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.

While I'm here, if you don't need a teaching qualification, why on earth do you need a criminal record check?

Cross posted but I agree mostly with pointy. I tutor. I couldn't teach. Only thing I would say is, it's not true tutored children are motivated to learn and often the opposite - you might be tutoring them because they've failed or refused to learn in class.

It is a totally different skill though.

I've got a PhD and two MPhils and have been teaching classes for five years in my subject, yet have been told I need qualifications to get a permanent teaching job (even in the independent sector). I'm happy to do a qualification but I come highly trained as a teacher and with excellent recommendations. It doesn't mean I'm crap.

"I refuse to call them teachers because, er..they're not"

So unless someone has done a PGCE, you don't think they should be called a teacher?

Seriously?

That is some terrifying philistinism.

"would be as sanguine to go to a brilliant non-qualified surgeon?"

The surgeon argument really is the refuge of the weak when it comes to professions trying to protect themselves from competition.

In what ways do you think teaching (or should that be Teaching (TM)? ) is like performing surgery?

"Why shouldn't a head teacher be allowed to hire someone as a teacher just because they don't have a PGCE?"

How will they have any knowledge of whether that person can actually teach?

Which children/classes are they going to sacrifice and what about the education of those children if it turns out the "teacher" is no good or simply doesn't like the job?

As a parent I would NOT be happy if my child's education was in the hands of an unqualified and potentially disastrous "teacher".

AThingInYourLife

You still have not stated which part of PGCE courses you object to.

Why are you so against the PGCE as a qualification?

"If the training is so useful, so utterly essential, then they wouldn't want to."

Unless they could pay an unqualified teacher half the salary.

Surely if unqualified teachers are as good as qualified teachers, they should receive the same pay? If they did, heads might not be so keen to employ them.

"So unless someone has done a PGCE, you don't think they should be called a teacher?"

No. In the same way as you can represent yourself in court, but not be a lawyer unless you are qualified.

AThingInYourLife "philistinism" on my part? Do you know what the word means? Look it up, and try and make it fit what I said.

The comparison between the teacher and the surgeon is valid, as it would be had I chosen plumber or electrician. It's about basic qualifications. I in know way assume anyone with a qualification is going to be fantastic at what they do, but regard the entry qualifications assume kind of screening. This is the same for surgeons.

I find it interesting, that only teaching is so regarded as the automatic preserve of the enthusiastic amateur.

Yikes "no", not "know".

'Why shouldn't a head teacher be allowed to hire someone as a teacher just because they don't have a PGCE?'

They can - they can enroll in the GTP.

I have no objections at all to alternatives to the PGCE.

It's Qualified Teacher Status that needs to be protected; no real problem with different routes in getting there.

pesh - I can believe you personally might be highly trained, and an excellent teacher. But loads of people wouldn't be, and MPhils, PhDs and classroom experience do not necessarily make someone a good or even halfway decent teacher. Particularly the first two - you could do these without ever teaching anyone anything.

So what is wrong with saying that, because these experiences don't necessarily prepare you to teach at school, you need to get a proper qualification and prove yourself? I think children deserve that.

At least all the tosspots who moan about how easy teaching is can rock up to their local academy and have a go at it.

Btw, I'm a qualified TA and have NEVER been asked to cover a class... nor would I, I'm not qualified.

The Tories hate teachers, this is not a move to benefit kids. Firstly it will allow academies to turn a bigger profit by employing cheaper staff. Secondly it will completely undermine and dismantle the whole profession.

Good point, raven- some of us, myself included, are using 'PGCE' to indicate QTS, which is inaccurate.

Athing - "I don't want to see pupils being taught by people unqualified to be there, but that doesn't mean I care very much whether they have a PGCE."

You don't get it, love, do you? Having a PGCE means that they are qualified to be there.

Not having QTS (which is what the PGCE leads to) means that they are not qualified to be there.

So your statement is somewhat contradictory.

What you mean is that you want pupils to be taught by someone with a degree. That's not the same as being qualified to teach.

Put it like this. I had my hair cut this afternoon. I have three A Levels, a degree and a postgrad. The lovely young woman who cut my hair left school at 16 (she told me this today). Who is better qualified? I expect many would say that I am, with my univeristy education. But who is better qualifed to cut hair? The point being that being "qualified" is not the same being being qualified to be a teacher.

