To expect a teacher to be qualified?

[Sunnysummer1]

My ds is about to start year 3 in September & I have just found out his teacher is not a qualified teacher. She has been an teaching assistant for a few years & is starting a teaching degree which she will do one afternoon a week. She has a teaching assistant qualification nvq, but nothing else. I have heard that she is a good teaching assistant and my ds likes her. She is supported by the deputy and will have a teaching assistant in the classroom in the morning. I’m trying not to worry but it just doesn’t sit comfortably with me as I thought teachers had to have a degree. She is fairly young; under 30 & doesn’t have children, if that makes any difference. Would it bother you?

I am assuming she has a degree education related and is now doing her PGCE year. Nothing wrong with that.
Many schools now employ school direct students which is the same thing!

Me too, but this isn’t fair on those with fewer or less well-regraded qualifications

They don't have to put names to the list, just a list such as:

Our three science teachers have:

Physics BSc Physics
Biology - BSc and Biology PGSE
Biology - BEd hons

Of those I had only thought of two, so not so obvious.

1. It introduces the idea of hierarchy: a qualified teacher should be judged as a qualified teacher, not a qualified teacher with a 1st or a 2.2.

I hadn't considered them to put the passing grade in as it would be unnecessary

2. It encourages children and parents to “shop around” within a school, angling for different members of staff based on the fact that one went to Oxford and the other to Sheffield Hallam.

This I had thought on but its the same in pretty much any job where they do this.

3. It is an inappropriate use of my personal information.

Hadn't thought of this and agree.

4. It exposes staff to judgements from colleagues about their intellect, when their performance is the important factor.

I would love to say that this would be for the management to work on but TBH it would probably stem from them in the first place.

floraloctopus

Which is fine, where that is the case. It’s not really fine where one or more teachers has been employed without a relevant degree. You can’t hire people into a role and then expose them as underqualified.

This I had thought on but its the same in pretty much any job where they do this.

But it shouldn’t happen anywhere.

this isn’t fair on those with fewer or less well-regraded qualifications

It is normal practice throughout the independent sector and in many state schools to publish staff qualifications. These lists don’t give the level of detail that you mention, just the post-nominal letters that the holder is entitled to use. Degree classification is never included and the awarding institution is usually only included if the staff member has a PhD, or holds an MA (Cantab.), MA (Oxon.), or MA (Dubl.).

It exposes staff to judgements from colleagues about their intellect, when their performance is the important factor.

I imagine that this is an unpopular opinion, but: if we wish to be regarded and respected as members of an intellectual profession then we should be willing to publish our academic credentials.

It is normal practice throughout the independent sector and in many state schools to publish staff qualifications. These lists don’t give the level of detail that you mention, just the post-nominal letters that the holder is entitled to use. Degree classification is never included and the awarding institution is usually only included if the staff member has a PhD, or holds an MA (Cantab.), MA (Oxon.), or MA (Dubl.).

That’s completely different. Private schools need to market themselves based on their staff qualifications, so they are fussy in their hiring practices accordingly. Mainstream schools aren’t and can’t afford to be, so there is a wide range of qualifications held by the staff body as a whole. It would be inappropriate to tell the whole world that my colleague graduated with a Desmond from an ex-poly, only for parents to start emailing the HT asking for their child to come to my class because I went to Oxbridge and that’s “better”. And it would happen.

I imagine that this is an unpopular opinion, but: if we wish to be regarded and respected as members of an intellectual profession then we should be willing to publish our academic credentials.

No, we shouldn’t. There should be a well-regraded professional qualification held by all, which, once you have it, leaves nobody concerned about your ability to teach. That’s all anybody needs to know.

There should be a well-regraded professional qualification held by all, which, once you have it, leaves nobody concerned about your ability to teach. That’s all anybody needs to know.

So a simple statement saying 'All of our staff are qualified to teach the subject that they teach'

Both of my eldest DCs were taught by an excellent teacher in secondary school who I think is perhaps not a qualified teacher, he has an exemplary reputation and has won achieved great things for the school and the pupils. In those circumstances I'm not interested in his academic qualifications, my youngest is starting GCSEs in September and I hope he gets the same teacher.

@herculepoirot2 As I said, the list won’t show the Desmond from an ex-poly. That teacher will simply be shown as J Smith, BA (Hons) PGCE, whether they have a 2:2 from an ex-poly or a First from LSE. It’s really not that an unusual practice in the state system. I’ve worked in three state schools (true comps, deprived areas) where it was done.

At the moment even getting the school to publish what percentage of their teachers hold QTS could be eye-opening.

YippieKayakOtherBuckets

It is totally unnecessary. Just make sure everyone has the right qualification.

So a simple statement saying 'All of our staff are qualified to teach the subject that they teach'

Not even that should be necessary. A simple change to government policy would ensure this was the case.

But yes, schools could easily state this as a sort of badge of quality, if they wanted to.

