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.

acadamies have always had a lot of freedom. several years ago a colleague was supporting (by being constantly available via mobile phone and internet) her cousin, an engineer, who had been taken on by an academy to teach maths. no maths degree and no teacher training whatsoever. he survived.

Talkin, true, but my concern would be that it would be too easy for HTs to victimise someone who he/she feels "doesn't fit". That's so subjective.

I know teachers generally don't like being observed, but I have been teaching in a school which, until October, was in Special Measures. Having someone (SLT, LA, OFSTED) come in and observe became so common place it was unremarkable. That made a huge difference in my school. It meant that the few teachers who were crap were identified quickly, and then measures were put in place. In two cases, this led to teachers leaving (though not very quickly, which is definitely one of the major problems with the current system) and in another two, it led to effective coaching being introduced, which turned them around.

I would be very about a system which allowed HTs to make subjective decisions.

teachers in private schools do not have to be qualified, and many aren't. i know of only one teacher of Eton, and he definitely did not do any teacher training. he has a first from Oxford.

lovebunny - another thread a while ago proved that a great many MN posters don't understand that a first from Oxford but no PGCE means that a teacher is "unqualified".

I too know people who teach/have taught in private schools but have no teaching qualification.

The system is in place now.

Teachers are constantly monitored, not appraised one a year. Last year someone in my department went onto capability, after a period of intervention and support, and it was brutal, but quick.

The mechanisms are there. If they are not being used, that's another matter.

so by 'unqualified' here, they just mean cover supervisors, £15000 a year and not as much as an A level? many of our TAs have bachelors and/or masters degrees - so by mn standards, they are qualified teachers...

So much for all "teachers" having tave a 2:1 or above

The misty-eyed view of this is that there are, out there, untapped legions of stunning, inspirational teachers who just can't get into a classroom & start wowing us because (for reasons that are never explained) they just can't do a PGCE or GTP.

(To be fair, I do actually know one chap who might fall into this category - he can't get on to a GTP because he pissed about on his first degree 15 years ago & came out with a Desmond).

The, erm, more cynical, view, is that Gove & his cronies would quite like to privatise state education so their mates can carve it up for profit, & it helps if you can get the wage bill down a bit first...not to mention nobbling the teaching unions on general Tory principles.

So - which is the more likely outcome, really? Loads of fabulous new teachers inspiring our kids, or loads of classes being 'taught' by unqualified staff on lower salaries?

Last qualified teacher please turn out the lights...

"Closed shop!! What, like hospitals, accountancy firms, courts of law etc etc etc? "

Um, yes. Precisely.

Although I think teachers flatter themselves when they imagine an unqualified teacher is much like an unqualified surgeon.

One would hope that anyone bright enough to be a teacher would see the vested interest qualified teachers have in restricting work to qualified teachers.

I do very much agree with your point about top-set pupils, from both a practical and ideological pov. The idea that top-set pupils either need or deserve a better education than their less academic peers is anathema to me.

I'm interested in what type of qualification we're talking about. I think at secondary school I would be more concerned that the teacher had a relevant degree than a PGCE. At primary I would think a teaching degree would be desirable.

Does anyone rate the PGCE as a qualification? There seem to be a lot of crappy teachers getting through it.

I accept that subject knowledge does not a teacher make, but neither IMO does a PGCE. At least the subject knowledge is a useful prerequisite.

Classroom experience is invaluable.

Someone earlier mentioned long-term commitment to teaching as bring important. I'm conflicted about that - experience counts for so much, but I certainly wouldn't want to rule out talented individuals who just want to teach for a while.

lovebunny

they don't have QTS
so they are not qualified teachers.

My HT told me the other day that she got a 2:2. We were discussing her son and my godson, who have both just got 1sts from Liverpool. She is a bloody brilliant HT. Her lack of 2:1 is not preventing her from doing her job well.

She does, however, have a PGCE.

