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.

"most Academies are Inner City Comps"
WTF are you on about?
Half of all Secondaries ain England are now Academies.

Every school here, incl grammars is an academy!

When mine converted in January we were one of a very small handful that hadn't already. The vast majority had done so without any outside changes so there were no bells and whistles relaunches.

Didn't realise there were so many. I'm in Manchester (south) most round my way still are not academies but some are in the process of converting.

They would get classroom experience though - on the job. A PGCE isn't a great deal more than that. Out of 36 weeks of a PGCE 24 are in placements.

Would they know how to structure a literacy lesson so that non-readers and those with dyslexia are not disengaged
I have dyslexic children and none of their teachers (QTS) know the first thing about dyslexia. It is NOT a compulsory part of teacher training.

Teaching is not just about classroom management or about subject knowledge. Both these are very very important but crucially teachers need to know about how children learn best, how children develop, how to plan in the long term not just one lesson but a whole terms worth of work with appropriate progress, differentiation etc, the planning cycle, etc. Knowledge of the 'science of teaching' - pedagogy - is crucial. That is what teacher training should be about and my concern is that all these different 'on the job' training of teachers do not always cover this. If trainers / supervisors / motivators etc are employed without QTS and without knowledge of 'how' to teach and more importantly why to teach in that way then it is the children who will be let down.

Just as an aside if parents have a negative view as teachers and teaching they will then pass this attitude to their children who will not have respect for their teachers then bad behaviour will increase and all children will suffer. Back in those mythical 'golden days' teachers on the whole were held in high esteem.

The most useful part of my PGCE was being able to shadow and observe experienced teachers - watch their styles and work out how my personal teaching style was going to be. I saw good examples and bad examples, often in the same lesson, and it gave me a great insight into the complexity of the profession.

You need to have that opportunity to reflect on your own practice and have time to work on your weaknesses - and flinging someone into a classroom to let them get on with it just doesn't give you the same depth of experience. If it were down to headteachers I would imagine that they wouldn't waste the cost of one salary to have someone hanging around observing all the time. They'd want value for money - so goodbye time to reflect and evaluate, hello 'here's your timetable, off you go'.

If I were Secretary for Education, I'd make all teachers spend one lesson a week observing other staff - not as a box ticking, slagging off Ofstedathon, but as an opportunity to learn from each other and develop. Still, don't think there's much chance of that, given that I have some idea of what it's like to be a teacher and all...

Well I'm a qualified teacher, I've taken a 14 year break and am trying to get work as a TA. It seems no one wants me.

Talkin I went to a boarding school that had a fair few children who were in care. They attending boarding school and then stayed with foster parents during the holidays. I know this because one girl was in my sisters year and my father was upset that she was left behind with another girl whose grandmother lived somewhat close to us. After that either or both of the girls always came home with us if her foster family/grandmother were not able to pick them up. It wasn't something that was out there. My Dad never told us what was going on but the girl in my sisters year told my sister after she was accepted into university.

Going back to the OP. I think one has to be very very careful about hiring unqualified teachers. I had two chemistry teachers who had PhD's. Both studied at Cambridge and completed their PhD's at RG universities. Neither of them had a teaching certificate or formal training in teaching yet they were amazing teachers. At the same time an English teacher who was from Oxford was the worst teacher I had. She wasn't a qualified teacher and should not have been allowed to set foot in a classroom.

If someone is good enough and wants to do something they will get qualified. Both chemistry teachers would have danced their way through a teaching exam. The English teacher might have learnt something or would have failed.

When I take my child to the doctors, I expect the doctors to have the relevant qualifications and experience to treat them.

When I choose someone to teach my child, I expect them to have the relevant qualifications and experience to teach them.

Non state schools successfully use unqualified teachers to teach (although they may be highly qualified in other areas). However, the essential difference is that non-state schools are also free to choose their intake and class sizes.

10 selected children working with an expert in their field may be an amazing educational opportunity. But why would you want to make somebody responsible for the pastoral care and education of 30 children from varying backgrounds and with different academic requirements without ensuring that they had received training?

A lot of people have pointed out that one of the difficult parts of teaching is differentiating work for students and that teaching or tutoring smaller groups, who are all at the same level, is much easier.

