Unqualified teacher increase of 60% in last 4 years

Interestingly, in Finland over 10% of teachers are unqualified for ages 8-16:

www.oph.fi/download/166755_teachers_in_finland_statistical_brochure.pdf

On the other hand, they have textbooks for most subjects throughout those years, I believe, so there is essentially a ready-made scheme of work to follow (I'm still totally bemused at the expectation here that teachers should burn themselves out by constantly reinventing the wheel). Finnish teachers say they spend the time freed up by not having to make their own resources etc in ensuring that slower learners keep up.

Amateur don't be worried about the reception from other staff. I'm a qualified teacher (BEd and QTS) and I appreciate what cover sups do. A confidence to go and teach all of the subjects in school is amazing!

Aware*

I start as a cover supervisor in sept. Genuinely terrified now. I've done it because I can't survive on a TA wage, and the school is eager to put me through teacher training. However I don't know if I want to teach due to the abysmal way teachers are treated. However reading this has made me away that I'll probably receive a frosty reception from teaching collleagues too now.

What do you propose is the solution? I don't bloody have one. Apart from look closely at the kind of government we keep voting in.

Kestrel - absolutely. I was reading an article on TES this week about exactly that.

my DS firmly believes his best teachers are the ones who either didn't do a PGCE (teach first) or who no longer follow what they were taught on PGCE.

PaintingByNumbers - I don't want education on the cheap. I want brilliant teachers in every subject in every school. But how are we going to achieve that? Throwing money at the problem won't achieve that - although I'd also like schools to have more money. But I don't think more money would bring better teachers with the current problems schools face.

On MN I don't think I've ever heard a teacher say they're leaving due to money. Nor a potential applicant put off by the money. It's stress, workload, bullying by SLT and poor behaviour by pupils which is constantly talked about.

How much better could they have been with proper training?

I absolutely agree that good training is desirable and likely to produce better teachers. The problem for me, however, is the number of teachers who feel that their PGCE was not just a waste of time, but positively detrimental to their teaching - that they became much better teachers when they realised that much of what they had been taught on their training course was wrong.

There's been a lot of threads on Twitter making this very point over the last week, with teachers talking about their experiences of the PGCE. Some courses are reportedly excellent, but others are reported as being even a few years ago still stuck in the past, ignoring or dismissive of cognitive science and related evidence-based approaches. With something like 50 different teacher training institutions, the quality still appears to be variable, a point made by the Carter Review of teacher training two years ago.

The Carter Review also pointed out specific areas of weakness, particularly in providing effective training on behaviour management. This is also something that comes up over and over again in blogs and on social media, including having been taught on their PGCE that the main cause of disruptive behaviour is boredom, and that teachers are therefore to blame for it because their lessons are not sufficiently 'engaging'.

Ideas like this, along with one-sided promotion of 'constructivist' teaching methods, had a stranglehold on much teacher training for a long time, and IMO have done a lot of damage to education in this country. We really have no idea to what extent that's changed, so it's inevitable that there will still be scepticism about its value.

His school has a 94% A/A rate at GCSE (across all gcses) so I guess it works for them.*

And I suppose being a Super Selective has nothing to do with that...

The irony is that most of those pupils will be privately tutored as well, propping up the teaching.

PaintingByNumbers

Don't agree with everything you stated, I believe most parents are interested in their kids education, but few understand how education is delivered in a school and yes, would baulk and extra tax to pay for it.
Oddly though, the parents of 7% of children realise that a decent education costs more the the state is prepared to pay for, and send their kids to private school. (although I accept some do it out of pure snobbery).

Shrug. Look at the responses on here. People couldn't give a shit about their kids education so long as its cheap/less taxes. Depressing.

My DD is being taught maths by a PE teacher. And PE by a PE technician (which for those of you who don't work in school is somebody who looks after the PE equipment and changing rooms)

I'd rather she was taught maths by an unqualified teacher with a maths degree.

Teach first aren't qualified teachers the first year. Same with SCIT. How many of this 5% are people like that who are being trained and supported on the job? Possibly most of them.

Oh god give me English any day! I teach Psychology as my specialism and I dread doing inferential statistics. I think people are either maths brains or English brains! Although if I had to teach KS3 maths I'd give it a good shot, and just try and stay one lesson ahead of the kids!

Just because you know your subject doesn't mean you can teach. Just because you have been trained to teach, doesn't mean you can teach. Good teachers are becoming a rare breed but those who can teach can teach pretty much anything (A levels aside). Granted, although I am an outstanding teacher you don't want me teaching maths but I'm fine with teaching year 10 citizenship next year because that department is understaffed. I am a good teacher and I will work my arse off to make it work. Give me an Oxbridge graduate or any other graduate who understands that and I'll give you a good teacher.

None of that surprises me to be honest. It was heading that way when academies could employ whoever they wanted. Supply recruitment was bordering on Shave A Tramp. Learning cover supervisors and learning mentors could be anyone school thought suitable for the role.
In fairness, although totally unfair on them unless they want to do it, I have seen some very good teaching from TAs/ HLTAs. Better than a supply because kids couldn't play up as successfully.
Have also seen TAs/technicians developed and become damned good teachers. I know the PGCE has changed since I trained but at that time, it was more a case of a couple of sessions on child development/Piaget, followed by role playing certain situations, three written assessments and three TPs...a baptism of fire where you swam or sank really.

I googled to see if I could identify the school in Bromley offering the assessment only route to QTS from the advert and up came this outstanding Ofsted report for teacher training through Bromley Schools' Collegiate (I think the school in the advert must be Hayes or Darrick Wood);

reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/70007

It's a glowing report and, "The assessment only route is addressed with equal rigour. The applicant's needs are assessed and bespoke training programmes put in place...to demonstrate they exceed the requirements of the teachers' standards."

I would have no problem with a teacher via this route especially as the advert asks for a graduate with a 2.1 or above from a Russell Group or Oxbridge University as well.

My DS Is at a super selective which employs a number of unqualified teachers who have Oxbridge degrees in their subjects
My DS goes to a school where every class has a teacher qualified to teach that subject and maybe also a TA.

Your DS's school can't be that great if people who have never learnt how to teach are trying to teach.

At least they are prepared to do it !!! We are really struggling from Sept and have a music teacher teaching maths. He might be qualified but he hasn't studied any maths since he was 16. He's now 49.

Get your point noble. I have had some amazing people through this route who are wonderful teachers. Agreed they've had no formal training but it hasn't stopped them being great at the job.

Allthebestnames there's actually a lot of maths and chemistry in a geography degree, dependent on the institution, not that I'm defending using non-specialists, just pointing that out.

Part of the problem is that 'In ye olde days' there were other options.

We have several non qual teachers and there are very good but they can't afford to train and the school can't (or won't) put them through any of the options available (non of which are for those without a degree).