"The misty-eyed view of this is that there are, out there, untapped legions of stunning, inspirational teachers who just can't get into a classroom & start wowing us because (for reasons that are never explained) they just can't do a PGCE or GTP."

And that's certainly NOT the government's intention, since they're actively trying to filter out anyone who has achieved less than a first class degree.

yes, boneybackjefferson, that's what we say at work. not qts!

Athing - teaching is not something which can be done automatically by clever people. Far from it. It is a skill which has to be learned and refined over time.

One of the teachers who was sacked from my school last year after being on capability is a Doctor. She is a very intelligent woman, who knows loads about her subject. She is not a good teacher though.

Yes, people rate the PGCE as a qualification. Having done one, I can tell you that it was the most intense and difficult year of my life, as it should be. It gives you that invaluable classroom experience of which you speak, for a start.

I think it is a real mistake to assume that a good degree is better than a PGCE or could be used in place of one. I learned my subject at A Level and degree level. I learned how to apply my knowledge in a classroom situation in my PGCE. Since beginning my career, I have continued to train constantly, and am now very good at my job. I would never assume that there is not more I can learn though.

"I accept that subject knowledge does not a teacher make, but neither IMO does a PGCE."

Which part of the PGCE qualification do you object to, AThingInYourLife?

Kids in state schools are already taught by TAs and Cover supervisors.

SEN kids are routinely being taught by TAs instead of teachers.

For some reason that's OK.

Thing is, Kim, that person teaching bottom set maths may also be teaching the A Level group. No teacher in secondary just teaches one class.

I agree that subject knowledge is important, but I wouldn't have been able to walk into a classroom armed only with my 2:1 from an RG and be able to teach Yr 8 English. Learning how to use your subject knowledge is very important, and that's what the PGCE is for, IMO.

"an engineer, who had been taken on by an academy to teach maths. no maths degree and no teacher training whatsoever. he survived"

I'd like to think that our expectations of the education system were higher than the survival of teachers

"teaching is not something which can be done automatically by clever people. Far from it. It is a skill which has to be learned and refined over time. "

Yes, I know that. I never said otherwise.

However what you get coming out of PGCEs are a lot of not very clever people, with poor critical thinking who have bought into a lot of guff about the importance of paperwork.

"I can tell you that it was the most intense and difficult year of my life, as it should be."

Why should it be the most intense and difficult year of your life?

And what does its intensity and difficulty prove in terms of its quality?

You could spend a very intense and difficult year wasting your time on the utterly pointless.

Love bunny - very intelligent and motivated children are an absolute doddle to teach as long as you have good subject knowledge and a bit of charisma.

You chuck 'em a morsal of an idea and they squeeze the marrow out of it with just a little nudging and direction from the teacher.

Totally different from teaching groups of 30 children where many will be disengaged from learning, have a narrow frame of reference and where you're teaching within the tight framework of the national curriculum.

"However what you get coming out of PGCEs are a lot of not very clever people"

Wow. How insulting.

Intense and difficult because it involved a lot of work, long hours, a very steep learning curve. Trying to make the point that it wasn't easy. It's not for everyone.

And I am very clever, thanks. No need to be so rude.

I used to tutor children for GCSE French and German. I only have A level in both, but am pretty fluent and understand the grammar. I got pretty good results - a B in both for a boy who was predicted two Ds.

My PGCE was pretty crap, as it happens - too much time being waffled at about Thinking Hats. I learnt more in my first two weeks of actually being a teacher...

But I had to pass my probationary year ie. not be a complete chocolate fireguard or I would not have been able to carry on teaching.

Bit different from the chair of govs. at some dubious for-profit Cackademy appointing random mates of his who have failed to find gainful employment elsewhere, which is something this opens the door to.

Or 'oh Mr Smith isn't coming back since his nervous breakdown, but frankly we could do with saving a few quid in Geography - let's just get the TA to muddle through with the kids who won't be doing Ebacc.'