to ask about Gove allowing schools to employ unqualified teachers?

[LordElpuz]

I heard it was on the cards but didn't know he'd already implemented it (has he?).

So a "teacher" doesn't need Qualified Teacher Status to teach in a school any more? Is this primary and secondary?

Does that mean that DS's Head Teacher could let the TAs take over the class permanently?

Is this really happening or are HT's being ethical about it and only employing teachers with QTS?

I'm all for it. I think there are some excellent individuals who could deliver fabulous lessons without having QTS.

I went to private school and was taught amongst others by professional actors in drama, professional musicians, DT was taught by a skilled carpenter.

My husband is doing some teaching in his field to absolute rave reviews - he cannot take all the schools he's offered - he isn't QTS.

I don't believe you need a qualification to be able to impart knowledge.

I have two separate teaching qualifications. I did a 3 year Teaching Certificate back in 1962/65 and then a 3 year BEd degree 10 years later. My TC was the most useful in practical terms but the degree became essential to progress up the salary levels. It used to be possible for any graduate to teach without further training which accounted for many of the very academic uncharismatic teachers we had in the Grammar Schools.
If teaching is a profession then teacherrs need proper training and a commensurate salary. If we value our children's education then we should be fighting for better qualified teachers not worse.

"If parents wish to pay to send their children to private schools where they will be taught by unqualified teachers, then that is entirely their prerogative. However, I would expect the state to maintain certain minimum standards within publicly funded schools, and employing appropriately qualified staff is one of them."

That would be a perfectly valid comment only if the minimum standards and end results in state schools matched those of independent schools. The fact is that they very rarely do so perhaps the independent sector can teach the state system a few things.

It was said above but needs saying again. NQTs have been teaching successfully for years. This is seen not just in independent schools but in home education too. There are hundreds, thousands of very capable home educating parents out there. Some are qualified teachers but research suggests that the majority aren't.

I think it depends whether it's being used to bring unqualified but brilliant teachers into teaching, like my husband who has a phd in his subject and has taught at university level for 20 years. Or to save money by bringing in people like me who have no relevant experience so would be much cheaper but would most likely just sit in the corner and cry.

gordy - no of course not anyone can do it. But those who can do it don't have the ability to do it because they did a year long course on it with 3 or 4 months heavily guided experience thrown in, they can do it because they are a) intelligent and have studied their subject to an advanced standard, b) passionate about it, c) have personality traits that make them good at teaching and discipline and d) they have improved over time, through doing it. If a person on a PGCE doesn't have a, b and c they won't be a good teacher anyway and if a person without a PGCE does have them then the chances are they will be.

The biggest surprise for people would be the number of teachers in the private sector who are not trained or qualified as a teacher!

I mean private schools !!

Is there any evidence that those with PGCE's are better teachers?

It's true that some people are just natural teachers - I've come across a few in my time. But I'm disturbed at the idea that unqualified teachers should become the norm - surely making everyone do a teaching qualification guarantees some kind of minimum standard that teachers should have.

My husband is an "unqualified" teacher in a state school. He is a primary music specialist, with a BA (First), MMus and LRAM (teaching qualification from the Royal Academy of Music) and years of teaching experience. He is excellent at his job and is highly sought after.

However he doesn't have QTS because a) we can't afford for him to give up his job for a year to do a PGCE (and then find another primary music job which are rare ad when's teeth) and b) he is not in the slightest interested in having to teach phonics, maths, geography etc which is what he'd have to do for a year as an NQT.

I wish he had QTS though because his pay would be much higher.

Rare as when's teeth, should say!

"surely making everyone do a teaching qualification guarantees some kind of minimum standard that teachers should have."

Logic suggests that but reality doesn't bear it out. If it did there would be no underperforming/poor/crap qualified teachers, no QTs who threw in the towel after a couple of years because they can't cope with the children any more.

I don't believe that there are any guarantees but I do feel that by not following the successful example set for decades by independent schools and home educators state schools are missing out.

People do not leave teaching because they can't cope with the children, they leave because of the actual volume of work required and the ten tons of bullshit admin and form filling and hours of meetings definitely nit the children

That's not what a (totally unsuited to the job imho but perfectly adequately qualified) family member told me when she left the profession after 2 years, monkeysox.

Of course people do leave teaching because they can't cope with the children. They leave for all manner of reasons but to say that inability to cope with the children isn't one of them is disingenuous at the very least.

I think this will be misused by schools seeking cheap replacements for teachers. So I don't support it.

But I actually agree with the principle that a teacher can be great without a PGCE. You can't be great without previous experience. But there are plenty of jobs where you get that e.g. an experienced trainer of 19-20 year olds may be a great 6th form teacher. A brilliant youth worker used to running sessions on PHSE topics, or a person who currently teaches music or drama outside of school.

The reality is there are people who are not qualified teachers, who already teach.

Something that has started happening more and more over the past year or so, is TAs doing PPA cover.

The cynic in me thinks this is just a way of saving money - a cover supervisor wage is a fraction of the price of a supply teacher.

But then I think about some of the wonderful TAs I've encountered, and the fact that the children being taught for half a day a week by somebody who already knows them just as well as the class teacher does, and knows exactly what they've been doing all week - surely that's far better for the childrens' continuity?

If it is a day or two, I think a TA is better than a supply teacher usually. But not for long term absences.

I remember when the post of TA was created and the Government assured us their role would be to do things like photocopying.

People certainly do leave the profession because they can't cope with the children. I almost did. I almost had a nervous breakdown over my NQT year. My discipline was absolutely shit and the children were running rings around me. I only just passed. And I was a qualified teacher who'd just done a PGCE. But I learned by pushing through it. I haven't had any discipline problems for years. I learned to discipline by doing it.

Trained teachers will have gained valuable teaching experience in a few different schools, as well as studying the theory and history of teaching methods, planning lessons and discussing what works (or not) with their fellow trainees and experienced teachers. This doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who stays the course is a great teacher, but some will be, and it has to be better than just chucking a newbie in at the deep end.

A sixth former or IT/science technician who actually knew some computing would be vastly better than the fully qualified teacher, the DDs had, who knew how to turn on word.

Likewise there will be days when the science tech probably has a lot more idea than a random supply teacher.

But in general, Gove, is of course a twat.

The fact that there are some unqualified teachers who happen to be quite good is irrelevant. There will be many more who aren't.

Having expertise in a subject does not mean that you are any good at imparting that knowledge to others, and least of all to young children. You only need to look at the very poor quality of teaching in many universities, where too many lecturers see teaching as a necessary inconvenience that gets in the way of their research.

I recognise that the quality of teaching in our schools isn't always up to scratch, but we are not going to improve this by devaluing the professional status of teachers and suggesting that anybody can do it if they happen to know a little about the subject area. Teaching is a skill and should be recognised as such.

The teachers at my dd's school are amazing - true professionals in their sphere. It makes me so cross when idiots like Gove belittle what they do without any relevant professional experience of his own!

If the sixth former or IT/science technician then went and got a PGCE and experience of teaching in various schools, they'd be better still.

"where too many lecturers see teaching as a necessary inconvenience that gets in the way of their research."

In fairness University lecturers are rewarded for their research. It is that that will lead to promotion and accolades. No one, except the students, care if your teaching is crap.

In principle I agree that all teachers should be qualified.

But then i think back to one of the best teachers I ever had and without whom I wouldn't be where I am today and remember that he wasn't qualified at all. But boy could he teach & explain things in a way that you understood.

Then I'm more torn.