AIBU for thinking the DfE have got this one wrong?

[herculepoirot2]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7242631/Maths-spelling-tests-trainee-teachers-scrapped-attempt-boost-staff-numbers.html

Trainee teachers hated these tests, because they meant they could invest in a PGCE or on-the-job teacher training route, but be asked to leave because of limitations in their ability to spell or do basic calculations.

Then the Government cancelled the cap on the number of times you could take the test before being disqualified from teaching, because it was affecting recruitment numbers. Now the Government are abolishing the test altogether, because of the several thousands of potential teachers who have failed to qualify every year as a result of failing them.

Aren’t they mopping the decks on the Titanic? If teaching has become so undesirable as a profession that they can only plug the gap by recruiting people who struggle to spell twenty middle-order words, or to calculate a simple percentage value given pen and paper, shouldn’t they be dealing with the very obvious workload and behaviour issues affecting the numbers of people applying to teacher training, rather than lowering the standard of education required to do it?

I have a small child. Although I sympathise with those colleagues who have signed up to teacher training and had to leave because they couldn’t pass these tests, some of whom have been absolutely lovely, I do not want my child taught by someone whose ability to spell and do simple maths has never been tested in any robust way.

AIBU?

I do agree that this is a waste and there are other better ways to increase numbers on PGCE courses.

But if a teacher already has Maths and English GCSEs haven’t they already proved they can do these tests? The maths one especially was ridiculous - mental arithmetic that even I, who got an A* at maths GCSE struggled with.

Also who doesn’t have spell check? I virtually never teach writing as I teach a practical subject. I’m not teaching children to write, so why do I need to be able to spell embarrassed - thanks auto correct.

The tests annoyed me because GCSE maths and English at grade C or above were an entry requirement of the PGCE course so it seemed like a waste of time.
I agree that they are targeting the wrong problems to improve recruitment retention though.

I teach maths at university level and failed the maths test when I tried it a few years back. It is a test of mental arithmetic and speed, and days nothing about an individual's understanding of mathematical concepts, or their ability to foster a live of the subject in young people.

YABU.

The trainee teachers must have the qualifications to get on the course.

Sometimes it helps to have teachers who aren't the brainiest who actually understand that telling dyslexic kids to use a dictionary to find a spelling is bonkers.
If you can't get the first 2/3 letters your not finding it in a dictionary!

I get the frustration of knowing you have to pass an additional test when you have passed GCSE English, but I suppose I think that, if GCSE English is sufficient to show that you have attained a reasonable standard of literacy, why are people still failing the test? And the answer is that English GCSE tests a wider range of skills than SPAG, so you can have passed it with a C and still be unable to spell, punctuate or use grammar with any accuracy.

I don’t want my child learning reading, writing, Religious Education or History from someone who fails that literacy test. Do I want my child’s teachers to be “brainy”? I suppose I do.

The maths one... There is more of a case for saying it’s a bit redundant. Personally, I didn’t find it hard, but I can see how it had less relevance for me as a teacher of a non-mathematical subject. As a HOD I definitely needed mental arithmetic, but as a subject teacher, less so. I still think anyone who is teaching a subject with any maths in whatsoever needs to be able to model a decent mathematical ability to their pupils.

If teaching has become so undesirable as a profession that they can only plug the gap by recruiting people who struggle to spell twenty middle-order words, or to calculate a simple percentage value given pen and paper, shouldn’t they be dealing with the very obvious workload and behaviour issues affecting the numbers of people applying to teacher training, rather than lowering the standard of education required to do it

Absolutely bang on, OP.

If you try the mock skills test online they are embarrassingly easy. I wouldn't want to be taught by someone who couldn't pass those. Teachers should just be paid a reasonable amount and be given a little less workload. I'm considering leaving teaching as I have to have a weekend job to afford to live, and with the hours I put in, there wouldn't be a lot of difference if I did my weekend job full time. Plus with the cuts to the school budget, next year is going to be horrendous

Link to the test and I'll have a go!

sta.education.gov.uk/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTcvMDQvMjUvMTJfNTVfMzRfNTUxX0xpdGVyYWN5X1ByYWN0aWNlX1Rlc3RfMi5wZGYiXV0/Literacy%20Practice%20Test%202.pdf

This one is actually multiple choice for spelling.

For the person who said, well, we all have spell check, the point is to teach young people to do it without spell check. And no, when I am walking round a classroom checking what the children have written down, or scanning thirty whiteboards, or writing a model answer on a visualiser, or marking, I don’t have spell check.

Absolutely the wrong move. These aren’t hard tests. Standards for teacher entry should be high; long term I predict that we will find that lowering them will negatively impact retention.

I don’t want my child learning reading, writing, Religious Education or History from someone who fails that literacy test. Do I want my child’s teachers to be “brainy”? I suppose I do

Teach your child yourself then....

Teach your child yourself then....

I would actually have no problem teaching my child myself, but it’s not supposed to be pot luck, and unless everyone could teach their own child, it’s a problem for the profession. My child is entitled to a decent standard of education whether I can spell or not.

The tests were pretty pointless. To be honest if your maths and and English are so bad it should be picked up by your mentor during the training year anyway.

