To think polarized statements do not help debates and in fact just show ignorance

[Giggle78]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/drmartinstephen/100242992/id-rather-an-brilliant-unqualified-teacher-than-a-fully-certified-nonentity-who-teaches-without-passion/

'I would rather a brilliant teacher who is unqualified teaching my child than a qualified nonentity who teaches without passion'.

But qualification has got nothing to do with personality or passion.

Qualification is to do with ensuring that basic standards are understood and met. It is to do with the dissemination of information regarding a range of different behavioral strategies and problems that may arise. It is about ensuring a baseline/or gateway for teachers to begin their career.

Qualification is the start of a teachers journey and not the culmination of it.

Of course there will always be anecdotal evidence of a brilliant teacher who inspired classes who was not qualified but they are the exceptions and it is a very dangerous slippery slope to start beginning to make policies on exceptions.

Even if those exceptions save money which is what the erroding of teaching qualifications is really about.

Phew. Thank you. Saturday lunchtime rant over!!

eroding - sp

I haven't read the link, but surely dull and qualified versus passionate, spontaneous and unqualified is the ultimate false opposition?

I'm with you Giggle!

The thing is, I think that anyone with passion, drive and an ability to inspire should really go about channelling that by getting some teacher training before hitting the classroom, to be honest! I think that is what lots of passionate, inspiring people do.

As I see it, teacher training does a number of different things for an aspiring teacher:

1. It enables a trainee to study different theories of pedagogy and develop his/her own philosophy of education based on evidence.

1. It gives a safe and supervised space to try out teaching ideas and hone skills - teaching practice is highly supervised to ensure that children's learning is not damaged by a less experienced teacher making mistakes (which are inevitable at the beginning - no one is a naturally outstanding teaching machine however talented - it does take practice, it really does!)

1. It allows a trainee to learn about the expectations of the education system in which they will teach - there's no point in being a maverick and inspiring the children if the children are not being prepared for the next stage in their learning. It is also necessary to learn about such things as Child Protection and Safeguarding legislation.

1. It shows a real dedication to the teaching profession - no one who has done a B.ed or a PGCE, or a GTP year would claim it was easy. It is tough and rigorous and a real eye-opener in a lot of cases. What people think teaching is and what it actually involves are often not entirely the same thing! Getting through it is a mark of dedication and commitment.

1. It teaches the importance of assessment and analysing data to determine the next steps for individual children. This needs to be taught or learned during teaching practices - it would be fairly dangerous to be expected to do this straight off having been landed in a class on the basis of being 'inspiring'

It is not a case of 'qualified drone' versus 'unqualified, inspirational Dead Poet's Society teacher'

Yy, false dichotomies are a total pain in the arse, and do nothing to further arguments. Yet they are so very pervasive.

I agree completely. Ideally you'd want a teacher who was qualified AND brilliant, but there are few people in any walk of life who are brilliant at what they do. As well as guaranteeing a minimum standard, a qualification is also a sign of commitment - why wouldn't you want to do a teacher training course if you wanted to be a teacher?

OP - is your opening post a blanket statement exhibiting ignorance?

Santiagotoots
LoL

Thanks for being with me!!

I have a personal pov on this because I teach a subject that is not part of the national curriculum and so has been able to develop as each individual school as seen fit. Including using non-qualified teachers to teach it.

Drama teaching within the UK is very uneven. With students having a different experience depending on the character of their teacher and the quality or their training (or lack of training).

With some areas of the country where the students experience of drama is/will be beyond university standard. With some work being so incredible and the teachers who teach it really are inspirational. (I know a lot of them!)

In other schools it is absolutely beyond appauling. (I give this polarised view from the experience of teaching it for ten years in a number of different educational settings and having some of the best results in the country. I also examine it and see the standard across the country as a whole).

For teachers that love the subject and have the necessary skills to communicate and facilitate it, then even if there had been a national curriculum set of standards, this would not have restricted them. I believe a baseline for the subject could have helped to restrict the awful experience of drama lessons for some students. Lots of schools do not even offer the subject so for some students it is non-existent and not part of their school experience.

I just wonder if the use of unqualified teachers and lack of standards have not helped with a subject that currently runs. Why the idea of rolling this out to the whole of education is so in fashion?

This Telegraph right wing nonsense is designed to belittle teaching as a profession. Imagine the same 'I'd rather have passion than a qualification' logic applied to a doctor, surgeon, dentist, train driver, plumber, ...............

I'm torn.

I'm not greatly convinced by the inherent worth of the PGCE or the GTP. Mostly it involves being in schools, shadowing, and slowly moving on to doing it yourself. The real 'qualification' of teaching in my eyes is a degree in a relevant subject.

Theoretically my PGCE qualifies me to teach - I could not teach outside my subject area without struggling massively. I could perhaps do the subjects I studied up to A level.

I have heard countless times in my teaching career "I know X with an E in A level Maths and now they are a Maths teacher and they are BRILLIANT." Conversely, a lot of people with Firsts are scorned - they can't explain the subject to the children adequately, apparently.

I have no doubt there is truth in both yet subject knowledge, shown through a degree, is what I look for when recruiting.

Giggle78: I didn't Drama could be taught by the unqualified. The only one I know of has a BA in it, years of street and standup experience and a PGCE. I thought that was standard.

When discussing unqualified teachers, I think it's worth recognising that many of these unqualified teachers are actually qualified teachers, they just didn't qualify in the UK.