Why are we so stuck with the idea that students should be grouped by age?

I'm a qualified teacher.

I did a BA in education, and have QTS, so no post-grad.

Most if the course was spent in schools, on the job.
Bloody good job, IMO, since SEN theory was mentioned precisely once, for one afternoon session.

Behaviour management was a massive focus though. I did my training in inner London comprehensives, one of which had an 83% EAL rate, and 55% SEN. That was reasonably gruelling, but I can now confidently assure you that I could teach pretty much anywhere.

I saw qualified teachers in that school leaving the room in tears (men and women.) You would get such gems as "I'm going to fucking rape you, miss." These are kids who need strong, consistent boundaries from well-trained, consistent individuals.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that highly trained captains of industry might be able to impart information to a well- motivated top set who are interested in learning.

Dump them in a session with my year 9 group that contained variously
-a 6', 18 stone child who had a reading age of about 5, so acted out to hide it

• a boy with no English at all, recently arrived from a country where he had been a soldier
• a girl who lived separated from her parents in a refugee camp, in this country as an unaccompanied minor
• looked after, abused children

Plus the normal range of teenage shenanigans (who's shagging who, which wee girl is pregnant/ having a scare, who's using drugs etc)

How well would your average degree educated person on the street cope?

One class in one school, but pretty "normal" for inner city cohorts.

Teacher training is about a lot more than subject knowledge.

cokefan I really like the idea of vertical streaming (ie, mixed age) but there would still need to be differentiation!

who would be assessing these children for vertical streaming? Untrained staff?

Appalling. When I trained 6 years ago I had to work very hard to meet the standards required to gain QTS. I was observed no less than 40 times (although only three observations were made by someone from the university has I did a GTP). I went on countless courses, observed experienced teachers and learned my craft. Every week I was set specific targets to work on and I had to complete 2 huge folders of evidence to prove that I had met the standards required. My specialist subject knowledge was all I had when I started, and over the course of the year I learned how to teach, and, more importantly, how to manage behaviour. I also learned how to mark a book, how to deal with parental issues, how to write creative schemes of work that would challenge pupil learning. In fact, I could write a very long (and probably boring) list of things that I learned. After I qualified, I then had to complete and NQT year which is very similar to being put on probation. I was sent on yet more courses, observed 10 times over the year, assigned to an experienced teacher who was my mentor, given termly targets etc. Anyway, my point is, you can not just step into that kind of role just because you have good subject knowledge, there is so much more to the job than that. Teaching is a profession. You need to train in the art of teaching in order to be a good teacher. It isn't just about subject knowledge. We actually had a doctor of science come in to teach science as an unqualified instructor a few years ago and she didn't last the term. She was a very clever lady, but couldn't connect with the pupils or get them to behave. It was a disaster!

Regarding cover supervisors, a couple of years ago this role had started to change. My mum was a TA and she undertook a HLTA qualification to become a 'higher level' teaching assistant. She had to meet 32 teaching standards (my teacher training was 40) in order to gain this qualification and be able to teach whole classes in a teachers absence. I thought that this was a brilliant step forward because many TA's (including my mum) are not educated within a specific subject to degree level. My mum doesn't have any formal qualifications. She started as a volunteer and learned 'on the job'. She was employed on the lowest level but then given the opportunity to undertake several courses to get her literacy and numeracy basic skills qualifications.On the HLTA course she was taught all of the teaching skills that are taught to trainee teachers. At the time, HLTA status was required in order for a TA be able to deliver a lesson in a teachers absence. The lesson was still planned by a qualified teacher. However, the HLTA programme is being phased out now. Pupil's lessons will still require covering and supply teachers are very expensive, so schools will use unqualified people to cover lessons. It is wrong, firstly to use a TA as cheap labour without giving them the opportunity to make progress within their career, and secondly, to the pupil's whose lessons may suffer as a result.

This government makes me angry. I feel like my profession is being ruined.

cokefan, I am hugely in favour of vertical groupings; my secondary school had vertical tutor groups, which worked exceedingly well.

However, my concern about vertical streaming would be the de-motivational impact it would have on older, less able students who would find themselves in a class with many much younger children.

Also, as cornsilk points out, the assessor should be very skilled when ascertaining abilities across ages.

I think they work best as mixed ability groups.

