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.

Pleasesleep
"does your opinion change at sixth form where they have opted to be there?"

We are heading for the first group of pupils that will have no choice but to stay in education, It will be interesting to see how many 6th form teachers cope with pupils who are just staying on because they know the school.

Yes, Boneyback, my DD has just finished Y9, and she is the first cohort that HAS to stay in some form of Education until 18. I would love to sit in on an A-level course where bright but severely dyslexic DC's that can't READ the textbooks and need a scribe to write for them, and watch an unqualified teacher have to differentiate an A-level lesson for them...

And to answer your question about Academy Grammars, well, their pupil population is hardly representative of the normal 'Comprehensive' intake, is it? Their intake is made up of the however many percent most academic DC's, that WANT to be there, and have chosen to sit entrance exams to do so.

Not quite the same as in a Comprehensive, where there can be an attainment spread of 3-4 years or more EITHER SIDE of the average for that year group. In my DD's bottom set Maths group for example, there are DC's working on NC level one, right up to NC level 4medium. DD is just about hitting NC level 4high, so is being moved up to the middle set. Which will cover NC levels from 4high to level 7low. Anyone working above level 7low goes into top set.

Could an unqualified teacher effectively differentiate for the spread of levels within a class? Could they control the high levels of DC's with both behavioural issues AND pretty severe SEN that are all mixed up in the bottom set? Could they cope with helping to explain a method of working out a sum to a DC with Dyscalculia at the same time as dealing with a DC that is calling him a cunt, at the same time as stopping the DC with Autism from having a meltdown, and breaking up a fight in the classroom, while keeping the rest of the class engaged and learning?

I bloody doubt it.

The situation in Private schools, or a Grammar Academy is somewhat different to the reality of a Comprehensive school that has converted to an Academy.

not all 6th form students are there due to their own choice a lot have been forced to stay on, a lot have been forced to take a subject.....teaching 6th form does not mean that you have a room of students all eager to study!

TalkinPeace2 - God only knows. I am a Tory (used to work at their Central Office) and it is so frustrating that people like Gove don't seem at all interested in the views of ordinary teachers.

PleaseSleep - I put 'intention' to include GTP which is in effect a qualification on the job. You say 'if you make a success of that first year' - bit late then, surely.
To be fair, they may not anymore - this was a few years ago but I am damn sure that 10 or so kids who went to prep school demand a lot less planning than 30 in a comp. Many private schools also teach what they want and don't report/assess in the same way as state schools.

It's not just about 'behaviour management', although that is probably going to be less of a challenge in a school where pupils have been picked because of their enthusiasm and aptitude for learning.

A state school teacher has to teach (and provide pastoral care) for anybody who turns up in their class, whether they are an asylum seeker who speaks no English, a child who is on the borderline of being able to access mainstream education because of special needs, or a child of travellers who is only going to be there for a few weeks, or somebody who is destined to win a Nobel prize (who may also be an asylum seeker/traveller/have special needs).

Perhaps, the PGCE and other routes to teaching don't provide adequate training for teachers to deal with this range of children, and perhaps some teachers are a bit rubbish, but to suggest that state school teachers therefore need no training is mind boggling. I can't really imagine the scenario where somebody would be desperate to take on all these responsibilities, but not want to receive any training?

(Phone call in the head teacher's office: "No don't worry, you will be teaching the special class of children who are really very interested in what you are teaching, and you don't need to bother with any of that paperwork stuff, your assistant will sort that out - there will be somebody on hand to deal with any personal problems the children may have, and if any of them get a bit tricky, just send them out - one of the trained teachers will deal with those kinds of children - yes we've sorted out the salary you wanted - we're just so glad you chose us over Eton! - we are sure that Govey chap will be getting back to us on funding for your support staff any minute!")

Migsy1

How on earth am I "exactly the type of person" you are talking about when you are talking about the posters on the TES etc? I do not believe what they believe. What you are saying about ME now is offensive and does not make sense.

