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'm a teacher and I'm a bit torn on this one. There DOES seem to be the attitude here on mn that teachers can be a bit dim; FWIW, the teachers on my team are so bloody bright that I feel daunted by their abilities and knowledge. They are old-school teachers, though, trained 20+ years ago.

On the other hand, I recently heard that two women who were on my degree and struggled hugely with writing anything, including their essays (used to get me to check/advise on them) and the most basic of spellings are now English teachers! I was

All of which would be nice... but wouldn't raise the objective knowledge levels of any individual.

Yes it would!

FWIW, the teachers on my team are so bloody bright that I feel daunted by their abilities and knowledge. They are old-school teachers, though, trained 20+ years ago.

And I get that it can be daunting. But it’s better for the kids, ultimately.

Yet, do the tests 'test' what they are supposed to test? The literacy assessment, for example, is divided into four sections: spelling, punctuation, grammar and comprehension.

The spelling test comprises ten words. They are supposed to be the words that you would use in your professional life as a teacher, and/or words that exemplify spelling rules that you may use when you are teaching.

However, in recent tests, some of my students have told me that words such as: 'entrepreneurial', 'indictment' and 'gregarious' have occurred. I suppose we may use these in our professional life, but they are rather uncommon words.

The punctuation test does not 'test' your knowledge of punctuation. It tests your proofreading skills. Candidates are presented with a text (online) into which they insert fifteen punctuation marks. So, candidates search for the missing full stop, the absent question mark and the missing speech marks in a pair of speech marks. Yes, we may call a student's attention to regularly, erroneous punctuation when marking his/her work, but we would never scan the text, searching for every possible error.

The grammar section requires candidates to insert the most grammatically appropriate sequence of words into a passage, in a sort of cloze text form of exercise. Sometimes, the choice depends on determining the appropriate level of formality, rather than grammatical accuracy.

The comprehension section can test a candidate's ability to understand the gist and tone of a complex piece of text; identify an implied statement or a statement that is implicitly contradicted and so on.

In my opinion, the test highlights an individual's ability to memorise spellings and success or failure in the spelling test may depend very much on the luck of the draw with respect to the words that are selected that day.

It tests the individual's ability to proof read a text and his/her ability to eliminate some blatantly inaccurate choices in a multiple choice exercise on grammar.

t also tests the candidate's ability to focus on a long stretch of complex prose under test conditions..

Finally, there is absolutely no requirement that the candidates actually write anything in this 'literacy' test.

As said before, trainee teachers already undergo rigorous testing throughout their training and, in my opinion. the QTS Professional Skills assessments are not fit for purpose.

Definitely agree with scrapping the cost of the PGCE. Better get, pay them.

Also, I don’t actually mind people with a 2.2 teaching. The issue - and again I’ll get shot - is when the 2.2 isn’t accompanied by the sort of A Levels that got the student into a good university. So it’s a 2.2 and CCD at A Level.

The only answer is to make teaching attractive again, then you can weed these sorts of applicants out by virtue of just having better ones.

Hercule, I agree with you!

Yes, we may call a student's attention to regularly, erroneous punctuation when marking his/her work, but we would never scan the text, searching for every possible error.

I would. When I’m teaching essay writing to my brightest GCSE students, I will pick them up on every error, because there usually aren’t many and they will be subtle things.

Maths teacher here. When I did the maths skills test it was definitely not just arithmetic, there were some quite obscure data analysis methods in there but they were covered in GCSE Math so anyone with a 'C' grade Maths should easily be able to prepare themselves. Sorry I haven't read the whole thread but there is reference to teacher shortage and primary teachers and PE teachers. There is not a shortage of primary teachers and PE teachers, these posts are difficult to get so there is no need to make entry requirements easier. Maths, English, Physics, Chemistry, MFL are to my knowledge the shortage areas. I sometimes have trouble spelling words - not because my English is bad, it's good and I achieved 'A' Grades at GCSE. It's because I don't write the words regularly any more and probably because I am 54 and find my brain is slowing down a bit. However, never would I write something inappropriate in an e-mail or report - I would get it checked if I was uncertain. If I use the word with a class I am quite happy to write up a couple of versions, admit I'm not sure and come to a join decision. It does not mean I can't teach Maths.

This is the start of a very slippery slope, I feel.

If the government remove the skills tests needed, the quality of of teachers WILL decrease, standards in education will decline and confidence in teachers will be a grave concern. I can see more and more complaints about teachers in the press, in the playground and on here.

Meanwhile, the actual job-which is causing thousands of qualified, skilled and experienced teachers to quit year after year- will not change or get any easier! These new teachers will be poorly equipped to deal with the role and last even less time in the classroom!

I can’t help but wonder if the post last week from someone (who never returned) saying their y3 child was going to be taught by someone with an NVQ3 but no degree or QTS in September was actually Nick Gibb just testing the water?!

Is that what’s coming next?

. I sometimes have trouble spelling words - not because my English is bad, it's good and I achieved 'A' Grades at GCSE. It's because I don't write the words regularly any more and probably because I am 54 and find my brain is slowing down a bit.

You and me both!

I do feel Maths is a subject where an exception might be made. You really don’t need excellent spelling to be an excellent Maths teacher.

Well, I’m not 54, but my brain is slowing down.