OK how about people look at it like this: The PGCE/QTS qualification is a bt like having your driving licence - you are now qualified to drive, but still have a lot to learn to be a good driver.

Do people seriously want lots of people without driving licences on the road? yes some of them will be able to drive anyway, but lots wont. The PGCE/QTA year is a similar basic training and weeding out of those who just can't hack it.... but is no guarantee that you will be good. Performance Management then further weeds out/rewards...

(Sorry for typos - typing in the dark next to fitfully sleeping baby)

Actually I think yabu. I agree primary teachers and even some secondary teachers need qualifications to deal with classroom management etc but 6th form I really don't see as an issue. Partly, because it's an opt in system the students want to be there so you naturally get less behaviour issues and have less classroom management to deal with. Also as it's vaguely selective there is less variation in the levels of the students.

My dh is a teacher at 6th form and not qualified. Did his degree at Oxford and had to teach a 45 minute lesson before being offered the job, had to show his lesson plan etc etc. He was up against lots of qualified teachers (all being offered the same wage so not an expense thing) and got the job. Like others have said - he got a reduced time table, intensive mentoring before he started, extra planning time, observed lots of other lessons, had his observed a lot etc etc

For the poster up thread who asked if Westminster employ unqualified teachers - yes they do. Westminster advertise jobs to Oxford and Cambridge graduates directly - sometimes they ask tutors to pass details along to students they recommend. Mind you - I think the philosophy in Westminster is slightly different in that it values going beyond the curriculum so people with better degrees may be what they are looking for.

More generally- even if they're not qualified the teacher has to actually get the job in the first place! They're not going to employ someone who is clearly crap! You have to talk about how you would handle behavioural issues etc...

"Partly, because it's an opt in system the students want to be there so you naturally get less behaviour issues and have less classroom management to deal with. Also as it's vaguely selective there is less variation in the levels of the students."

Do you think this will change when education is compulsory until 18 in 2015?

It may not be an issue if your dh is teaching exclusively 6th form - young adults past compulsory education age & having opted to study a subject that has been 'sold' to them already.

By a qualified teacher, probably!

As for your 'more general' comments:

'They're not going to employ someone who is clearly crap!'

If you start routinely employing people who've never taught on the basis that they gave a decent interview, you are inevitably going to take on quite a few who subsequently turn out to be crap, though.

Talking about how you'd handle behavioural issues isn't quite the same thing as doing it. Being able to put together a good interview lesson is not the same thing as being able to teach to a credible standard all term.

Atm, you need to demonstrate a certain level of sustained competence to gain QTS. I'm not too fussy whether that is established via PGCE, GTP, or whatever, & I think we absolutely should be encouraging less conventional candidates to have a crack at it, but I do think it's massively important that you qualify by showing that you can do the job before you're allowed to potter on doing it for 40 or 50 years.

Gove is an idiot.

I didn't think - forgive me, having never done it! - that teacher training was all or mostly about behaviour management. Yet that seems to be the thing most emphasized by people saying it's not necessary if you teach private/sixth form.

There are loads of other skills teachers need.

I think we used to have more 'maverick', eccentric and excellent teachers due to the autonomous nature of the profession.

With the advent of the National Curriculum and OFSTED, the autonomy is gone; this, I believe, makes it a less attractive profession to the high achieving, academically qualified subject specialists this and previous governments seem so keen to recruit.

It would be far more effective to restore a degree of autonomy rather than doing away with qualification requirements.

That makes sense.

Also, having been taught by several teachers who had no training whatsoever, I can say anecdotally that they were all but one the most conventional and unexciting teachers I had. They had no idea of how to do anything interesting or different at all.

And had the added drawback that they'd never thought what it was to struggle or to think differently from themselves so were very impatient with people who either struggled or pushed boundaries.

but the high achievers squabble for places on teachfirst! they're out there doing vso or any mad scheme to make them look interesting on their application forms, to bolster up their oxbridge first and make them attractive to inner city schools.

Gove is an idiot.
a one-off. a weirdo. a meglomaniac.