Unqualified teacher increase of 60% in last 4 years

The best teacher (science) my DD had was a guy with a PhD coming from the industry. He had enough of the corporate politics that took him away from what he truly valued, his passion for science.

He had to drop a huge salary to become a teacher, but his enthusiasm was amazing and his knowledge unbeatable. He picked my DD has talented and picked up an interest in medical science.

Unfortunately, 10 years on, he has also become disillusioned about teaching too, having had to face that the corporate politics gets as much in the way of education than the private sector and he has now decided to retire early. So so sad that such wonderful aspiring teachers end up thinking they are wasting their time.

I teach in a super selective. Have done for over ten years. In that time we have had one unqualified teacher. For two years. One year waiting for a space on the training programme, one year doing it. It was a subject our local SCITT couldn't provide. The vacancy came up at short notice and the individual was a former student and a known quantity who had helped in the department leading extra curricular groups as a sixth former. He attended (at school's suggestion) the programme in place for new teachers in the school and had a similar timetable allocation to our GTPs. It was acknowledged that it was not ideal for all parties but we did the best we could.
Anyone who thinks no one is tutored at a superselective is naive. Those students who are dragged through the exam by hot house tutoring do not miraculously no longer need extra support. I wish tutoring for the exam wasn't a thing. A lot of students also get extra outside class support from teachers (as in all schools).

Oh, enough of the snobbery and stealth boasting Allthebestnamesareused - it is oozing out of your last post. KittyV's point that there will always be other factors contributing to the success of exam results is perfectly valid. It is even backed up in your line just naturally talented or have parental help, as opposed to high results solely on the amazing 'teaching' of your Oxbridge unqualified 'teachers' as you previously inferred.

Kitty I suspect as we are in Cambridge and the majority of the parents at our school are academics or scientists the kids are just naturally talented or have parental help! As merely a couple of lawyers our poor son has to fend for himself

Kitty no by nature of it being super selective , attracting good teachers the children who achieve the 94% A/A at gcses generally don't require any further tutoring.*

My husband and I both privately tutor in the evenings. All of our students are from super selectives (in Bexley/Bromley) and private schools....

The term super-selective usually refers to a state grammar school with a massive catchment area or no catchment area. Clearly some private schools are highly selective but hundreds of Independent schools have employed non qualified teachers for many years. Also teachers from abroad whose status is not recognised here. State selective schools, of which there are less than 200, have tended not to until the dire recruitment situation. Most schools now would rather have a well qualified graduate who they can train above a poorly qualified and less good supply teacher. Where I live supply teachers for maths and science are virtually non existent anyway. I think comparing state and independent schools is like comparing oranges and pears.

Kitty no by nature of it being super selective , attracting good teachers the children who achieve the 94% A*/A at gcses generally don't require any further tutoring.

noble

I really appreciate that post, have copied and pasted-some excellent advice to follow!

op
No it's a different school. I will be paid as a cover supervisor while I'm a cover supervisor, then i will do teacher training when I do teacher training. 👍🏽

cant These are people we've had after their training year. One was a highly qualified psychology grad. Not sure why she thought she knew more about Lit A-level and exam specs than the Lit teachers. Behaviour management was also awful.
I find people trained 'on the job' haven't been taught to reflect on practice properly. Reflection is the cornerstone of good practice.

I would ount 'Teach Firsters' as 'trainee teachers', along with those doing SCITT or other school-based training routes leading to QTS.

What worries me is the proliferation of 'unqualified teachers', required to informally learn on the job but with no formal or standardised training or mentoring, rather than 'trainee teachers' of the different types, which at least acknowledge the necessity of some training....

The problem is, how do you make training good? I watched the struggle by the Reading Reform Foundation to get education academics to accept the evidence for systematic synthetic phonics teaching over the years from 1997, and the degree and kind of resistance and denial were absolutely mind-boggling. A lot of these people are ideologues, not interested in proper evidence. The Institute for Education still provides a home and support for the Whole Language, incredibly expensive Reading Recovery programme, despite it never having been properly demonstrated to work better than a phonics based approach. Yes, things are changing slowly, but it took direct government intervention to do it, and there is still plenty of resistance.

And it isn't just in the area of reading that this attitude to evidence is a problem. It permeates 'recommended' teaching approaches in all subjects; less so in secondary, perhaps, but still hugely influential.

