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.

Don't read the TES then. It's a newspaper, there to make money.

"What does the profession a disservice is that some teachers try to persuade the nation that they work harder than anyone else and should be paid more for what they do."

Tiny minorities in ALL professions do that. You are generalising about teachers based on a small minority that hands-on-heart, I have never met in my teaching career.

I don't know who these people are and I really don't know why the bleedin' heck the rest of us have to put up with comments by the likes of you all the flipping time because of a teeny tiny little minority.

As you put it, "not everyone will claim that they should be paid more than, or that they work harder than, other professions."

Which is also true for the majority of teachers. So WHY are you generalising?

Why do you discredit an entire profession because of a tiny few? Do you also do that for other professions, ethnic minorities, religions? Where do you draw the line on these mostly unfounded stereotypes?

I am a teacher and am not hostile to non qualified people teaching.

I have taught in private schools next to non qualified teachers who had small classes with the full backing of parents, head and governers.

I currently teach in a state school and it is completely different.
I come from industry and am still requested for consultancy work.

I know how fickle people can be and am worried that the people that come in to teaching on a whim and will only last until a better offer is forthcoming.

Do you really think that a top class business man/woman will give up top class wages to teach or do you think that teaching will get the second raters? those that failed and just want something to do till something better comes up.

There are many ways in to teaching GTP, PGCE, Degree courses (OU included) all prove a desire to teach. In my ITT group of 13 only 3 are still teaching 6 didn't make it through the course, the Maths group started with 23 and only 6 made it through the course, the IT group started with 30 only 4 made it through the course.

The atrition rates are high on the courses and in the QTS year.
Maybe just maybe I am worried about how this will effect the children.

My bottom line is that if you want to teach, do something to prove it that won't destroy childrens futures.

Bonebackjefferson I totally agree.

Badgercub You are exactly the type of person I am talking about. I'm not discrediting the profession. I am talking about its public image. You are reinforcing that image to me.

My bottom line is that if you want to teach, do something to prove it that won't destroy childrens futures.

That's a little dramatic don't you think?

I don't think the unqualified teacher I knew was going around destroying children's futures. I think you may be right about her colouring my judgment though, the other teachers weren't mediocre, they were good, they just weren't as good as the unqualified person.

I would never want an unqualified person in charge of any part of my child's life - from nursery to high school. In the same way I don't want her going to an unqualified doc or dentist. Even if it's just down to the fact that those people have shown a basic commitment to train for their profession and aren't doing the job on a whim because they ve nothing better to do! There's a whole lot more to teaching than standing infront of a class talking and maybe people will realise this when they ve got every Tom, Dick & Harry messing with their child's education! It's just another great reason not to send My child to sn Academy.

Not dramatic at all.

You want whats best for your children, is it too much of a leap to believe that the majority of teachers do too.

And although your friend is unqualified as a teacher, I very much doubt that she has no qualifications at all.

We would not want our DS1 to be "taught" by an unqualified individual it is unreasonable to expect parents to be happy about it after all teachers have been trained and are educated.

Of course I believe (most) teachers have the best interests of the child at heart.

Also, I have never been one to believe that experts in whatever field, science, business, anything, can just go into a classroom and be expert teachers. But, I do think that if you see a really great teacher, qualified, unqualified, you should grab them with both hands and never let go, regardless of they pieces of paper they may or may not have. Unfortunately the state system doesn't allow this.

My TAs are excellent, professional people with fantastic people skills, knowledge and passion for the job. I believe that many people who don't have QTS would make excellent teachers, there is no doubt about it - most people know someone who should have been a teacher.

However, what I do have a massive problem with is the government using this argument to screw TAs and unqualified teachers out of their hard earned money. My TAs have to cover classes, but earn no more for this stress and responsibility than they would for taking their usual (not lower ability!) groups as normal. That is pretty disgusting, and taking advantage of the goodwill and generous nature of caring people.

