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?

particularly how to ensure 5/6 year olds really grasp mathematical concepts that they're encountering for the first time.
This is why it's so important that those teaching reception and KS1 have good mathematical understanding, not just skills. It's not the case that (as suggested upthread) year 6 teachers need good maths but year 3 teachers can get by with less knowledge. I taught secondary maths for years, and often had to sort out problems caused by early years teaching of methods with little or no understanding. Additionally, many perfectly capable students were put off maths and saw it as difficult because their earliest experience was with teachers who themselves lacked confidence. Ensuring all primary teachers have A level Maths and English would solve this problem, but clearly isn't practical, so I have no idea where we go from here.

I've got similar qualifications KatnissK and I haven't encountered that attitude. But I specialise in sixth form in selective schools. One thing about teaching (in the right school) is the utter joy of being able to have interesting conversations with other educated people every day and students asking thought-provoking questions. I'm sure there other environments you can get that but that's what keeps me in.

I have taken the students to e.g. accountancy careers events where they make the teachers sit through presentations explaining how much more beginner accountants earn than experienced teachers. Thought that was a bit rude.

@Aragog 2/3 of an A Level is better than none. And with all due respect it’s not Ireland that is lowering its standards to try to entice more teachers to train!!hmm

I completely agree that the system seems so much better in ireland and I’m really sad it’s gone so wrong here.

The PP saying how when English students do 3 A levels and making them do both maths and English to get into teaching simple wouldn’t work is correct. That’s not to say I think our system actually works, it’s just that’s how it currently is.

I think doing 5/6 subjects at 1/2 or 2/3 of an A level sounds more sensible tbh.

I am actually really depressed by this news this morning :(

Where do we honestly see teaching in 10 years time? Any actual predictions?!

"Well, it’s redundant now isn’t it? The government are scrapping the test completely and don’t need to pay a penny!"

From what I have read, the tests will not be phased out completely until 2022 and, with a new PM and cabinet reshuffle imminent, it is possible that other compulsory tests could be introduced.

I have known tutors who have had students who failed the test six or seven times, even with reasonable adjustments. Sometimes the students pass, after multiple attempts. They still have problems with literacy and numeracy, but they have passed the test. Passing the test does not prove competency in literacy or numeracy. It is not a safeguard against people with problems in these subjects entering the teaching profession.

The problem is, there ARE too many idiots who go into teaching and these tests have been implemented by other idiots as an idiotic way to try to reduce the number of idiots.

This about sums it up really. How depressing.

I can only speak for Primary, but in an ideal world, you would need A Level English and Maths to train as a teacher in Primary where writing and maths is everything. It wouldn't guarantee that you'd be any good, but you'd be much more likely to be able to handle the KS2 maths and English curriculum and could focus on classroom techniques and planning strategies in your NQT year, rather than doing crash courses in core subjects.

In real life there aren't many people knocking around who have both A Level maths and English as most people seem to specialise one way or the other for A Level.

The solution to this problem is not to scrap the tests. If you can't pass the tests, you're really going to struggle in Primary KS2.

Erm I have a friend who is a qualified teacher who does this. We really shouldn’t fall into the trap of assuming because someone has qualified as a teacher, they’re good at it!
I haven't suggested they are.
I was pointing out that I've known trainees with terrible subject knowledge and the belief that teaching means delivering someone else's PowerPoints pass the literacy tests. This trainee told students that affect and effect were different spellings of the same word, couldn't spell the y5/6 spelling list words and they still passed the literacy test (in other words it can't be that difficult if someone with a functional literacy ability lower than the y6 standards can pass).

The bar needs raising, not lowering.

In a school like mine, teachers who rely on internet text summaries would probably resigning within a year after the students ate them alive.

I think doing away with the tests and then having a different criteria is a good idea.

I have read some comments about new teachers and totally agree - they expect things to be done for them. I’ve worked with someone who basically just taught my lessons but didn’t even read them before hand so didn’t even know what slide was coming up next. They will have passed the test - because they’re bright, but they’re not good teachers.

I will say I think the tests are so pointless. The maths is not required even at HOD/Senior leadership level. I say this as a HOD. You need to understand progress 8, attainment 8, levels of progress, residual, equality and difference and so much more. I’m really good at maths and statistics but so many meetings I’ve sat in not having a bloody clue what was going on. I don’t need to know if sally goes on a school trip but only has £70 but needs to buy enough fish fingers to feed the 300 school children how many times does she have to slice each fish finger to ensure everyone gets a bite.

