Academies to be able to hire non-union, non-PGCE teachers

But honestly, I wouldn't worry. It will have the effect of making academies even more dire, and people won't send their children to them.

I thought we already had unqualified teachers in schools? Labelled as instructors, and paid on a much lower scale- is this not the case?

(people such as outdoor ed instructors)

Yeah cos I spent 9m sitting in a lecture theatre listening to PGCE lecturers.

I seem to have missed the 6m of that where I was in school being 'taught' by advanced skills teachers.

I have life experience. So it seems you would be happy with that. I have been a scientist in a real lab, so I think you would be happy with that. First time in the classroom I was shocking...first few weeks I was shocking. I would not have wanted my own children to be in my classes.

Oh and I am told by my mentors that I will make an excellent teacher...that I have what it takes....I just needed the PGCE to learn those teaching skills to take me from one with excellent potential to a teacher.
I also need the nqt year to develop those teaching skills.

Long, you have my sympathy. You've obviously had some very negative experiences regarding education. The PGCE students I have supervised have all improved greatly over the course of a year. Whilst not every one of them had the natural 'makings' of a good teacher (indeed, some - sensibly - decided not to make teaching their career); without exception, the PGCE course helped every single one of them to improve their classroom skills, which can only be of benefit to their future pupils.

As I implied in my earlier post, whilst a driving licence does not guarrantee an excellent driver, it does at least ensure that anyone who goes on to the road alone has a basic grasp of how to handle a vehicle and keep themselves and other road users as safe as possible. This really is the function of QTS (whether via PGCE, BEd or an alternative route). The long process of becoming an excellent teacher takes a whole career. You learn from every experience and you become more adept at understanding the psychology of a myriad of different students. To return to my driving analogy - the QTS does at least guarrantee that no child will be taught by a 'driver' who has received no training whatsoever about how to keep children 'safe' on the educational highway.

The year spent on a Post Graduate Qualification in Education or on a Graduate Training Programme is not like the days of yore. They spend the vast bulk of their time in school acquiring the practical, hands-on skills needed to convert subject knowledge into successful lessons. And it's an essential year, followed by the essential NQT year as, apart from equipping them with these skills, it also weeds out those who are not cut out for the profession.

Gove might want unqualified in schools (they are considerably cheaper, true) but they are still going to have to do the equivalent of the GTP where they spend 70% of their time in front of the class with a mentor in support in the background.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1527366-to-think-that-taxpayer-funded-schools-SHOULD-use-qualified-teachers

Please read the big thread

as I say there

ANY fool can teach a small cohort of bright motivated kids - the only type that Gove and and his arslikans recognise

ONLY a qualified teacher with training in planning, differentiation and learning styles can engage the bright kids without rich parents AND stop the unmotivated from wrecking our long term economy

and to all those who says its easy : go do it or shut up

I'm told I'd be a great teacher BUT I teach at a postgrad level. I'd be SHITE at under 16's as I have neither the patience or the insight (and have the intelligence to recognise such - UNLIKE Gove)

Only stupid people who don't understand there is an actual process to being able to teach post this bollocks.

There are quite a few things I'm 'expert' at but since I loathe other people's children, am a shouter who would want to sit on a six year old who refused to do what he's told, have zero patience, have little interest in diferentiated learning, am lazy, have no time for idiots (which to be fair most 6 year olds are), dont do paperwork as I cant be arsed, I'm not exactly what any normal, rational human would want teaching their kids

DH on the other hand (outstanding, qualified teacher, expert in his field, passionate about children's learning) - yeah, you want him.

Only a foolish person who doesn't understand how education works would want an 'expert' - didn't you see Starkey trying to teach ??!!

Hadn't a Scooby.

Having been forced to go to several "teaching skills" workshops run by PGCE lecturers much earlier in my life

And your evidence for believing it must therefore be the same years later is............................

Had a few shit teachers when I was at school. I am sure they were qualified, just not good at teaching.

Denise, whilst it's good that you can identify the wrong time - must have been a good teacher somewhere in your primary school ;) , in teaching, once we've identified a pupil has 'got the wrong time' as it were, we then have to do something about it, in order to put it right. At this point, you really do need to know how the watch works if you want to try to mend it...

Long - do you actually have children? If so, would you really want them taught by someone who's never received any training or guidance in how to go about doing so? I wouldn't take my cat to a 'vet' with no qualifications, much less subject my own child to 14 years, day after day, of so-called 'education' by someone who has received no training. I take it you wouldn't advocate someone just getting in a car and driving off without passing their test on the grounds that 'good drivers will just intuitively know how it works'?

A week or two of pop-science neurobuzzword bingo will not somehow fill PGCEers with a keen sensitivity to the human condition. Nor will it yield that magical psychological insight which you seem to believe necessary to teach effectively.

Where do you get this stuff from? It's such total garbage. Please enlighten us.

Education has become far too much about ticking boxes, and people outside of the education system largely do not care a jot about those boxes, but it is clear that too many kids are leaving school without the skills they require to get on in the world. For teachers to claim that those outside the system "do not understand teaching" is complete tripe. When I look at a watch I can see if the time is wrong without knowing the exact ins and outs of how the watch works.

LFN:
In my school, we have 14 teachers. Of those:
One used to be in PR - has PGCE
One used to be in publishing - has PGCE
One is ex-military - has GTP
One is ex-nursery - has PGCE
One is ex-transport and logistics - has PGCE
One is ex-building society - has GTP

6 teachers in a normal school, who have actually had jobs in that scary outside world before they took a teaching qualification. Most of these have even (I feel you shudder) .... worked in the private sector.