Anyone who ends up teaching without QTS in an academy is open to being taken advantage of and abused - whether they are brilliant or not. That is what we should be worried about, not arguing about what the qualification means...it simply means you get paid fairly, on a par with other people that are doing the same job as you. I do agree that the training helps you decide whether you really want to do the job or not - it took me a while to get my skills up to scratch for the job, but equally there were people on my course who could have taught from day one.

I wonder if many of the people talking about the low standards/ intelligence/ literacy etc of PGCE students actually realise how stiff the competition is to even get on the course?

I am starting Primary PGCE in Sep, I have a first in English from a RG Uni, over 10 years previous experience in Financial Services as a Consultant/ Senior Manager and pretty much all of the people who I have spoken to who will also start PGCE in Sep are also high calibre recruits. As well as a MIN 2:1 the selection process included Maths, Science, ICT and English tests as well as a SEPARATE spelling test. This is the PGCE course at a small regional university.

You then also have to pass Maths, Science, ICT and Englis tests whilst on the PGCE to get QTS status. Plus English and Maths GSCE are compulsory.

I also have the benefit of having previously been through a high end banking graduate trainee scheme years ago and worked in a sector that is full of supposedly top graduates. I can honestly say that the people I have met who are going into teaching are just as high calibre- they are just not motivated by money- the reason I left banking.

Unfortunately, people who are motivated by money will always measure the value of a professional role by their salary. They simply cannot process the concept that there are people who have a vocation to do something they feel is worthwhile who would be capable of earning a lot more money, but choose not to. They always feel that the person must not be capable of earning more money because they lack intelligence, or some other skill.

Kendodd
But, I do think that if you see a really great teacher, qualified, unqualified, you should grab them with both hands and never let go, regardless of they pieces of paper they may or may not have. Unfortunately the state system doesn't allow this.
At the last school I worked at we had an amazing cover supervisor, he was offered a GTP place so we kept him as a trainee teacher and then as a qualified teacher. He was an even better teacher for doing the training, he got more respect from the students and better pay and conditions. The state sector does have the mechanisms to hang on to really good teachers.

Quicksie totally agree with you.

Considering Gove and his cronies are looking at academy domination, those stating they will not send their dcs, what will you do instead? I would want my dds teachers to be qualified. However, the fact that I qualified to be a teacher and my basic maths and English are so poor does not give me much faith in teacher training programmes.

I may be wrong, but isn't a PGCE basically the same as unqualified teachers do in their first year of teaching? My DH had a reduced timetable, a lot of supervision by other teachers, regular lesson inspections, had to watch other successful teachers teaching and regular meetings with the head of department.
They're not just picking someone off the street and then never checking that they're doing an ok job. If anything I think that system works better - they have real motivation to check up on the teacher.
Also, my DH's contract was probationary for the first 12 months and had to be actively renewed on completion of x set of results etc etc etc.

If so many successful private schools actively recruit uqt's directly out of top universities then it cannot always be a bad thing. Westminster, Trinity school, Eton... All of these schools recruit new graduates from Oxford, cambridge, LSE, Imperial.

Hypothetically - if you were picking a school for your child and one school had a UQT spoken of very highly by staff and students with excellent results to back it up, would you still not pick that school? Or would it only be if the teacher was an unknown quantity?

Presumably you credit the experienced panel picking the teachers with some intelligence? They generally have a pretty good idea of who is the best candidate for the post. PGCE candidates have a huge advantage anyway - , they prepare a huge portfolio of lesson plans during their PGCE year, up against an unqualified, inexperienced candidate if what you're saying is true then they should wipe the floor with them, if the unqualified candidate is the best there surely thats the right choice?

I do agree that there should be no difference in pay though - if they're good enough to be a teacher then they should be paid as such. It would also ensure that the schools were recruiting on merit not a financial incentive.

pleasesleep
DO NOT compare top public schools using fresh graduates with state schools doing so.