I never had to do it. It didn't exist. They simply trusted that if I was capable of passing GCSE English and Maths then I was fine.

The tests aren't really a good indicator from what I've seen. The maths is based on speed more than anything else. And tbh all letters are going to be typed with a spell check etc. And most lengthy calculations will be double checked on a computer spreadsheet in my teaching experience anyway, partly as you need to keep a record.

I think there are far more important skills a potential teacher should have than the ability to do maths and English tests quickly. Especially when most have only passed English and maths 2 years earlier.

I can see more and more complaints about teachers in the press, in the playground and on here.

Well, this is it, isn’t it? Parents can be very picky and expect the earth. You can’t pay peanuts, get monkeys, then expect high standards.

And tbh all letters are going to be typed with a spell check etc

What about when the teacher is showing a student how to spell a word and they’re plain wrong? How often should that happen?

For a primary Ed degree you have to have passed it BEFORE you can start the course. You can apply to do it once you've got an offer from a university. So reality is many students are doing it less than two years after sitting GCSEs.

Those who do a PGCE will be further along.

To me though it just seems it's yet another piece of admin that's not really needed.

Fair enough if someone hasn't got the desired qualification as an alternative route perhaps, or has a non equivalent version of a GCSE. But putting through so many people through the tests must cost a fair amount of money.

Surely the fact that teachers need a degree is enough of a "test " in itself!.To gain a degree ,you have to have passed a certain number of GCSES and A levels too!.My son had to produce evidence of GCSE exams ,to both 6th form and University.I cant see any point in further testing of already intelligent people Im afraid!

The reason we have to have those tests are because the entry requirements to teach are zilch!

Three Bs at A level at most universities, for a primary Ed degree. Hardly nothing is it?!

Surely the fact that teachers need a degree is enough of a "test " in itself!

I don’t think it is. You can get on a degree course with fairly dreadful marks.

It was two Es at one point!

Oh dear god!! It’s bad enough that they base it on GCSE maths and English, now they are lowering the standards!! It should be a requirement to have A level Maths and English!!!

Yes it would! I think that's a cross purpose thing.

My experience is that no matter how bright and intelligent an individual is the way that maths and English (maths in particular) is taught any student who was in need of additional support at the very start of their education got the kind of help DSis is forced to teach in primary, all sorts of 'methods' that are supposed to impart something, but don't actually help the student understand or have confidence in their knowlege. They often just 'do the method' and hope for the best.

You can test this by asking someone to 'guesstimate' an area, volume etc. Even me, with my insecurities around numbers, can tell if I have plugged in something odd into a calculator. I guesstimate as I go. Most people do, I thought. But experience with Functional Skills, GCSE resits, A levels and HE work has shown me that this is an incorrect assumption for many students.

That was a turning point for me in teaching, was pretty much the final straw for me (on top of the sheer volume of paperwork and slf justification). I was being forced to terrify already scared kids - try teaching basic multiplication to a bright girl who cries when you ask her to do a sum. It was heart breaking and should never have happened. She knew all sorts of methods, pretty patterns and boxes. But not ever how to check she had done anything correctly. She was always overwhelemed - and she was 19 and had failed maths 5 or 6 times before she came to us in FE - and yes, she passed Functional Skills and went to university, got a 2:1 - luckily before they stopped accepting FS equivalence! She is a very bright and now quite succesful, much more confident young woman!

Whilst I know that an anecdote isn't an answer, but I taught so very many like her. There is something terribly wrong in all levels of education! And, again, it is NOT the fault of any teacher.

It should be a requirement to have A level Maths and English!!!

Now, now, don’t scare the horses. 😂

I trained to be a teacher is my late twenties. The literacy test was fine, but I'll admit I revised a lot for the maths test. I was in the intermediate GCSE maths group at school so the highest level I could get was a B (which I did). Maths had always been my nemesis but revising for the maths test was a really useful way for me to increase my fluency in maths. The test it about fairly basic concepts but more about completing the arithmetic quickly. Over the years, my maths has really improved (even though I teach in KS1); teaching it every day means I'm always thinking about it, particularly how to ensure 5/6 year olds really grasp mathematical concepts that they're encountering for the first time.

A lot of people of my PGCE course had to re-sit the maths and many were just terrified by it as it was timed. I think the tests serve a purpose. Teaching training is difficult and so it should be; teaching is challenging with an intense workload.

Teachers should all be literate and able to do basic maths. Even if you don't specifically teach these subjects, literacy and maths skills are still integral to the job. All teachers have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are amazing at maths and others have to teach themselves the subject knowledge before teaching the children. The best teachers are the ones who really think about what they are teaching and how to teach it - breaking down learning and concepts and considering how to teach it effectively for all the needs of the children in their class.

I think if the government want to increase our amount of teachers and improve retention they need to invest more money into CPD for teachers, as well as reducing workload and increasing PPA time so that teachers have the actual time to research and consider their subject and teaching. CPD often feels really rushed and afterwards there is no time or adequate resources to implement new ideas and improve teaching.

Why should a primary school teacher need a n A level in English and maths? That makes little sense. Do you know the content of an a level English and maths curriculum and how much if that is relevant to teaching primary level English and maths? It's mostly a different set of skills entirely tbh!

I agree that a Maths A Level is unnecessary.