problem is when there was a teaching shortage, the government pushes through new recruits with golden handshakes, fast tracking those with degree subjects in shortage areas - just because you've got a degree doesn't make you good teaching material on its own, its not just having subject knowledge but also how to impart that to children. This 5 year check is part of dealing with this problem.

I had a student teacher in my class once and i believed she wasn't making the grade. When I tried to convey this to her tutor at her college I was told that she was on a continuum of teaching abilities, and was not completely incompetent so not to get my knickers in a twist.

I really agree, well put Janeite!

Qualifications plus consistency plus common sense plus charisma plus competence = the most effective teachers methinks. Take any one of those out of the equation and things start to wobble.

I don't know enough about primary school teaching to say really. I think with secondary it depends on the school. My previous school had a much lower achievement profile and I could probably have managed without my degree. Although you could argue that those children deserve better than teachers who are managing. Perhaps having access to more subject specialists would also raise the pupils levels of attainment.

In my current school I use my degree on a daily basis and I am having to do a second degree to keep up. My students respect the fact that I zm a subject specialist. I teach the grammar stream on every year group and have to constantly update my subject knowledge. I also teach A level and to me it makes sense that I am more qualified in my subject than my pupils.

Of course qualifications are not everything, I have met some awful teachers with first class degrees. But they are important.

I'm not sure academic qualifications are the be all and end all of being a primiary school teacher. Commitment is essential, as well as the ability to organise and prioritise (and I think liking children helps a little bit, too!).
There are so many things to juggle - at the moment, I'm planning, teaching, writing up class lists for next year, monitoring post-SATs, entering TA data, doing 4 lunchtime clubs, planning and taking part in 2 concerts, making a film (and inviting parents to the premiere (with refreshments) - all within the next 10 days. None of that calls on my university degree!

I've got a 'drinker's Third' in a degree subject (Classics) other than my teaching specialism (English - they chuck the odd bit of Latin my way now & then).

I am bloody good, I'll have you know.

I don't mind being Performance Managed, Ofsteded, 'Golden lesson'ed or checked up on every 5 years to see that I haven't turned into an utter drivelling idiot around whom the kids are doing wardances.

However, I'm still sceptical as to where more teachers will come from to replace the incompetents. I teach in a good comp, & I'm very aware of appointments (especially part-time or temporary ones) which are a case of '<shrug> Well, he'll need a fair bit of support, but he's the best we're going to get'.

I lost an 'l' there - pupils not pupis!

In traditional subjects, 2:1 from a good university which required excellent A level (or equivalent) results to get into. For vocational subjects, the equivalent - the very best. This should be followed by superb teacher training. Yes, our teachers should be the best and they should be paid as such.

Point taken angrypixie, another assessment on top of OFSTED would be costly so maybe we should be ensuring that our teachers are of the highest quality before they start!

Unfortunately Flatcap, those teachers tend to not realise this, which is probably why they don't improve because it is always the fault of the pupis, other teachers, the syllabus, whatever.

It is those teachers (a very, very small minority in my experience) that there needs to be some system to address more effectively. Instead they put more pressure on the whole to try and deal with a minority - it's like whole-class detentions and therefore likely to be ineffective!

"we now need to give Heads greater power to use that as a tool for getting rid of ineffective teachers."

yes, that is what we need, not more monitoring of absolutely everyone at hreat expense. Management already monitor, they know who's poor.

I agree Janeite, but what a thought to know you are there because you are better than nothing.

While your situation may not be ideal FM as you imply you are making the effort to plug in the gaps in your knowledge - that is different to not having the subject knowledge and not doing anything about it.

I dont think chucking more money at us is the answer, you will end up with more people who end up in teaching because it is a secure job and pays the bills rather than because they are passionate about that subject and education.

When I taught in a tough school I often taight out o my subject area because the management knew I could control the kids. I taught from memory at least 3 subjects on top of my own. I like FM spent hours and hours a week preparing for these lessons. I now teach humanities to year 7 and again have to spend a lot of time updating my subject knowlege, but even then I would not want to be given the responisbility of teaching KS4 or perhaps even year 9.

Trickerg - yes but not necessarily 'good' degrees! I still think teachers should have to have at least a 2:1 but I know others feel differently and it's not really the place for a discussion. Maybe a different thread at some point?

Heated has raised a very good point. In some schools recruitment of teachers is very difficult, not because it is a bad school (Ofsted good with outstanding features) but because of the area, pupil intake etc. In those instances it is generally better to have a just satisfactory teacher who is there every day than to have a series of supply teachers. Schools like that tend to 'create their own outstanding teachers and leaders' through nurturing and thus retaining staff - but there will always be some teachers who are not particularly effective but still better than nothing.

Well, next year I shall be teaching three subjects, two of which I have degrees in. I'm teaching a subject now that I don't have a degree in (Physics) because there is no-one else to do it. We can't recruit a physicist who can handle a class, and in our school that I'm afraid does trump in depth subject knowledge. I have done loads of extra work to bring myself up to speed and keep myself ahead, and I'd rather not really, although it's been rather interesting.