There is a WORLD of difference between teaching 15 academically selected affluent boys
and 30 random kids in a comp who may not want to be there and whose parents may not give a &&&&

Anotherteachermum I totally agree with you. I'm in a similar position to you. I have 20 years full time experience in another professional career which required a Masters degree. My Masters is from a RG uni. I've been successful in my other career but I decided that my talents could be used for a more socially beneficial purpose and I am about to embark on a PGCE at a popular uni.

I always wanted to be a teacher, but when I left school in 1989 you only needed 2 Es at A-Level to get onto a teaching degree and I decided that I could do better than that, especially as the teaching profession was not held in such high esteem at the time. (Obviously, I was 18 when I made that judgement.)

That was a long time ago and I genuinely believe that teaching has the same status as most other professions which require a post grad qualification. Even though I am about to spend £9000 on fees I am not at all worried about this announcement because I think it will be either short lived or unpopular with employers. Schools these days are competing for good pupils and they are accountable to parents. I think most Heads would not think that recruiting unqualified teachers would be beneficial to a school.

Anyway, I've been around long enough to know that things pass and I reckon Michael Gove will be short lived. I will wait and see.....

So is your issue purely behaviour management? Or the differing abilities in a class of a state comp?
If so does your opinion change at sixth form where they have opted to be there? Or in a Grammar school?

TalkinPeace2.

Maybe we can compare 15 academic children, in a comp, who do want to be there and their parents giving a &&&&, as this would be the same.

Pleasesleep
my issue is that a new graduate (and I was taught by one at my A level crammer) may be GREAT at the academic side and enthusing those who are interested
BUT
presented with a room full of mixed ability 14 year olds they will have NO idea how to differentiate, maintain interest, target all abilities
and will fail kids who have no chance to retake that year

remember
teachers teach for years
kids only take their GCSEs once
so if the school skimps on good teachers, their chances may be ruined for ever.
Is that really worth Gove's mindless meddling?

I actually started as an unqualified teacher, a good one at that, and then qualified on the job via a part-time PGCE. I felt it was helpful and I learned a great deal, particularly about safeguarding, differentiated teaching and pedagogy. I am baffled as to why people would not want to get a professional qualification of this type, or why employers wouldn't insist on it. For me it's about pride in the job.

It's not difficult is it? If you want to be a teacher get a qualification in it - just like you do with every other profession. Employing a teacher who has a degree but no teaching qualification (and no intention of doing one on the job) is like employing someone as a mechanic because they watch 'Top Gear' a lot. Lots of knowledge - no understanding of the inner workings.

To those saying that unqualified teachers teach at Private/Public schools - Yes you are perfectly correct. I know two people who do just that. Both started the PGCE course and dropped out as all the lesson planning and evaluation was too hard and they couldn't control their classes.

Teaching is not just about the standing up in front of the class - the PGCE/GTP/SKITT prepares you for all aspects of planning and assessment, both essential for successful teaching.

Don't get me wrong - I think Gove is a total nutter and I desperately hope he is out of the cabinet at the next reshuffle.

The thing is - wouldn't a teacher have to show that they had a basic knowledge of maintaining interest, targeting all abilities etc etc during interview?

I don't think there should be a financial incentive for schools to hire unqualified teachers. I think they should be paid the same as an inexperienced teacher with a PGCE. Therefore, the school would hire them when they felt they were as good or better, but not to save cash. That would mean that unqualified teachers were only hired when they were absolutely sure they were better as there would be a higher risk to do otherwise.

I also think that the "academic enthusiasm" counts for a lot - as shown by the success of programs like teach first.

domino
so how do we make Gove change his mind before the damage is done?

Whats the difference between someone who has an intention to do a qualification on the job and someone who doesn't?

At DH's college they won't let you do it during your first year as they want you to get to grips with teaching first. If you make a success of that first year and get the required results across the board (which are a fairly high par) then presumably a teaching qualification isn't going to make a radical difference to your performance? Though I accept its still useful.

Domino: they must be ok at planning / evaluation and controlling the children though? Or presumably they wouldn't still have jobs?

Another good (and more amusing) thread on this here community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/593869.aspx