The GTP course is best preparation for the classroom. Why? Because the students have learnt about classroom management and teaching strategies in a practical way, at the same time as completing theoretical assignments at college. They have learnt how to teach.

IMO, having done a PGCE, I was not very well qualified to go into the classroom after such a short course as I had very little experience how to manage children's behaviour.

You don't think you're an adequate teacher because you wield a pgce (useless or otherwise). You know you're 'adequate' when you've survived a week of teaching mixed-ability classes of 16 year olds without losing your temper or your sanity; and their work and feedback tells you they learned something. Most teachers I know reach far beyond adequacy. Flashy 'Superstar' teachers generally hang around in the classroom for enough years to get the promotion to management they were after. It is naïve to imagine the shortcuts proposed stem from anything other than financial motives.

Having unqualifieds means they haven't done their PGCE/GTP which is not full of left-wing theory but is in-school based training, following a degree, that shows them how to put together a lesson, how to assess, how to keep discipline of a class. It's a baptism of fire that weeds out the chaff. There is also the following Newly Qualified year which does exactly similar.

I don't know any rabid lefties in my school. Do you know why we belong to a union? It's insurance from litigious parents and weak heads who don't follow employment law.

There is a good reason for getting unqualifieds into school and it's tied to Gove's 'leaked' campaign to bring back the 'Gold standard' of O Levels. That's fine for the top 40%-70% (% vary according to what source you read) but what about the rest who'll be in a system funded and designed to fail them? Hence there needs to be heavy investment at school level in vocational training. You need people like mechanics, engineers, bricklayers etc to teach who won't have the necessary current qualifications to deliver these subjects.

insert sarcasm smiley with my last comment!!

yeah, lets just scrap training for teachers, and bring back the workhouse too while they're at it!!!

Long - your ignorance is staggering.

Gove puts pupils first? Hahahahaha. Or do you mean a different Gove?

I agree that our exam system needs an overhaul but let's not forget that the privatisation of exam boards and the drive for 'competition' in league tables has directly influenced the grade inflation that has occurred over the past decade. Sadly, this may well have initiated a 'race to the bottom' in terms of genuine pupil progress.

However, I fail to see how making a professionally accredited qualification mandatory for teachers is worsening this situation. You cannot teach effectively if you have no understanding of how a developing brain works (it's another of the body's organs after all) and learning to deliver a complex curriculum to a wide range of abilities takes time and practice. The PGCE allows young teachers to gain this experience and knowledge whilst under the supervision of both experienced teachers and academics in this field. It also seeks to ensure that no pupils are disadvantaged by being taught by someone wth no experience.

In terms of 'truly superb, highly motivated people' needing 'competition' in order to 'thrive', I would suggest that perhaps teaching is not the career for this type of personality. There is no place for your own ego in the classroom and the achievement of every child is a team effort that starts at least twelve years before they receive their GCSE results.

Surely the best way of ensuring ALL our children are taught by teachers who not only have strong academic qualifications of their own but a true understanding of how children learn plus the professional qualities needed to manage a classroom (e.g. organisation, meticulous planning, clear understanding of assessing pupil progress plus a confident knowledge and experience of a variety of strategies in order to help even the most disenchanted students make progress) is to insist that every teacher has received and been assessed on a nationally managed and recognised programme of training?

(By the way, I am also a classically trained grade 8 flautist - I trust this qualifies me as a 'classical musician' as well as a highly qualified and experienced teacher?)

Come, come, you must do better. You may have little problem with comprehension but your inability to logically argue your case, using where appropriate references to sources of information to demonstrate how you can lay out and conclude a well researched and logical argument lets you down.

Not good enough to assert things because you "think them", address the questions asked, do not just launch in to your own ideology. Using "I" is a sure fire way to announce to the examiner that you are not suitably prepared to deal with the subject. Take it back look at the questions again and have another bash?

Feenie The idea that "educational theory" is necessary to teach is preposterous. That the left even consider it on a par with the highly technical training necessary to become a doctor shows up the fallacy of their thinking immediately.

Please show me where I said educational theory was necessary. You are presuming, entirely erroneously, that just because I believe that a qualification is necessary to teach, then I must also believe that theory is also necessary.

I don't. I think that the best routes into teaching rely on practical based, professional courses, like GTP and, actually, PGCE.

To make a leap from that to thinking 'sod it. why do a qualification at all?' is insane. I would love for you, or anyone else who thinks teachers can teach with one click of their fingers, to teach in my class for a day - I can guarantee you wouldn't last a lesson. It takes training - practical based being the most useful - but training nonetheless.

And since 50% of teachers already leave within 5 years, given the current terms and conditions, how long do you see these military, businesspeople, retired engineers, classical musicians lasting - without proper training? And come to that, if it only takes 10 months - with a degree - to complete a PGCE (which is mainly teaching based, with bugger all theory, despite what the DM may have fed you) then why aren't all these people you mention applying in droves?

What's stopping them?

My you sound a very strident individual Long, I should not think it takes people long to figure out where your coming from.

So since Black and white is your preferred colour scheme can you tell me how some random person who knows a lot about geography and fancies a spot of teaching will be able deal with pupils with SEN?

I also wonder how those people will feel when all their peers are trotting off for their in-service days to underpin their knowledge and their practice? No point them going is their it will mean nothing to them.

Last I presume you agree with the idea that those without PGcE or recognised teaching qualifications will be paid less, receive worse conditions of employment, will be easier to hire on temporary contracts. I am guessing here I know but you come across as someone who would have no problem with those things? So how would you continue to motivate those people when day in and day out they are being treated as second-rate workers? Do you think most of the enthusiastic but untrained will last more than a year being paid less for doing as much, or putting up with the same hours, stress, forced working out of school time?

John Browne and his school days eh?