As someone said further down, it's all very well talking about getting rid of teachers, (and I think for everyone's sake, including their own, poor teachers should move on) and about all teachers having fab qualifications, but if there just aren't the candidates for the job, then it's all just hot air.

Pay teachers like doctors/solicitors, then you might daisydancer's 'cream of society' into teaching.

Currently, I can't see tough schools, which have difficulty putting bods in front of a class, (particularly in Maths, Physics and Chemistry) willingly getting rid of the teachers they've got, even if they're not great.

DaisyDancer are we then going to start paying them as though they were 'the cream of our society'

I am an 'effective teacher' 'outstanding' if you care what OFSTED think, but I do mind the thought of 5 year assessment, because I think it will divert funds from other aspects of education.

We have annual performance management, we now need to give Heads greater power to use that as a tool for getting rid of ineffective teachers.

They might have degrees but not necessarily in the right subject. I have worked with teachers who have degrees in other subjects and have made no effort to update there subject knowledge. They then spout nonsense at the students and wonder why eventually the students loose respect for them.

As a teacher you are constantly updating your subject knowledge, it must be very hard if you do not have a firm foundation to start with.

So what standards re subject qualifications would you like to see then Daisy?

Now, there's the rub!! There are degrees and degrees!!

But ALL teachers (in the state sector) are qualified to at least degree level.

Our children deserve the very best teachers our society can provide. Just as they deserve the very best doctors and nurses. The best teachers are those who have the most superb subject qualifications and are inspirational practitioners. We should not be employing people who have very basic subject qualifications themselves to inspire and teach our children. Effective teachers don't mind being assessed because it's a way of recognising their success and ensuring that standards are kept high. No extra paper work or lesson plans should be required.

We should have the cream of our society teaching our children. ALL our teachers should be as well qualified as our doctors. I know many who are, I know more who aren't.

proven - not proved. Ranting made my fingers fly too quickly! Ignore any other typos.

Well I sat in a meeting about the Teach First teacher-training scheme recently, seething as the guy told us how they would solve education's problems by putting 'strong graduates into schools in deprived areas' - I was thinking, 'well what the fuck have I been doing for the last nearly 20 years then?' If they want schemes like this to work they must first of all not set out to alienate the existing good graduates who are proved good teachers but might still be in schools with low results. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

In theory I'm all in favour of hoofing out crap teachers.

However, where are the replacement, shit-hot teachers to come from? Let's get recruitment AND retention sorted before we start kicking people out.

It's all hot air & smoke-blowing atm. Unworkable electioneering.

teafortwo I also go to sleep listening to radio four and spent some time wondering if I was a prophet.

I am a nurse and like every public sector job we are measured and assessed to the nth degree.We are subject to a competency framework and have to meet targets annually and show we are doing post reg education and practice as well as annual ppdr.AFAIK teachers must have similar guidelines in situ,OFSTED inspections and such.

Sounds like yet another pile of crap dreamed up by some government bod who has no idea of the mounds of paperwork and general crappola we allhave to put up with whilst trying to do the important job of actually teaching or nursing or whatever.

Will watch thread with interest.

Even more than that, janeite - yet to get the confirmation, but I think a 'stress' year can count as a successful year under PM. Need to check this out. Anyone know?

I listen to radio 4 as I fall asleep at night.

As a result sometimes in my mind my dreams and radio news get confused....

I thought this was the dream I had last night.... and I am not talking a good one!

Does anyone know - What form are the tests planned to take? How much will it cost the education sector to carry this out? Do the government realise that being a good hoop jumper doesn't automatically mean you are a good teacher????

And yes, the 'stress card' is a major issue because it is so hard to measure. Of course there are genuine cases of teacher-stress but doctors seem to assume that if you are a teacher you must be stressed and allow very long periods of time off, which of course then makes it much harder to return, which leads to more time off etc etc so is a vicious circle.

Surely there should be an easier way of getting rid of bad teachers than testing ALL teachers every 5 years???

If they made sure that PM systems worked properly and effectively (and fairly) in schools, this would be less of an issue. Now that PM has changed and is related to pay, it may well sharpen up the process anyway.

The school SEF ought to make it very clear where there are issues of poor teaching and from there, heads ought to be spelling out precisely what is being done to aid/measure/improve these teachers. This, linked to proper PM, ought to cover it.

I agree that there are a few shockingly poor teachers out there. DS has suffered one such for the last year who has left him switched off, pissed off and bored.

Unfortunately, given that the existing ways of dealing with her ilk are not being used, I am none too sure that a new system would be, either. But something needs to be done to stop the damage that can be done by such poor teachers.

You still won't get rid of anybody if they can pull the stress card and call in the union.

There should definitely be accountability, but it is hard to see how the government's ideas would work in practice.

Any decision about competency/incompetency should be based on evidence - what is the timeframe of this evidence gathering? And if at the start of the assessment period it appears that a teacher isn't up to the grade, the powers that be should be helping them to improve rather than wait for them to fail.

