Teachers - a conundrum!

I did an M.Ed. back in the mid-nineties. I studied full time as I had come into a bit of money and it seemed like an investment in me. I loved being a full time student again, so much fun! And I did find it really useful to reflect on the whys and wherefores of teaching, learning and education as a whole.

It had very little impact upon my career in the UK, but was appreciated when I chose to teach overseas and has been acknowledged in my pay scale.

It does seem as if the majority of teachers have a masters now, at least on the international circuit. Indeed, my current school is now offering staff the opportunity to study for a doctorate in conjunction with an American university, I can't help wondering how long before this becomes the norm.

I'm doing one. As others have said, is much rather be doing one in English /drama (my subjects) than in education, but I've found that i can shape my assignments to meet my subject. In fact, for all but one very vey dull unit I've chosen my own title (within set perameters) so they've all linked to my personal interests.

As for time, well, it was easier before DS came along!

I did one of the 'm' level PGCEs two years ago, so I 'have' a third of an M.ed.... I didn't carry on with it during my NQT year because I thought being an NQT enough... was signed up to continue with it this year but some money I was expecting fell through so I couldn't afford it... and now I've secured an HOD role for after Easter so goodness knows if I'll have the brain-space necessary to carry on with it this coming year... so yes, the issue is definitely TIME (plus, as others have said, if I was honest I'd MUCH rather do one in my specialist subject!).

I should add that with both of my teaching positions I have interviewed with people who have MAs but have got the job with my lowly degree (although I do also have a post grad dip. in my subject because my first degree wasn't).

I'm still undecided about whether to continue with it, to be honest!

Our cover supervisors don't teach. I am HOD and I set work every time a cover supervisor is in my department. The work assumes no prior knowledge on the part of the person covering. They manage the class only. As do other covering teachers (rarely cover us a bit of a joke in my school...). The only time I don't do that is when we have long term supply teachers in, and then they are given time for planning.

I recommend the OU modular MEd. the research module is probably dull unless you like research but the other modules have been very interesting so far.

They also do good CPD courses. I'm eyeing up the one on VLEs.

I started a Masters this year (MSc, not MEd. I already have an undergrad MA from Scottish uni) and this thread is somewhat depressing for me as I see other people have managed to keep up their studying whilst working, whereas I just couldn't and have had to withdraw :(

It cost me quite a lot of money too. What a waste. Quite gutted really.

But htf do people manage it? I work 8 - 6pm most days, travel for two hours per day and work at weekends. I'm exhausted. Doesn't everyone feel like this??

I find a lot of denial about what is happening. I know of someone appointed at 18 to teach ICT. I know a TA who effectively runs the department.

Mostly it's cover where this happens but it is gradually encroaching on the permanent roles too.

Our teach in its simplest form. They never plan or mark. If needed a head of subject would do that if the actual teacher could not.

There is an understanding that as a cover supervisor you are there to teach and that may be for the longer term. You may well be a qualified teacher - there's little demand for supply teachers so many cover supervisors do have QTS - but whatever you are called you must plan, teach and mark.

I cover lots of subjects, but the longest period was teaching ICT. I've taught English and Maths both as a teacher and a cover supervisor. Always the expectation is that you teach.

it depends what sort of school you want to teach in. At my private one a candidate with an MA / MSc in their subject would have an advantage (though would still need good pedagogical skill). At a state school they might prefer the masters in education.

Because of the shortage of jobs, it may be that cover supervisors are trained teachers. Ours are. TAs should not be taking lessons. In most cases they will be better of with a cover supervisor who knows the students. Our cover supervisors are different subject specialists as well and we try to match their specialism to the cover needed.

what I mean is that TA's and cover supervisors are used in preference to supply teachers in many schools, so people without teaching qualifications (although I know several former teachers who are TA's) are filling a role that would have previously been filled by a teacher.

I've been teaching for 26 years and have been HoD for the last 14 years. For anyone personally and professionally further study is always useful and I would say that one of the biggest differences between now and all those years ago is the number doing M.Ed(I'm in Scotland). I have to say to the poster above that I haven't seen any evidence of teachers becoming less qualified.

I started one a couple of years back and didn't see it through. 8 years into teaching I certainly wouldn't see it as a way to remain competitve with new teachers. It's hard enough for teachers to get a post now whatever qualifications they've got especially if they are trying to get back into the "profession" after a career break. An MA, like experience, would make me less employable now rather than more as I'd be too expensive.

Things have changed a lot in last 2/3 years. Teachers are likely to become less academically qualified rather than more IMHO.

Sorry to be negative.

Oh. No, we have cover supervisors for whom I set work. If I didn't they'd soon let me know. They don't teach. And I wouldn't generalise from your experience of covering ICT to other subjects.

You haven't noticed?

I've done a few covers as a cover supervisor, mostly teaching ICT which doesn't require much skill or knowledge. No money in it but it was something to do.

Really? Where did you find evidence for that?

There are huge numbers of cover supervisors and HTLAs teaching classes and their results are no worse than those of teachers.

The real issue is the need for graduate qualifications, let alone post graduate ones. Already, people with as few as two good GCSEs are getting good results and the trend away from expensive teachers is moving ahead very quickly.

If you're going to do one then do one in your subject area, not an M.Ed.

I did an M.A. mostly because I wanted to do it but the impetus that made me determined to do it was a new headteacher arriving in school and actually saying that he didn't think B.Eds were worth the paper they were written on. (He was hateful in other ways too.)
It was interesting how his attitude to me changed once I had started the course but by the time I had finished it I had a promotion lined up in another school. It definitely cut ice for me.

A friend of mine is doing one at the moment. The essays he has had to write have been dull as anything. The one that particularly sticks in the mind as tedious was the one on 'Change Management'. He talks about quitting but has his eyes set on eventual headship so will probably see it through.

I don't have one although I do have 2 degrees. Lots of young teachers are doing them. I suspect I now have old gimmer status. My problem is that I would want to do a subject related one, rather than a teaching one - which I imagine would get me ahead in teaching. To be honest I don't really think not having one has held me back.

If people have done a teaching related MA what has it been on? Has it been dull?

I don't have one, and I don't have time to do one! I'm a HoD, and yes, it does seem to be what people are doing, both new teachers and those whose next step is SLT (so people like me I guess). But much as I love a bit of study, there's no way I could do my job and do an MEd as well.