There’s much to welcome from Stephen Twigg’s speech – but many questions too. What do you want to ask him?

There’s much to welcome from Stephen Twigg’s major speech on schools today. Some will doubtless dwell on the news that Labour has no plans to close pre-existing free schools, but this isn’t a new policy – it’s one Twigg made clear was Labour’s policy when I interviewed him last year and one he reiterated a few months later. I’d rather focus on his announcement that there will be no more Free Schools under a Labour government (which some have hilariously try to spin as raising the white flag), and that decisions on new schools will be taken on the basis of need, rather than the whims of individuals, or ideology. That sounds like common sense to me – as does ensuring that teachers at all state funded schools are expected to have Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).

I’ve seen at close hand how much work goes into obtaining QTS – I find it incredible, dangerous even, that people would be allowed to head straight into the classroom without such training.

But what does concern me about Twigg’s speech is the extent to which he seems to have bought into the Tory narrative that says what our schools need is more “freedom”. Twigg used the F word 17 times in his speech this morning. It’s a hugely loaded term in education, used by the Tories to argue against the control of local authorities over schools, or state control over the curriculum. But both the national curriculum and local authority input can have a profound and positive – impact on schools.

Is also seems that what Twigg has announced today is that Labour would instigate an en-masse academisation of the entire education system. That’s the nuts and bolts of what he means by “if a freedom is afforded to an academy and it drives up standards, that freedom should be available to all schools. A school should not have to change its status to earn the permission to innovate.” That effectively eliminates the distinction between Academies and other state schools – why would any school bother to go through the process of becoming an academy, if the “freedoms” of academy status are open to every school? And it runs contrary to the way in which academies were conceived under Labour – as a means of targeting a specific kind of teaching environment and organisational structure at a specific type of (failing) school. It’s unclear how easy it would be to ensure consistency and standards across the education system in an environment where every school has a different curriculum and different term lengths.

And whilst it’s pleasing that Twigg has confirmed that under Labour there will be a national system for pay and conditions (something the NUT have welcomed), it’s still unclear how Labour can tell schools they’re welcome to extend school terms without explaining how this would be funded – or whether teachers would be expected to work longer for the same pay. Whilst it’s fashionable to suggest that teachers have long holidays and work short hours, anyone who has ever actually spoken to (or as in my case, lived with) a teacher, will know that they work far harder than most.

It’s because of questions like these – and others that have been expressed by voices from across the Labour movement – that we’re putting your questions to the Shadow Education Secretary. I’ll be trawling through your submissions and putting some of the best submissions direct to Twigg – and there will be no punches pulled. Twigg – and the party – deserve credit for putting themselves out there and engaging with activists on this (including emailing all members and asking them for their views) – so make sure your voice is heard.

So what do you want to ask Stephen Twigg? Send in your questions, and Stephen will be responding to some of them tomorrow. I will certainly be looking for a few clarifications myself.