be good though is if they has a panel of people who worked in schools in different roles

That takes far too long. Even simple things take months to agree when you have too many people involved in endless meetings etc.

It's up to the minister/dept advisors to understand the issues and take advice from within each industry.setting, and then present the facts to the minister for decisions to be made.

If the info presented to the minister is inadequate, that's the fault of the advisors/senior civil servants.

His wife is a teacher.

My wife’s a hairdresser shall I cut your hair?

Governments don't tend to like former teachers as ministers as they are too nice to the teachers. Most teachers liked Estelle Morris when she was education minister in the Blair government as she was a former teacher but she didn't last long in the role. I got the impression she found it hard to reconcile decisions she had to make as a minister with the experience from as a teacher, but I might be remembering wrong.

Yes.

Estelle Morris said the role overwhelmed her.

First and foremost you need ministers who are very bright. They must grasp briefings very quickly and understand aspects of their work at lightening speed. Ideally they should have a workable vision for improvement.

Most ministers are chosen for allegiance to the PM or a cause (Brexit) in cabinet. Most PMs surround themselves with as many like minded people as possible and over look their incompetence (Priti Patel comes to mind). Some don’t care about ministers doing their own thing as long as it doesn’t come back as a major crisis that could have been avoided.

So in general it is best to be ultra hard working, capable of understanding everything, having a tough skin and being very intelligent whilst being a loyal supporter of your party. The latter for BJ and Cummings comes first.

By and large people have less stellar careers before coming into parliament and reaching high office than they used to. Gavin Williamson wouldn’t be in the same field as Michael Heseltine in business for example. Rebecca Long Bailey is no match intellectually for Kier Starmer. Above all, we need super intelligent people who are articulate and can think and act on their brief. People appointed because they are loyal are rarely good enough. Whatever background they have.

@AppleKatie

My wife’s a hairdresser shall I cut your hair?

What I meant was he will have some understanding of education and the challenges schools face, just as a hair dressers partner would be aware of this industry and problems.

No I wouldn't expect you to cut my hair (..although in the current climate I'd probably let you have a go!

What I meant was he will have some understanding of education and the challenges schools face, just as a hair dressers partner would be aware of this industry and problems.

More likely they'd get a very one sided biased personal opinion that could do more harm than good. I'd rather they took advice from experts.

I don't disagree... just saying that he does have a "connection" with education. in reply to the OP.

Not necessarily. I think the ability to listen coupled with strong executive brain function like cognitive flexibility;problem solving;organisation & planning skills are more important.

Cummings manages to recruit focus groups on messaging/popularity so it’s not beyond the wit of man(even Williamson) to obtain grass roots opinion to inform his strategy.

What @SnugglySnerd said.

It might not be practical to have people who actually know anything about the Departments in every role - although, didn't one country famously have this recently - was it Canada?

But it ought to be possible to have people in post who are prepared to listen to those who do. I can't see how 'it would take too long' can be an excuse in this day and age - better to take 2 days longer before announcing decisions and get them right, than come out with so much of the drivel that indicates that policy makers have never listened to anyone who works in a prison / school / hospital / care home / social care / police service / etc.

Issues in schools shouldn't be that hard to understand, surely?

But I do think it would have been better in the current crisis if the Health Secretary had some kind of health background, or at least science.