I once mentored a man who was severely dyslexic. I don't know how he managed to pass the English skills test - perhaps he didn't have to do it as it would have been discriminatory? It was a real shame because he tried really hard and was lovely but the dyslexia did affect his ability to teach effectively.

Youre right though, scrapping the tests isn't going to improve the teacher retention crisis.

And the answer is that English GCSE tests a wider range of skills than SPAG, so you can have passed it with a C and still be unable to spell, punctuate or use grammar with any accuracy

Possibly GCSE entry for teaching should be raised to B. On the other hand, GCSE is at 16, so things can change, skills decline if they are not assessed as part of future courses. And mostly they are not. In Australia, English, or a version of it, is compulsory at the end of secondary exams, and I see this as a good thing, and not just because it keeps in me in work. However entrance scores to teaching degrees are very low, as universities vie to get bums on seats. Maybe this is happening in the UK too.

I don’t want my child learning reading, writing, Religious Education or History from someone who fails that literacy test. Do I want my child’s teachers to be “brainy”? I suppose I do

It's not too much to ask, though some MN posters will say that excellent literacy skills does not mean someone is a good teacher. I don't see why both aren't required. It's come to something when being literate as a teacher is "brainy", as opposed to expected.

I think the numeracy requirement came about as a way of giving equal status.

Sometimes it helps to have teachers who aren't the brainiest who actually understand that telling dyslexic kids to use a dictionary to find a spelling is bonkers

Not sure what that has to do with being brainy.

It's come to something when being literate as a teacher is "brainy", as opposed to expected.

Exactly. I don’t want Einstein or Atwood, just people who can do what they are meant to be teaching my child to do.

Not sure how much difference abolishing the tests will make. An old friend of mine who is now a teacher had to take the maths one eight times before passing (about 20 years ago). At the time I was dismayed that she was deemed good enough to teach maths given how poor she was at it. She's now teaching year 6 and has admitted to me that she struggles with maths. I'm quite dismayed at how low the bar is. It's not fair on the children. I love my friend but have always suspected that she's not a very good teacher because she's simply not smart enough.

I’m going to put in a caveat at this point, and feel free to correct me if you are a teacher of one of these subjects and disagree with the premise, but I think if you teach a subject at secondary that requires far less writing (Art/PE) then the requirement isn’t as important, and actually the test limits the ability to hire people who are the best at those particular things, to teach them. Please note that I am not saying an Art teacher is any less likely to be able to spell than a Spanish teacher, just that I think it’s a much less relevant skill for teaching their subject.

A few years ago I did a lot of mystery shopping and one of the assignments was to test out the staff and service at the places administering these types of test. Not just teachers' numeracy and literacy, but also things like driving theory. All computer based.

So I went along and sat the numeracy one. As far as I remember you're not allowed a calculator but are allowed pen and paper to help you work out the problems. Lots of graphs and interpreting data, problems like "if three cups of coffee and a cake cost £4.80 and a cup of coffee is £1.25, how much is the cake?" Lots of percentages, fractions, that sort of thing.

It's at the level of a competent 11 or 12 year old. It's arithmetic, not maths. Far less than GCSE level. If a student can't pass it then they have absolutely no business being in school and teaching children.

I see your point on less need when teaching art and MFL- but the thing with QTS is that it qualifies you up to A level. And there is much more to teaching than just delivering your subject.

You as a teacher write reports, deliver presentations, prepare students for university interviews etc

I absolutely believe that removing these tests is another way to ‘de-professionalise’ teaching and excuse the low pay/long working hours. 10% PPA is absolutely no longer adequate when you consider how much planning and marking is expected per class. If they want teaching to be more attractive then it needs to be a more attractive job.

I think anyone teaching children should be able to pass that test. It’s pretty basic to someone my age. The trouble is that that there are young adults who didn’t learn SPAG at school, so they’ll find it more difficult.

And also, there’s a mistake in the answers on that test paper.

Line 15
An apostrophe is required before the ‘s’ in ‘whos’ because this is a contraction of ‘who is’.
A comma is required after ‘months’ to match the comma after ‘Davis’ and complete the subordinate clause, ‘who’s been helping me’.

Surely, who’s is a contraction of ‘who has’ in this case

It's at the level of a competent 11 or 12 year old. It's arithmetic, not maths. Far less than GCSE level. If a student can't pass it then they have absolutely no business being in school and teaching children.

I can’t help but agree.

But now the Government wants to let people do it anyway, knowing it will only further erode respect for the teaching profession and lower educational standards for children.

Who wants to be standing up in front of 12 year olds who can spell and punctuate better than they can?

Another caveat: every teacher makes errors. Every teacher has been corrected by the smartest child in the class. You take it on the chin. It’s good for you, in a way. But the errors should be a rarity, not the expected standard.

DSis always struggled with maths at school and ended up in the lowest set, where she was fortunate enough to encounter an excellent teacher who got her through GCSE maths. When she did teacher training she was desperately worried about the maths test, but passed first time. I really feel that if she could pass then it can't be that difficult, and people who cannot pass probably shouldn't be teaching .

I took my skills test before starting my QTS training. My provider wouldn’t let me train if I didn’t pass it in time. I think that they should stay, they were stressful and I found them difficult. Not because the content is difficult but because it’s things that i didn’t generally use day to day so I had to re learn them.