Why not test people in the things they actually need to know to be a teacher/understand the system in which we work at a better level?? When do I ever get presented with a box and whisker diagram???

In the last few years there has been a requirement for registered nurses to demonstrate their competence in maths. Most employers meet this through an annual calculations test.

Similar to the teaching one, which I looked at when DD was prepping for it, the test is everyday calculations, relevant to nursing. Typical questions include converting mg to mcg and working out an hourly infusion rate from a daily dose.

It was only when I had to coach nurses who had failed the test that I realised how poor some people’s ability to do calculations was. The test was broadly hated when it was brought in, but is in my view so so important.

My reason for going off On this particular tangent is that maths matters. In healthcare and in many other jobs. It needs to be taught by competent professional teachers.

We shouldn’t accept dumbing down.

FWIW I don't think a BBB university entry is overly low anyway. That's the entry requirement for a primary education degree at almost all university

Ok, so a teacher in the uk may have 3 ‘B’s but they could be in, say, drama, PE and Sociology (correct if I am wrong?!) All well and good but why can universities in the uk not stipulate that they need a level maths and/or English and one another subject (whatever they choose)

The “requirements” are at least a C in GCSE maths and English, surely that is NOT enough!!

Surely saying ‘BCC’ with English and maths included would be more appropriate??

Passing the test does not prove competency in literacy or numeracy. It is not a safeguard against people with problems in these subjects entering the teaching profession.

I would support higher barriers to entry AND scrapping the tests. Just not one without the other.

To all those saying that trainees must have GCSEs to get onto the course in the first place, have you considered the grade boundaries of GCSEs like Maths currently?

To get a grade 4 last year in Maths, you needed 21% and a grade 5 was 32%.

I really don’t want someone teaching my child who got 60-70% of the paper wrong. The future is looking gloomy.

I passed all three skills tests (yes I am old and even had to do the weird ICT one!) and I have dyscalculia. There really is no excuse.

rabbit that's on higher tier, though.

“To get a grade 4 last year in Maths, you needed 21% and a grade 5 was 32%.”

That is the scariest thing I have read this morning!!! I assumed a grade 4 was possibly 65-70% at least!!

Are uk parents really happy knowing that this is all that your department expects your teachers to have!!??

Yes, and I wouldn’t want a teacher who had only done the foundation paper either!

There are other ways the government could improve recruitment and retention.

• access to key worker housing once you’ve taught for five years
• interest free loan on a house deposit ^
• write off student loans
• free uni tuition for dependents once you’ve taught for ten years

They need to get creative, not just drop the bar.

young someone with A Levels in those subjects would be highly literate and have good science form the PE. You aren't seriously suggesting all teachers, including at secondary, have maths or English A Level?

On the foundation paper youngandfree, you needed 56%

You aren't seriously suggesting all teachers, including at secondary, have maths or English A Level?

No but that is what the skills tests are for and rightly so.

rabbit your are being wilfully manipulative with those figures, as you know. The HT paper only goes down as low as a 3, therefore virtually all the questions on the paper are aimed at 4 - 9 grades.

There is a HUGE difference between A Level English and GCSE. The skills tests are not to test whether you would be of A Level standard at English

The skills tests are not to test whether you would be of A Level standard at English

How do you spell “accommodated”?

There you go - have an A Level!

hercule my school is offering rent free accommodation next year, but only for NQTs. Not sure whether any of them are taking it up, though .

Surely saying ‘BCC’ with English and maths included would be more appropriate?

That would have ruled me out though. I got AAA (English included) but had no desire to do maths A level.

I can’t think of anyone at DS’s (selective) grammar who is doing both maths and English-and most are doing 4 if not 5 A levels.

Throwing percentages around from last year's grade boundaries doesn't help the discussion.

I am 100% behind raising the bar for maths and English to enter teaching, but before throwing around pass percentages maybe consider that what's on many GCSE specs used to be A Level. It may be stating the obvious, but taking lots of more difficult content isn't going to make 16 year olds automatically smarter, but in order to save face, the boundaries have to be set in certain ways.

I've taught some literate and articulate students who've found getting a 5 or 6 in English Language difficult on the new spec, not because they were dim, but because they didn't have the skill of analysing unseen 19th century journal articles for a shipping magazine in 10 minutes.

There's a serious question to be had about entry standards, but let's not muddy the waters with unrelated shock tactics.