"I'm not discrediting the profession. I am talking about its public image. You are reinforcing that image to me."

The image that generalisations (based on tiny minorities) of ANY profession are a bad thing? Which of course they are.

What is your profession Migsy1? Please tell me so that I can write offensive generalisations about it.

That is what you are doing.

Also, Migsy1, I suggest you stop reading the TES if you want a balanced view of teachers and teaching. It'd be like reading the Daily Mail for a balanced view of politics.

I'd love to see more passionate, industry leaders (technology, food, sports, writing) taking ad hoc individual lessons, to inspire and enthuse. But I think they would work as one-offs, 'specialists' coming in / travelling between schools, rather than being a teacher per se.

I also agree that I think it is too big a risk and gamble for unqualified teachers to be taken on as permanent teachers. Concerning.

badgercub I am an architect. I am happy to enter into any critical discussion about my profession. Plenty of people criticise architecture. I don't get upset by it or take personal offence.
Tes is generally written by teachers though isn't it? The Daily Mail is written by people with no expertise in what they are writing about. I don't think the two papers are directly comparable.

TES journalists are not teachers, no, and the quality of journalism can be questionable.

And the discussion boards vary - the Primary board, for example, is generally filled with professional discussions, whereas Opinion can be brutal (way worse than MN) and many regulars seem to be ex-teachers. I wouldn't say either the paper or the boards are representaive of our profession.

Migsy, on any one day in term time, Active Conversations easily carries around ten or more threads criticising teachers/schools in some way.

I have been on MN around 7 years, and have never once seen a thread criticising architects, so I'm not really surprised that you don't get upset by it or take personal offence. Neither do teachers, generally - unless someone actually gets personal, like you with badgercub. It wasn't necessary, imo.

I don't think I have been any more personal to Badgercub than he or she has been to me. All I said was that her views reinforce what I think is the public image of teaching.
Mumsnet is generally for parents. Of course they will be talking about what goes on in their children's school. It is the demographic.

sheeplikessleep
"I'd love to see more passionate, industry leaders (technology, food, sports, writing) taking ad hoc individual lessons, to inspire and enthuse."

Thats fine as long as they plan the lesson that they will be "teaching".

Mumsnet is generally for parents. Of course they will be talking about what goes on in their children's school. It is the demographic.

Indeed. The same cannot be said of architects, so you are unlikely to be able to empathise much here.

Badgercub You are exactly the type of person I am talking about.

That was personal and unnecessary - imo.

It's like if you actually choose to be a teacher, actively train and do it for a number of years then you must automatically be worse at the job than someone who has done something else in industry but quite fancies a crack at inspiring some young minds for a while. Is it the tired private sector good, public sector bad shtick or something else?

Badgercub You are exactly the type of person I am talking about.
"That was personal and unnecessary - imo."

Especially since I do not resemble at all the sort of person that Migsy1 is talking about. I do not believe in the things that Migsy1 is against, we are not so different but you seem to be singling me out because I have dared to defend my profession.

Plenty of people criticise architecture.

Of course people criticise architecture, but is it common for there to be, for example, hundreds of newspaper articles each year criticising the character of architects themselves?

Criticising architecture is an entirely different thing to making sweeping general statements about architects and architecture as a profession. A more accurate comparison there would be...criticising architecture versus criticising the specific contents of the national curriculum.

All I said was that her views reinforce what I think is the public image of teaching.

I still don't know what you mean about the public image of teaching. You think I am personally damaging the public image of teaching by standing against irrational and incorrect sweeping statements?

You think it's okay to judge an entire profession based on the actions of a small minority and I do not. I don't think we will agree on this matter.

I think Gove genuinely has this idealistic 'Mr Chips' vision of what education should be (forgetting that when grammar schools were universal it didn't really matter if a large number of children didn't succeed at school because they were destined for unskilled labour, and other children were assured a job in 'Daddy's firm' regardless of accomplishments so this system was never required to provide the education that children need today) and does believe that he is doing good.

