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?

As a teacher I think the tests are worth keeping. Yes, I have GCSEs in English and Maths but they’re from a long time ago and it did me the world of good to brush up on my skills before starting my course.

Er... You absolutely need a degree to teach at secondary. Your subject isn't just about the content, which anyone could pick up. It's about the skills, methodologies, theories behind it. I know many many amazing TAs and just as I don't have their specialist SEN skillset, they don't have mine (although tbf increasing numbers of TAs are ex teachers). I want my child's teachers to have at least a degree.

I can't believe people are failing the skills test, my maths is terrible but I passed first time. It's a good way of weeding out the unsuitables. The general public might not realise but you often don't teach 'your' subject, you teach whatever you're given. There's been years where I've done up to four different subjects at secondary level. Without basic literacy you just can't do this.

There was talk a handful of years ago about making teaching a masters-level profession.

Now we’re making it a profession where they won’t ask you what 7/25 is as a percentage because they’re worried you won’t know after prepping.

Oh I can’t agree with you there curious sorry - I remember the days before the NC and while I’m not going to pretend everything was rosy from that point forward and there’s been bullshit and more bullshit throughout the 90s and 00s, I do remember being stuck in front of a video or working through a textbook or similar. We barely did any English/literacy beyond ‘write a story’.

The "degree to be a teacher" thing is relatively recent though, certainly in Scotland at primary level. My parents were both primary teachers. They went straight from school into teacher training college and left after three years with a Diploma. Not a degree. That all changed 20 or so years ago only when the teacher training college became part of a Uni.

I don't believe Primary teachers necessarily need a degree as long as they have good A-levels or Scottish Highers. Many primary teachers believe that a three year diploma or ordinary degree level qualification wholly focused on education, with lots of teaching practice is better than someone doing a degree in something like Astrophysics or Geology then just a 1 year PGCE conversion.

But for secondary level, teachers most definitely need a degree in their subject.

And all teachers should be able to demonstrate basic numeracy and literacy by passing the tests.

I will happily admit that spelling is not my strong point yet I passed the tests. What does that tell us about the tests?

hercule believe what you want. But, as an ex lecturer who went to university in her 30s and became an FE teacher and HE lecturer teaching to Masters level via on the job teacher training, I disagree with you. I know a lot of people who never had the chance to go to university as teens and whose lives preclude it as adults. If they could start at an entry level job within a school and progress, gaining skills and knowledge as they went they could make excellent teachers.

Your point about Key Stages bemuses me.... I don't see how that is relevant given the process I outlined!

But for secondary level, teachers most definitely need a degree in their subject.

Don’t ask who is teaching your kid maths.

Nobody wants their child taught by someone with a lower literacy level than an average 12 year old.
Absolutely.

Someone told me once you should always have the subject knowledge to be able to teach an entire key stage above the one you are currently teaching. So if you’re teaching KS2 maths you should be able to understand and teach if necessary the KS3 maths syllabus. I totally agree with that, it enables you to stretch the more able appropriately. A level needs to be taught by a specialist otherwise the children are at a massive disadvantage.

If they could start at an entry level job within a school and progress, gaining skills and knowledge as they went they could make excellent teachers.

Or they could make awful teachers. It’s not meant to be a guessing game.

Oh! I didn't mean keep what was there before Joan God no! More to stop the process that led us to where we are now and to devise something that actually works, use all the hindsight we now have to do it properly!

Sorry, I was to annoyed, didn't explain myself well, if at all

Scrapping the test seems like a bad idea. I’m sure they were taught spelling, grammar and maths as part of their previous education, but the point of the test I would say is to see whether they are still holding these skills at that point in time, when they will need to actively apply it in their job.

I took my son to his new primary school this week. He is starting reception and one of the teachers there started a sentence saying: “You should have took...”. Now that really annoyed me. These kids will be developing their language based on what they hear around them and if one of their teachers can’t even speak properly, how are they supposed to? I shouldn’t have to correct my son’s language when he gets home from school, because his teachers are getting it wrong. English isn’t even my first language and I would never make that mistake!

Or they could make awful teachers. It’s not meant to be a guessing game. In which case they would progress past the point of their perosnal ability! Why would it need to be a guessing game?

Or did you seriously think I meant a process with no competency checks? Weird!!!

Only read first post . Point of order moo : EVERY teacher teaches writing! Read the latest literacy guidance from EEF {confused]

Will read rest of posts now.

I predate the tests, myself. I have noticed increasingly that people who qualified since me, despite having done the tests are increasingly less able to write well. Well enough maybe , but not well.

would not obviously !

Brackets fail....

TA - HTA - something in the middle including lesson prep - specialist course to A level equivalence / degree equivalence - teaching certificate.

Sorry, Curious, I do see what you mean. The problem is this (and it’s not a particularly PC thing to say): people who start in education as TAs come in different guises. Some of them are people who, for whatever reason, just never did A Levels. Maybe they thought they wanted to be hairdressers, or left school to travel the world. Others are people who failed their exams because they weren’t academic. You can put them on an A Level/degree equivalent course, but the chances are that, even if they pass, they won’t have good literacy. People with good basic literacy don’t fail their English GCSEs except in exceptional circumstances.

So what you will end up is a pool of teachers, some of whom will be bright enough to teach, but many more of whom won’t be. And you’ll have spent a shed-load of money on it.

In which case they would progress past the point of their perosnal ability! Why would it need to be a guessing game?

It’s just incredibly inefficient.

3teens2cats
I agree. I'm numerate but not quick on mental maths and passed first time.

One of my questions was a table showing the levels of a class (level 3 4 5 6). I was asked how many children were level 4 or higher. Basic addition of numbers where the total has to be under 30.

Another one was something like:
'Coach hire is £60 & entry to the zoo is £17.50. You have a class of 30 and staff go free. How much is the trip for each child?'

Then again, I've also had trainees in the last 5 years tell me that they didn't realise they should read the book they were going to be teaching at GCSE. Apparently they were just going to use sparknotes for the overview and I didn't understand their workload if to expected them, as trainee English teachers, to read a book over a fortnight's prep time.

Apparently they were just going to use sparknotes for the overview and I didn't understand their workload if to expected them, as trainee English teachers, to read a book over a fortnight's prep time.

herculepoirot2
The objection was the amount of reading!

It took a lot of discipline to refrain from pointing out that if they can't spell words from the ks2 spelling list, our teenagers were pulling their subject knowledge to pieces most lessons, and they can't read a book in a fortnight, maybe secondary English teaching wasn't for them.

They also had passed the skills test! That tells you the level of them.

I'm surprised that the literacy test didn't include any testing of the difference between 'practice' and 'practise' - fifteen years of proof reading 240 reports every year has shown that to be the commonest mistake made by otherwise excellent teachers.
The only teacher who never had any errors in any of their reports in five years at the school was someone who was actually dyslexic and probably would have failed the test because of the time element.

It’s just incredibly inefficient. Ah, but look what fast tracking has done for education.

I didn't see it as efficient. Just as a way to allow those who want to and have the ability to access courses that, for the most part, already exist.

You can put them on an A Level/degree equivalent course, but the chances are that, even if they pass, they won’t have good literacy. People with good basic literacy don’t fail their English GCSEs except in exceptional circumstances. Given that your starting point is that even those who do have GCSE in English can't pass a basic test, I am not sure that objection is valid

Given that your starting point is that even those who do have GCSE in English can't pass a basic test, I am not sure that objection is valid smile

So you raise the standard, you don’t lower it.

LolaSmiles

What did they think they should be able to do? 😂