I respectfully disagree, @herculepoirot2. We’ve had over three hundred posts with a broad consensus that teachers should be properly qualified. I don’t think we need to get squeamish about publicising academic qualifications. It is the norm in the professions that teaching should be considered alongside, and would go some way to redressing the near-contempt that too many people have for teachers.

I don’t think we need to get squeamish about publicising academic qualifications. It is the norm in the professions that teaching should be considered alongside, and would go some way to redressing the near-contempt that too many people have for teachers.

And I respectfully disagree with you. It’s not squeamishness. It is the reassertion of QTS and the PGCE as the relevant qualifications to teach. It doesn’t matter what degree a person has, if they have attained the relevant post-grad teaching qualification.

I imagine that this is an unpopular opinion, but: if we wish to be regarded and respected as members of an intellectual profession then we should be willing to publish our academic credentials
I openly talk about my academic background. I think it's good for pupils to see and hear academic life spoken about and onward study as something to aspire to.
I'm also (possibly controversially) quite open about the fact not all universities are equal, something that will get me flamed on MN because some like to pretend that every person going to uni and graduating is the same academic level.

I'm not happy with publishing them because it's hard enough as it is when students decide in advance that they don't want to be taught by Mr blogs or Mrs Brown because they're not as smart as Mrs Green or Mr Smith. There are enough requests for class changes based on students saying they don't like a teacher. Could you imagine the level of parental requests if they had access to staff education information?
No thank you.

The best way to prove academic weight is in the quality of your teaching and by secondary the students are brilliant already at working out who does/doesn't know their stuff.

Year 3 is a pretty low risk year group. If I were running a primary school I’d obviously want my best and most experienced staff on year 2 and year 6, as those are the exam classes. If I couldn’t afford a qualified teacher in each class, I’d think year 3 was lowest risk, I’d just make sure they got a proper teacher the following year and hope they made up the lost time.

The problem with years 3, 4 and 5 not having to prove that children have made expected progress every year based on the assessment at the end KS1, is that those of us in year 6 are magically expected to make up the difference by the time they sit SATs.

I can see I won’t persuade you, Lola and Hercule, but I don’t see how the hierarchy that you envisage can come about when the info published is post nominal letters only with no detail about degree classification or awarding institution.

At the moment even getting the school to publish what percentage of their teachers hold QTS could be eye-opening.

I'd also want to know which of those have successfully completed their NQT year.

YippieKayakOtherBuckets

Nor do I, in those circumstances. I just don’t think it should be necessary. It shouldn’t be possible that the person teaching my child Maths has no degree or is not in a recognised teacher training programme that requires one, so why should I need to be informed about what that degree is?

YippieKayakOtherBuckets

I can see the point you’re making - unfortunately in the current climate, pretty much anything is used as a stick to beat teachers with.

I have a degree from a fairly shit university that had a great dept for the subject I did. The subject I did is not the subject I teach - it’s actually very closely related, but not many people would know how; they would need to know what my degree entailed. I have a stack of other qualifications around pastoral care and safeguarding, which add to my competence hugely - would I list them?

It becomes complex because a list does not allow nuance, and at the moment, the last thing teachers need is a further thing to be scrutinised and judged.

YippieKayakOtherBuckets
Because anything can be used as a stick to beat staff with.

E.g. An English teacher with a Bsc Lingusitics and Psychology has BSc next to their name but a literature specialist has BA. People without enough knowledge of the subject decide the person with a BSc mustn't be a specialist.

Someone has a BA Psychology but does a subject knowledge enhancement course for science, but a BA in the science department 'means', to some, that teacher isn't qualified enough.

Someone does an MA in an obscure area unrelated to their curriculum, but has MA after their name so people assume that makes them a 'better' teacher.

Without knowing the differences in teacher training routes, an external observer decides their child's teacher 'only' has a BA(hons) with QTS and their year partner teacher has PGCE so the one with postgraduate teacher training must be the better teacher.

A school appoints an English/Maths teacher who trained to teach in FE, they are happy with 15 years experience the teacher is good (and especially good with students with low literacy and numeracy at ks4) School is happy to put their new member of staff through assessment only QTS. Someone decides that the teacher mustn't be any good because they haven't got a PGCE.

There shouldn't be a need to publish staff qualifications and I'm not happy about yet another stick to beat staff with.

It is the norm in the professions that teaching should be considered alongside, and would go some way to redressing the near-contempt that too many people have for teachers.

No it really wouldn't. I don't particularly think there's anything wrong with publishing teachers' level of qualifications (BA Hons, PGCE, not degree class or institution), but you're mistaken if you think parents or the general public would thereby gain a new-found respect for teachers (who they probably assumed had degrees and PGCEs anyway, if they cared).

Going by threads on MN, contempt for teachers is based on many, many stupid things, but not usually a lack of a degree.

Lola have you been rooting through my CV again?

E.g. An English teacher with a Bsc Lingusitics and Psychology has BSc next to their name but a literature specialist has BA. People without enough knowledge of the subject decide the person with a BSc mustn't be a specialist

I’ve warned you about that