to think that taxpayer funded schools SHOULD use qualified teachers?

[TalkinPeace2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19017544

So Academies are now free to leave our children to be taught by cheap unqualified people
potentially jeapordising their chances at competing with the best in the world
just because the Dfe is determined to break the unions and the LEAs, not because of any sound educational reasons.

I would want my child to be taught by the best person for the job, regardless of their qualifications.

It's worth being aware that some schools have been using unqualified TAs as de facto teachers for a long time. I interviewed for a TA position at two schools where they told me I'd be 'covering' so many classes it added up to being the teacher.

An unqualified person might be very good at teaching but it is not fair if they're being used to do an expensive job cheaply and it's not fair if they're not being given proper training.

Why bother training teachers at all? I mean it's just a case of writing a few spellings and sums on a board isn't it?

A 21 year old acquaintance of mine got a job as a cover supervisor in my local comp. Within 4 months he was teaching year 8 geography. No degree, no A levels, no teaching qualification. Not many parents complained, afaik, but i had kids being taught by someone off the street i would have been v unhappy.

Sorry, not sure if you were responding to me or the previous post, about, but I should clarify I don't think it's a good thing that untrained people are being used as teachers and I wasn't suggesting that if an unqualified person is good at teaching, that justifies not doing teacher training. They'd be bloody lucky to do it well anyway, IMO.

"the best person for the job"

the best person for the job is likely to be academically qualified themselves
have been trained in how children learn (easy to forget years later)
have been trained in classroom management so that every child gets to learn
have been trained in differentiated learning styles and lesson planning

my crammer did not use qualified teachers - but we were in groups of 7 and they were paid strictly by results and the fees were humungous

in a mixed ability state school class of 30, the brightest geeks might turn out to be the crappest teachers

look how bad at teaching some University professors are after all ....

Non-state schools are free to employ whomsoever they wish. Doesn't seem to have harmed their competitiveness. Then again, they seem more able to give the push to an under performing teacher rapidly. Will academies ba able to do that too?

Cover supervisors have been used for years to cover lessons. HiLTAs are usually more qualified than teachers

It wasn't in response to your post LRD, just a general observation that some people think anyone can teach and that it does not require much training.

Frankly my child deserves a fully qualified, well paid teacher in the classroom. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Good, just thought I'd make sure.

Edith
Non state schools also do not tend to have to take disruptive pupils with disorganised home lives.
How many traveller and looked after children are there in the fee paying sector?

I think at an older age having someone who has practical skills in the subject area such as a marketeer/business manager teaching business skills is no bad thing and they are unlikely to have QTS.

For core skills and primary no they need teacher training.

It depends if the flexibility issued to hire in specialist skills where required or as inferred to get cheap staff, it would need to be monitored surely?

*is used not issued and by x posting I admit I hadn't considered their skills in classroom management.

I think so many teachers just go by whatever they are told by teacher training and have no real aptitude for thinking for themselves. I couldn't care less what qualifications teachers have, as long as they can do the job properly. So many kids are leaving school unemployable and all the teaching unions seem to be bothered about is pay and perks, something has to be done.

I know the demographics are different. But that doesn't really alter the underlying point that insistence on form (paper qualifications) is about process. Finding good teachers (which could mean many things, depending on what you are trying to do) is to do with substance.

The need to be able to fire an under performing teacher rapidly may be a red herring, but it seems important (even the most rigorous recruitment process results in misfits from time to time; these need to be dealt with quickly, irrespective of underlying qualifications).

" I couldn't care less what qualifications teachers have, as long as they can do the job properly."

Would you feel the same way about a doctor? Or a dentist? A lawyer perhaps?

"I think at an older age having someone who has practical skills in the subject area such as a marketeer/business manager teaching business skills is no bad thing and they are unlikely to have QTS."

So many of these people cannot teach

jumpingthroughhoops I am a teacher and I can assure you I have far more qualifications than a HLTA, a degree being the first difference, followed by a Masters and a PGCE! I also disagree with unqualified teachers being used, particularly for top sets.

I think schools should use qualified teachers. I also think schools should hire subject specialists who are passionate about their subjects. These two values do not necessarily overlap.

I think the main factor that being qualified contributes is the investment in the career -being committed to the job long-term. Other than that, i will vote for passion every time.

I agree that schools should use people with proper qualifications for the task at hand.
This is most likely a teaching degree.

I doubt that they will be dragging in people from street corners to teach 6th form chemistry in the future, though.

What's wrong with hiring somebody with a foreign teaching degree, which for some stupid reason is not recognised here? And yes, I do speak from experience. Box ticking is not always the answer, and "people without a teaching degree" can still be more than qualified to do a job.

Rant over.

"I couldn't care less what qualifications teachers have, as long as they can do the job properly."

Would you feel the same about untrained and unqualified doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, nurses etc?

Teaching isn't a guessing game, it requires training. Would people who have never stepped foot in a classroom know how to differentiate properly? Could these people (who have no idea how to teach) deliver a lesson that was aimed at 30 children including say......a child with severe autism who cannot speak, a violent and disruptive child, and several high-flyers who are already at least a year ahead of their peers?

Could they ensure that each of those high-need children made a sufficient amount of progress in every single lesson, and that all the children in the middle did too? Would they know how to structure a literacy lesson so that non-readers and those with dyslexia are not disengaged?

It's insulting that our government thinks so little of our children.

Teacher training does not however necessarily include that much on classroom management, nor on nuts and bolts (eg how to teach children to read), and this is especially true of schemes such as Teach First.

Just being the Devil's Advocate here, TPA is assuming that qualified teachers can do all these things.

Heck, YANBU.

Just another way of cutting costs and undermining the professionalism of teachers, all in one go.