I am sure that he is imagining that these untrained teachers will be a cross between Robin Williams and Jack Black. (Or maybe these films are a bit modern for him - lets just stick with Mr Chips). However, bearing in mind that there isn't currently funding organised for the secondary school places necessary for children who are in primary school now in many boroughs, I think he's just messing about with things like O'levels and unqualified teachers when he should be covering the basics like "Can I ensure that all children in Britain actually have a school place".

Is he actually solving a problem - are there huge numbers of people gagging to be teachers if only they didn't have to get a qualification?

Yes I think you are right Merrymouse.

What I do in our school is pretty much the Jack Black thing - which works great so long as someone else has already instilled discipline into the children and taught them maths and English.

So it's fine when it's the icing on the cake, particularly dealing a subject whose main purpose is enrichment like music (I suspect no more than 1500 people in the UK actually earn a main living all their working lives playing an instrument) but I think the legitimate fear is that unqualified teachers will be doing the core roles

Is he actually solving a problem - are there huge numbers of people gagging to be teachers if only they didn't have to get a qualification?

I thought that, due to spending cuts, there were large numbers of qualified teachers who were unable to find employment.

Why does Gove have to allow academies to recruit unqualified teachers?
a) Qualified teachers do not want to work in academies
b) He needs to save some money
c) He's a twat
d) All of the above

Why do it so quickly? If it's such an amazing innovation that will drastically improve the education of the nation's children whilst simultaneously creating jobs and removing barriers to employment why not announce it to great fanfare?

What's he up to?

I can't believe some people's opinions of PGCE courses. I have a 2.1 masters degree in chemistry from a rg university and have attended another rg university to study to learn some of the skills of teaching through a variety of ways (including observation, hands-on, lectures from experts, various assessments). Having secured a job I now have to undergo another year of on the job training as an NQT, with an experienced mentor and reduced timetable. Surely this is better than no training? I know from my own experience many drs and profs teaching at universities are terrible teachers.

Also if an unqualified candidate at interview outperformed all the qualified candidates then a school could take on as a GTP student (training on the job linked to a university) so it is not the case of amazing people not having the opportunity to teach. It is only to save money and devalue the profession.

Why would these experts leave their high paying fields to teach on an unqualified teachers wage? And if they were going to be paid the same as fully qualified teachers then why not help them progress in their career by supporting their training by putting them on an ITT program? There is no reason not to expect expense; both in terms of time and money.

They're only using unqualified ones because they can't get qualified ones. Yes. The great academies development programme. A ton of schools that parents worry about and teachers don't want to work in. Marvellous. Free schools next.

Absolutely nkf this coalition is pure evil

NanaNina and NKF
The coalition are not evil. That would imply intelligence and intention.
Neither of which is the case.

They are just ill informed, narrow minded little rich boys who have never seen outside of gothic buildings (Eton and Westminster) and are being sucked up to by all around them who want their jobs next.

Politics will become increasingly irrelevant until MPs are FORCED to have worked for a minimum of five years outside party politics before standing.
And that includes not being an elected member or paid adviser of any sort in that time.

Well the dictionary definition of evil is "morally bad, wicked, harmful or tending to harm, intentionally or characteristically, disagreeable or unpleasant" - sums them really doesn't it.

Agree with your sentiment of course TalkinPeace

TalkinPeace2 right because balir and brown were poor boys from the getto and ed is from the streets and has really known hardship

nkf its not my childs outstanding 85% pass rate Acadmie in the foundation subjects i worry about really

I dont worry about grammer schools
I dont worry about private
I dont worry about church schools
I do worry about the woeful comp down the bottom of my road its a shame that we wont take not from schools that are doing well but instead say steady on the course we are on which is clearly wrong

I dont know what the answer is but what labour were doing was not working and those who think it was are off their rocker