The teaching environment is also key. Some teachers may not be so good at the academic side but may be wonderful at pastoral care, and for other teachers it may be the other way around. Some schools may value pastoral care as the key competency, so it would be a shame for a nurturer to not make the all-round grade and be struck off. Similarly, other schools may have room for a quirky teacher who is second-to-none on their subject teaching.

I feel, from inside the teaching profession, that a square peg in a round hole is simply not going to be happy doing their job and they will move on voluntarily. There will always be a few who fester at the bottom of the heap, but this is no reason to punish the vast majority of teachers who are in the right place at the right time or at least recognise for themselves where they need to go.

If Headteachers can't manage performance effectively through annual performance management then the Headteacher is incompetent and should be sacked.

i am a teacer and think it is a good idea
it is very very hard to get rid of bad teachers

I agree that too many people are qualifying as teachers who are not up to the job - that is down to the initial teacher training providers who could do something quite easily, ie chuck them off the course.

I also think the 5yearly MOT is a good idea, as it can be very difficult for heads to get rid of poor teachers. They need to think the system through very carefully, though - so that good and even average teachers in difficult circumstances (ie school) do not get penalised unfairly.

Also, smaller classes would be great, but there will always be some children who need very close support to make good progress - I think the possibility of 1-1 teaching is a great idea. But this must not be left till Year 6 and just be a matter of teaching them to jump through the hoops required to get a level 4

What hellwobs and flatcapandpearls said about performance management. This is already in place why not make it more efficient and fair?

I agree with isittooearly...on the separate issue of providing one-to-one/small group children who are falling behind, I don't understand why they cannot just commit to smaller class sizes for all. I think that would be the single best thing they could do to improve the education system.

I must add I was one of many parents complaining..I don't have that much power

I have complained about 2 different teachers in dd's school.

Both times the head dealt with the problem by moving the crap teacher to another class.Great for dd but not so good for the other class.

I think heads need to have more power to get rid of crap teachers.

I also think 5 yrs is a long time for a crap teacher to do a lot of damage.

I think it is too easy to become a teacher, and agree that too many teachers are starting off crap. It should be much easier to move teachers onto schools that suit them or just sack them.

Yearly perfomance management should be sufficient but it should be more honest, crap teachers are often protected for too long. The children come first.

One thing about all this is the completely inaccurate comparison with lawyers. I don't know about barristers, but solicitors do not have a licence to practice. We do have to get a practising certificate each year (and pay £900 odd for the privilege!! - usually your employer pays, thank goodness) and self-certify that you have done 16 hours continuing education that year. No check on performance or anything like that, other than anything your employer does privately.

I don't have one now as I work in legal publishing rather than as a practising lawyer.

I would have thought that yearly performance management would be sufficient.

Some of the teachers that I am talking about have been in their jobs for years. It is very difficult to do competancy on teachers. Also when I complained to the school about my dds grade falling a whole point in a year because the teacher couldn't control the class I was told that my dd doesn't focus an doesn't behave. She had given her a good mark on her report and she has good or outstanding on all other behaviour marks. Some school's just won't have it that it may be the teacher at fault.

Don't Head Teachers already have the power to remove bad teachers, send them for more training or follow up on parent concerns? If a parent has a child suffering verbal abuse from a teacher, why can't the shools use the power they already have? Why the need for another outside body to take charge? Or is that too simple? Just worried that there is a shortage of teachers as there is.

Agree with isittooearlyforgin. I work in a school where there are a fair few very poor teachers and they are impossible to get rid of. I also have 2 dcs in a different school and they also have some poor teachers. My dd has just had a year of very bad Science teaching and I am just hoping that my ds doesn't have the same teacher next year. My ds has a form tutor who talks to him like he is a piece of rubbish quite frankly if he worked amongst adults and talked to them like he does to my ds and other students he would end up in big trouble, some teachers are just plain nasty to kids just because they are in charge. Having said that there are also some fantatic teachers in both schools who achieve good results and I don't see what the advantage of assessing them every 5 years would do.

Seems to me to be just another level of admin stuff being shoved onto what is a failing system. This is to make everyone think the Gov are doing something. If they'd just leave people alone to do their jobs then they'd do their jobs better.

but surely if we made sure that only cometent teachers started teaching in the first place there would be no need for a 5 yearly check?? I don't get it -

Crap teacher starts teaching - after 5yrs of failing pupils they suddenly find out via an assessment that the teacher is crap and get rid.

Well how did they end up actually stand in front of a class in the first place????

I am a teacher too and think it is a good idea. I have met a handful who are completely rubbish and it is so hard to get rid of bad teachers. I think its a shame that children are being failed year after year, over the course of a career that runs into hundereds of children. I'm not just talking teachers who would benefit from training and mentoring, I'm talking those who are really incompetent and should never have embarked on a teaching career.
I think it should be accompanied with support, training and mentoring to reach a minimum standard.

The government is thinking of assessing the competency of teachers every 5 years. Those who don't pass the checks will have their teaching licence removed. Is this a good idea? I think teaching is already over prescribed, and if anything, teachers are already subjected to OFSTED inspections and have too much paperwork and not enough time to concentrate on the children already. But then I haven't known any really awful teachers, so maybe i'm biased.