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.

[Petrasmumma]

I have no problem with someone teaching who doesn't have a teaching qual, but I do expect them to have a degree in that subject, period.

Teaching quals do not prove someone can/can't teach. Generally, your average PGCE student is not someone organised with a love of their subject and no PGCE is going to change that.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Petrasmumma

"Generally, your average PGCE student is not someone organised with a love of their subject and no PGCE is going to change that."

Could you explain how you know that or have you just made it up for effect?

[inkyfingers]

Petrasmumma
Why would a graduate automatically be a better teacher than a grad with a PGCE? Why would the latter strangely not have a love for their subject? And why is the possession of a PGCE not prove that someone can teach? They have to pass innumerable observed lessons. they may not be a great teacher, but will have more experience and knowledge of the classroom.

[Liketochat1]

Haven't read the whole thread (slap wrist!) but I shouldn't worry op. So many 'qualified' teachers seem to have so little training that it may not make much difference!

[inkyfingers]

seem to have so little training
How much should they have then?

[SunAtLast]

I despair at some of the opinions expressed on this thread.

Students deserve to be taught by a subject specialist who is fully trained to teach.

I feel so sorry for TAs who are being thrown in at the deep end to cut costs.

Pgce gives graduates a chance to experience different schools, to build up confidence and experience. To gain knowledge that with a full timetable would be impossible to do.

I've been teaching in state secondary for 14 yrs and every year is a challenge. Group sizes are increasing yearly. I have 31 in my ks3, 26 in ks4/5 groups and my job has never been more difficult given the sheer volume of students and their various needs. Over the last few years I have watched corners being cut and teachers workload and expectations of them increase. Our morale is so low just now and now we are being told that anyone can do our job. Gove is an idiot.

[EvilSynchronisedDivers]

IMO those posters saying that a graduate with subject knowledge but no PGCE is as good as/better than a fully QUALIFIED (ie with QTS) teacher are talking crap. I actually think that a skilled and experienced teacher can pretty much take on any subject. A brilliant colleague of mine is trained to teach English. Her degree is drama, which she also teaches. This year, she has also taught Health & Social Care up to level 3, and next year will be teaching GCSE Childcare. She regularly gets outstanding verdicts for observed lessons and her results are excellent. One of our Maths teachers is a History graduate. He is also an excellent Maths teacher. The head of our MFL dept is about to start teaching Spanish, despite not having a degree in it. Having subject knowledge is not the most important thing by any stretch.

[Gentleness]

Oooh, I disagree so strongly about that generalisation Evil. Yes, teaching skills are incredibly important but there are some subjects where proper in-depth understanding of the next several steps will make a huge difference to how you teach, how you handle misconceptions and how you drop in pointers to the next step. Ask any maths specialist or mfl

[Gentleness]

(sorry, child on lap wriggling!)

... Ask any maths or mfl specialist working in primary about how poor subject knowledge can be worse for a child's future learning than nothing.

[EvilSynchronisedDivers]

I recently completed the Outstanding Teacher Programme and one of the exercises involved is to work with two other outstanding teachers from your school to plan, prepare and teach a lesson outside of your subject specialism. The point being to prove that it IS possible to teach well outside of your subject area. It's a very successful course. In all of the schools I've taught in, there has been excellent teaching in areas where the teacher was not teaching their own subject.

And in primary, ALL teachers teach outside of their subject area. My DSis is a primary teacher. Her degree was international business and German.

[Gentleness]

I am not sure how team preparation of one successful lesson proves that subject specialists don't bring something extra and important to education in their area that non-specialists are not equipped to provide. If a teacher is outstanding at teaching but has limited subject knowledge, the lesson will lack a dimension of scope which might be fine for some lessons in a series, but not for longterm education.

There's an awful lot that could be improved in primary by taking the unique overview a good subject specialist can provide. And in my experience, the time for staff training goes on core subjects and systems.

[EvilSynchronisedDivers]

So do you think that primary teaching should be done more like secondary? Should primary children have a different teacher for each curriculum area?

The OTP lesson may have been a one-off, but I maintain that a skilled teacher can (and many do) teach very very well outside of their subject specialism.

[inkyfingers]

Some teachers can manage cross-subjects really well, some are brilliant. Each MNetter's anecdote proves the point they want to make. But some teachers are OK, some average, some for lots of reasons don't put in the planning/CPD that they could do to be better.