I believe the government has been investigating the possibility of a set curriculum for teacher training courses - would this help?

Personally, I think the PGCE should be extended to 2 years, with the first year taught entirely by academics from Departments of Psychology who specialise in developmental and cognitive psychology of learning, along with SEN and how to recognise rigorous, properly conducted research.. Then at least trainee teachers might be less vulnerable to indoctrination by education academics in the second year.

can'tkeepawayforever

You're right about the stability of the Finnish curriculum. But the reason it's been stable, IMO, is that Finland never had the enforced move to 'constructivist', enquiry and skills-based, knowedge-light education that began here with the Plowden report. Teaching there has always been largely traditional in its approach.

The reason the curriculum has changed so often here is due to the seesaw effect of the struggle between this constructivist view of education (promoted almost universally by university education academics until fairly recently), and the concern of governments that this approach is ineffective. The result has often been unsatisfactory compromises, which are then undone later. Labour in particular has sometimes taken the constructivists' side, or produced a damaging compromise like the National Literacy Strategy. Conservatives on the other hand go to the other extreme, as seen recently, demanding curriculum changes without resourcing them.

It is difficult to tell what percentage of these 'unqualified' teachers might be due to teacher shortage (maths, physics etc.), downgrading or 'new roles' in teaching.

Looking at some of the job adverts for 'unqualified' teaching posts, quite a few are for PE or sports teaching. Has PE teaching been downgraded or are there more sports teaching jobs available in schools due to extra funding? Certainly, some of the jobs advertised are for primary schools and this is surely due to the extra sports funding available since 2012 (average extra funding is £9,000 pa per school).

It would be considered a luxury to have a PE teacher with QTS in a state primary school who only taught PE. The same can be said of 'specialised' language teachers in primary schools which also seems to be increasing. Also, dedicated 'pastoral care' teachers in secondary schools - is that a relatively new role?

I looked at 2 'random', 'outstanding' primary schools in London:
Rosendale Primary, an academy in SE21 which has 'specialist teachers' in Mandarin (2 full time Mandarin teachers), French, PE, Sport and Fitness, Welfare and Forest School plus an Artist in Residence.

Pimlico Primary, a free school which was criticised before it opened in 2013 for planning to employ 'unqualified' teachers, attained an 'outstanding' Ofsted within 2 years and has 'specialist' teachers for History, Computing, French, Music, Art and Geography.

Are these 'teachers' counted in the stats?

I'm a consistently 'good' teacher and I absolutely think that professional training is needed to set expected standards as part of being a profession. Ergo- the increased use of unqualified teachers is part of the continued degradation of the teaching profession. If anyone who has a degree can do it then why bother with professional development or teaching standards.
A good PGCE course is very valuable as a starting point in professional development- mainly because it lets you experience different forms of pedagogy. I find our new starters who did Teach First are ingrained by the (sometimes extremely odd) methods advocated in their training schools. We've had three and they were arrogant ( I got a first so I know more than you) and stubborn (well my training school didn't do that and they were amazing).

(I would also say that the thing those courses clearly didn't cover well was personal mental health. He was a very, very young head of one of the most challenging schools in the country and has thus had years building back up again from a complete mental breakdown)

Noble, my DBro did teacher training, an MEd and NCSL [or whatever it's called] headteacher training, on top of an Oxbridge Physics degree, so I would absolutely agree that training can improve even the most natural teacher.

In other words, although he is about the only person I can think of who would have been a perfectly adequate teacher, of almost anything, with no training, he is still better because he has been trained.

Outliers of this type don't make good examples, though - 1 person in a school who is an excellent teacher though unqualified does not mean that this should be the routine process for creating new teachers.

