Encouraging companies to invest in schools may plug a funding gap, but the government must tread carefully or risk alienating education's most valuable asset: its teachers

Teachers have one of the most difficult, demanding and important jobs of all. They influence our career and life choices, and the best are truly inspirational. I couldn't do what they do, despite the old adage: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Teaching is a vocation, a largely undervalued one at that. And it is getting increasingly difficult. As wave upon wave of reform crashes down on teachers' heads, they are left floundering, amid shoals of initiatives each with their own set of meaningless, confusing acronyms.

These initiatives are accompanied by so much administration that lessons are often delegated to classroom assistants and supply teachers, a situation exacerbated by the requirement to control hordes of unruly youngsters whose awareness of their "rights" is matched only by ignorance of their responsibilities. No wonder so many newly qualified teachers are opting to leave the profession.

If teachers were supported to do the job they were trained for and want to do, we might have higher standards of educational achievement and fewer failing schools. Then, arguably, there wouldn't be the same requirement to drum up sponsorship from the business community, an initiative that the government apparently deems essential for "rescuing" the education system. Of course, involving business in education is a good thing, not least because it can help close the expectation gap about the kind of skills employers need in today's service-oriented economy.

But things start getting uncomfortable when this involvement slips into covert marketing activity, and grow even more uncomfortable when companies are rewarded for their involvement. In the US there has been controversy over a scheme that involved a company lending TV equipment to thousands of schools, which then had to show a 12-minute news programme heavily laden with advertising. There are signs that British schools could go in the same direction.

There is also widespread concern about the government's plans to both increase the number of academies—typically schools with low levels of attainment in the most deprived communities—and to win more business sponsorship of them. The academies programme became tainted in the cash for honours scandal, and educationalists and teaching unions are worried about the power sponsors have over schools' admissions policies, the curriculum, choice of governors, hiring and rewarding of teachers and so on.

What's more, there is no evidence to suggest that either academies or schools specialising in languages, arts and technology are any more effective than other state schools, despite the money being thrown at them. Yet the government is busily promoting trust schools too, where businesses have an even greater involvement in the running of the school.

But the government could yet be hoist by its own petard, taking a chunk of the corporate sector with it. As part of a government enquiry into the impact of the commercial world on children, due to report next year, David Buckingham, a professor at the Institute of Education at the University of London, will turn the spotlight on companies' involvement in schools, something he believes has potentially serious implications for children's wellbeing.

He is right. The choice and diversity of school provision that the government seems bent on offering is a flawed concept. Rather than raising standards across the board, it creates a two-tier system. What most parents want is a good local school offering a fully rounded education for their children.

If schools minister Lord Adonis wants to really raise educational standards, he should divert the money being poured into academies, trusts and specialist schools to hiring more teachers across the board. The independent sector achieves higher results than the state sector largely because class sizes are so much smaller.

The boundaries need to be redrawn between what schools, government, business and parents can most sensibly contribute to the education of our children. It's time to let those who can, teach, and those who can't get on with their own jobs.