I have taught for years in inner London mainstream secondaries and PRUs- I am a great believer in engaging children with challenging behaviour by challenging them academically. I would certainly like to see an increase in highly skilled academic graduates joining the profession, but I don't think that removing the need for a teaching qualification is the way to do this. Restoring teacher autonomy and elevating the status of teaching to that of other professions which require the same amount of dedication, training and work might just do it.

YANBU. The "best person for the job" will always be even better at it if they're properly trained and qualified.

I'm a voluntary TA in a small Catholic Primary School. All the teachers are qualified, but some of us TA's are working on getting qualifications that will allow us to teach a main class when the main teacher is out etc.

To become a qualified teacher you need to do the PGCE which is mostly school based and you also need to complete an additional year as a newly qualified teacher, after which your employing school has to sign you off as competent to teach. This means that a teacher with QTS has almost two years of classroom experience. Believe you me, you learn an awful lot about teaching in those two years.
If academies are able to employ unqualified staff then they will. They will be able to pay them a lot less and will not have to send them on continuing professional development courses. This will take jobs away from qualified teachers and will eventually undermine the teachers pay structure. Before I became a teacher I was a solicitor with a very well paid job. I was only able to afford retraining because I knew that although I would not earn the same as a teacher, I would still get a professional wage which I cold bring up a family on. I would not have considered the move if the pay structure had not been in place.

To become a qualified teacher you need to do the PGCE which is mostly school based and you also need to complete an additional year as a newly qualified teacher, after which your employing school has to sign you off as competent to teach. This means that a teacher with QTS has two years of classroom experience. Believe you me, you learn an awful lot about teaching in those two years.

That's just the PGCE trained teachers. B.Ed, BA + QTS have much more than 2 years classroom experience.

I'm an EY teacher and I think it is madness to suggest that unqualified people can teach a full class of 30 + the usual SEN, EAL, G&T concerns. My particular worry would be the impact on Early Years classes - not needing a qualified teacher really because they're only playing really aren't they.

Mumsnet Mums, how do you fancy somebody entirely unqualified in the teaching of reading to small kids being responsible for their early/ literacy development.

Mrz would have her hands full answering all the early reading problems questions that would be coming her way,

I would say it's fine to be an unqualified teacher if you are a bright graduate with an interest in children, and a bit of a flair for explaining things, teaching homogenous groups of cherry-picked children who can be booted out of the school if they are not working or if their face doesn't fit (aka most small independent schools). Frankly anyone upright and warm could make a reasonable fist of teaching such groups IMO. It's not hard.

It is not at all fine to be an unqualified teacher if you have a job in a larger school or a maintained school, because you have to have a broader range of skills in order to adapt your teaching to the needs of a diverse range of children, including those with SEN and Gifted and Talented, often in the very same group, and with more limited resources.

An analogy for me would be comparing a nurse practitioner with a GP. One can deal with a limited range of conditions, possibly very well, but a limited range of conditions none the less. The other can deal with any patient, any time, any place, anywhere, including many very serious problems.

This will take jobs away from qualified teachers and will eventually undermine the teachers pay structure

Absolutely - and I think Gove's aim is to do just that. After all, academies already do not have to abide by Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

Also, parents choose to send their children to an independent school. If they are happy that an unqualified teacher is the best fit for their child that is fine. If they don't like it they can leave.

On the other hand parents in some areas are lucky to get a state school place for their child at all, never mind pick and choose teachers. I can't see how an LA can fulfill it's duties to all pupils if it uses untrained, inexperienced teachers.

In my view i see no issue with this just because you can blag yur way trough the pgce dose not mean you can teach and as we all know control a class

For instance the best person to teach PHSE would be a youth woker they are best placed to talk in my view about the realties of sex and drugs ect

And i dare say it would be a lot easier to sack these people if they didnt do their job unlike a qaulified teacher Who seem to hang on for dear life no matter what

A quilfication means you test well and thats it

It means not you actaully understnd children

It means not you know how to behaviour manage

It means not you actually are proficent in your subject

My son has learnt more from the weekend cooking club he attends that he has Ever has from his H.E teacher

You cannot be taught how to teach and get the childrens respect

WE ALL KNOW teachers from when we were young who should not have been anywere near a school