amateur
Is this in a secondary where you already worked as a TA?
As a cover supervisor you should not be having to plan lessons.
You are responsible for maintaining a working atmosphere and trying to keep the kids on task.
In terms of delivery, yes it's great when LCRs can add to the lesson and interact with the kids (better results than simply writing a page reference on the board) but first and foremost: classroom control and kids engaged.
Your colleagues should be supportive. You need to make it clear that, especially for known absences, you expect a solid lesson plan and a seating plan with defined outcomes and the appropriate materials not just ECI (educational colouring in) or a word search.
Your bursar should provide a budget for your emergency "kit" (basket of pens, scissors, felts, crayons, glue, stamper/stickers).
Usual routines you observe: coats off, bags on floor, planners out and open...make sure you have the power to put any child into the SMT/SLT detention if messing about, do this a couple of times and kids won't think "Supply" every time they see you. Make sure pastoral leaders are on board with you making a few phone calls home in the first half term re any child's misbehaviour: word will get round fast and you will have fewer discipline issues to deal with as a result.
Hopefully you have a deputy/senior teacher as your direct boss/mentor. Ask them to keep you off covering registers until you are happy with how it's all going. You will be attending the staff insets presumably. Some days will be full-on, other weeks not so much: ask that the person i/c of cover does allow you some non-contact time when possible so that you can chase up lesson plans in advance, give written feedback, look over plans, make calls, update resource folder etc otherwise you may be used as a TA/LS when not covering and it becomes a full timetable but not at day to day supply rates. You should also not be covering long term illness (ie morecthan three days).

Noble, I know - but for those who think 'it's OK just to drop an unqualified graduate in because it works for a very bright class of GCSE physicists', suggesting that even a qualified teacher takes years to learn their trade well might be seen to indicate that the training isn't necessary, rather than that the job is very hard to do well...

I'm still totally bemused at the expectation here that teachers should burn themselves out by constantly reinventing the wheel

kesstrel, it would be very interesting to know how often the Finnish curriculum and qualifications have changed, and how extensively they are trialled before being used.

In England, just ver the last couple of years, we have had:

• Total change of the primary curriculum (unsupported by any materials or trialling, and in many subjects with the absolute bare minimum of information)

• Total rethink of AS levels

• Total change of A-levels

• Ongoing total revision of GCSEs

None of the last 3 have been properly trialled either, with final changes to specs and assessment schemes for new GCSEs still going on a couple of months before the exam. That means that those companies that did ruysh to produce textbooks etc have created books that5 are already out of date, only a couple of months after the very first exams have been taken.

KS3, as far as I know, has not formally changed (not my area), but of course with new KS2 and new GCSEs, is having to change piecemeal in response.

In this environment, of course schools and teacher have to create their own planning - there ARE no up to date textbooks, no money to buy them (especially since they may have a lifetime of months), and change is constant.

If the government fixed all curricula for a sensible period and agreed to proper trialling before any changes so they could be properly implemented with supporting materials and resources, then yes, we could be more like the Finnish system. It's not teachers' wish to continue to create, and continually re-create, silk out of sows' ears....

On 'is training necessary - or helpful - for most teachers?'

I think it depends on a number of things:

1. The person themselves. Some people - my DBro is one - are natural teachers. He has been in some kind of role in which he has instructed others in something from the age of about 12. Others have the potential to be good teachers, but need shaping. The latter group are far more numerous.

1. The type of teaching. For an Oxbridge Physics graduate to teach an A-level set in a selective school (whether state or private), subject knowledge is almost certainly sufficient. For the same person to teach a mixed ability mixed Science class of Y8s in a comprehensive, knowledge of 'teachercraft' in all its aspects will be much more important. For an Oxbridge PhD scientist to teach all subjects in primary to a fully mixed ability class including 20% SEN (that would be me) requires very significant additional knowledge of teaching and subjects way outside my degrees.

1. The short term damage to pupils schools are prepared to put up with. Nobody teaches consistently well in their very first week in the classroom, and for a wholly untrained teacher, that period may go on for longer, especially if (as is common in primary, for example) lesson planning is individual rather than following a fixed and resourced scheme. In teacher training and associated teaching practice, graduated and supervised practice in a class with another teacher is the norm - and weeds out those who fail - which limits the damage possible to classes and children's progress. Just throwing an unqualified teacher in and letting them 'sink or swim' could leave a lot of pieces to be picked up afterwards.

Not all training is beneficial to all teachers. However, if we do think that some training ISN'T beneficial, surely the best thing to do is improve the training, not say 'Oh, training is completely unnecessary, let's just drop a bunch of people into classrooms and see who survives'? I mean, if, say, a particular nursing training course isn't producing very good nurses, we don't go 'Oh, that's OK, we'll just take people in and put them unsupervised into wards to learn their trade - they have the Biology qualifications needed to start the course and they'll pick the rest up along the way, it'll be OK'...