To not understand why on hand, qualified teachers need to have harder numeracy and literacy tests(70 Posts)
You've misunderstood Kim147.
These new tests are for people training as teachers, not those already qualified. The changes are to tests which already done, however they will now be done before training starts and will be more difficult.
kim I think what quick means is that the tests are for people training as teachers. Tests are not being introduced for teachers already qualified. I don't think she is commenting on the academys.
However dd goes to an academy, all the teachers are qualified. The high school she will attend is also an academy, again the teachers are all qualified. Both have made it clear they would not employ unqualified teachers. So while the technically can do this, i am not sure how many actually will.
You can work as an unqualified teacher in any school. You just get paid less. It's not new. I seem to post this a lot!
Yes, mutiny I was talking about the tests for those about to start teacher training, rather than academys, which I think is a separate issue.
Any school that tries to get away with poor quality/unqualified staff and pay them low salaries on a routine basis will find their standards drop, they stop attracting students & staff alike and their income falls... That's just a badly run school. A school with the vast majority of teachers highly qualified and well paid may benefit from having one or two 'specialists' in the mix if they think they bring something extra to their offer, raise standards and therefore attract more sudents.
I've said this on the other thread about this but unqualified teachers and teachers who are weak in maths and numeracy are two different issues.
Also, having done a PGCE myself, it's my experience that it doesn't give you much about the nitty gritty of teaching except the teaching practice. I may have had a teaching qualification at the end of it but I sure as heck didn't learn much about real teaching until I was actually doing it, and that was a steep learning curve. So I don't have a problem with "unqualified teachers" learning on the job, as long as they are strong in their subject and strong in their motivation.
Disclaimer - I am not saying that nobody needs to bother to train as a teacher...Just that this current worry about unqualified teachers being appointed is not necessarily always a bad thing.
It think its perfectly reasonable to expect the skills tests be passed before commencing training and to make them a little harder.
I did half a PGCE as I found I truely hated teaching. The skills tests were a piece of piss and I feel that if someone fails a test that they should do a remedial maths or english or IT course before doing a resit.
Actually I would go further and suggest that ANYONE who wants to do a degree should be made to do these silly tests first.
So what about TAs teaching classes-are they going to have to upgrade their skills too?
TAs can upgrade their skills when their pay is upgraded. The responsibilty for the lesson lies with the teacher who has done the lesson planning. (Even if the teacher is away for whatever reason.)
.........and please come and teach classes X amount of times a week with zero teaching qualifications at all in all schools.
TAs may be following teacher plans but it's delivery and expertise that counts not just plans written by somebody else.
TAs have been teaching in schools for years. Its nothing new and there is little evidence that overal standards have dropped from children having a cover supervisor/ HLTA instead of a random supply teacher. Loads of schools use HLTA to cover PPA or short term absence.
Honestly they aren't asking for particularly high standards of numeracy and literacy of their teaching recruits.
We're hardly setting the world alight on the league tables.
A supply teacher has had training in errrr how to teach,I've done it.I was a very good supply teacher in high demand and was the same standard as when I was a teacher which is a whole world away from TAs with an NVQ.
Surely if the time spent on PPA is so unimportant we should just send kids home early on a Friday with extra homework.
Anyway sorry to hijack-the hypocrisy makes me mad.
"Actually - a grade B GCSE maths is hard for some people. Does that stop them being an arts teacher, geography, English or drame teacher? "
Someone who has a degree is perfectly capable of getting their english or maths to a suitable standard. I imagine that somene with a reasonable level of intelligence and determination could easily get their maths to AS standard in a year. Asking someone to get their maths to grade B standard is not especially ambitious.
Lots of teachers have maths and english to A-level standard in other countries because they study these subjects to 18 years old. I imagine that teachers in Finland or Singapore have maths and english to a high standard.
Before cover supervisors, we didn't get qualified subject specialists on to do cover. It was done by whoever was free. I would take my marking, and tell the students what to do. I didn't teach them unless it was my own subject. And in fact, as rarely cover is roundly ignored in my school, it is still the case. They actually have a better deal with a cover supervisor.
I think that if someone has a degree in the subject they are going to teach and has managed to pass their PGCE, then that's good enough. It's insulting to imply that a person who has managed to obtain a degree doesn't have decent literacy skills.
I think that governments should stop interfering in teaching - they consistently fail to actually improve anything, either for staff or pupils.
I understand that the tests are for people who are starting teacher training.
Sorry op, in that case you original response to quick doesn't make sense you told her 'no' then went on to talk about academy staff. the no would indicate you were disagreeing, however on a point she never raised.
Personally i would prefer to have teachers that are experts in their subject, have good communications skills, can inspire the class and keep them focused on studying rather than disrupting other students. yes, if the subject included maths or english i would want them to be qualified to a decent standard (but surely they should then have a relevant degree), but i can't see the benefit of having PE, music teachers etc having a B grade maths/english qualification as it will exclude gifted potential teachers. With a c grade gcse, and your subject degree, you are going to be good enough to write reports etc.
GCSE maths grade B is hardly onerous. A moviated person can get themselves to that standard if they have reasonable intelligence. A potential gifted teacher can do an evening course to get themselves up to standard if necessary.
Join the discussion
Please login first.