Should my child's class have a qualified teacher everyday?

[Jap26]

Aibu to expect that my year 5 child has a qualified teacher everyday at school. Teachers have been announced for the next school year and the year 5 teacher is part time doing 4 days a week, no teaching cover has been arranged and the plan is for various TA's to cover the 5th day. The school have confirmed that with ppa time for the class teacher they will only have an actual teacher 3.5 days a week. None of the TA's have any relevant qualifications. As an ad hoc arrangement to cover sickness I think this is fine but they are planning do to this every week. Before I complain I just want a reality check on if this is standard practice

Heads can and do decide that someone without QTS is suitable to teach classes. They're simply employed as unqualified teachers.

I was a TA, often covered classes, level 5 qualified, 10 years experience, know the curriculum inside out. But hey - not good enough? Prefer the 22 year old just out of Uni with no really experience?

I get it, but you’re being offensive!

Out of 12 TA - 9 had degrees, one was retraining to start her degree, out of those, two were teachers and taking a step back, me and another person with 15 years experience.

I wouldn’t be so dismissive of just TA

Says who? I work in an independent that wouldn’t employ a teacher without QTS. Parents demand that as a minimum.

Most schools in the UK are academies now.

Maintained schools can use unqualified teachers via 'back door' methods.

They can hire unqualified teachers if they commit to training them.

They can also use HLTAs to teach classes within specific parameters. Unfortunately these parameters are fairly loose and ambiguously worded so schools can quite easily make a legal case for using a HLTA to cover a lack of teaching staff.

Therefore, in this case, a HLTA being directed to teach a class but not having sole responsibility for them is perfectly legal in a maintained school as well as an academy school as long as it's for the 'short term'. 'Short term', however, is not legally defined. There is union guidance but not a legal definition.

Is it good practice and is it ideal? Probably not.

Is it better than have a stream of supply teachers? I'd say so.

Is it fair on the HLTA? No. They're being paid much less than the classroom teacher would be, to do pretty much the same amount of work. But at the same time, they don't have to say yes to the job.

The reality is, schools can't get enough staff, and if they do have enough staff, they can't afford to pay them properly. It's a dire situation. And yet no one is really advocating for proper change. Teachers are still viewed as a bunch of whingers and criticised every time we go on strike for inconveniencing parents. Without parental support, we won't be able to get the better conditions needed to retain staff and ensure a qualified and experienced professional is teaching your kids.

The government guidance says differently for maintained schools (not academies). Posted up thread.

Most schools are not academies, especially in the primary phase.

National figures for primary are only about 40% being academy or free.

Secondary, there are more academies.

As a qualified teacher with 15 years' experience, I couldn't agree more.

Frankly, the PGCE is barely worth the paper it's written on as a preparation for teaching.

What trains you to teach is experience and mentorship within schools. That's why so much training has moved out of universities and into schools now.

In my time I have mentored many trainees who shouldn't have been anywhere near a classroom, and yet pressure from the training provider meant they had to be passed. They all got their PGCEs and QTS and went off to be thoroughly mediocre teachers somewhere. I'm sure most of them are probably SLT now - that seems to be the way it goes these days. The worse you are, the higher you climb. At least it gets them out of the classroom, I suppose.

The best teachers are born, not made. True teaching ability is innate and can't be taught. I therefore really can't get too het up about technically unqualified people teaching children if they are talented teachers with the subject knowledge to do so. One of the best colleagues I've worked with had no teaching qualification - they kept being offered the chance to get QTS, but they couldn't be arsed with the paperwork.

For me the real issue here is the disparity in pay. If an unqualified member of staff is being asked to do the same work as a teacher, they should be paid the same.

I also think there should be robust supervision procedures in place for unqualified teachers and the opportunity to gain QTS as an automatic right if they would like to do so. Unqualified teachers aren't a bad thing for pupils or schools if they are supported adequately and treated fairly.

I'm secondary, so I don't know the figures for primary.

Regardless - it's still not true that maintained schools can't hire unqualified teachers. They can.

Most schools in the UK are academies now.

UK schools? I thought they were England only?

There are certainly none I know of in Scotland and I didn’t think they had them in Wales either. I’ve no idea about NI.

Sorry, yes, you're quite right - they are an England only initiative. My use of UK was automatic/lazy. Late night - end of term!

I actually thought they were in Wales as well but it seems not. So the government just decided to screw up England's school system, then. At least the other countries in the UK are safe from academisation...for now...

I was using the government documents which says that maintained schools must have a qualified teacher.

Working for an LA, with many maintained schools, other than occasional use, all of our maintained schools have qualified teachers in their classrooms. This may be a supply teacher, it may be the headteacher.
Long term use of a non qualified adult, taking a class teacher role would be questioned by the LA via the governing board.
Progress of children and the quality of education in the class would be a focus of scrutiny. In fact, cover PPA cover by the HLTA was questioned this week as the quality of teaching was poor. This has been shared with school leaders and the GB so that this staff member is supported.

Of course, in an academy the LA would not be aware nor able to challenge as an academy has the right to have adults without teaching qualifications.

I understand recruitment and retention. I am defending, as we all must, the rights of children to a high quality education ( rather than Tory interference which removes, by the back door, teachers from our children’s classrooms)

My school was not an academy. We had a full time unqualified class teacher. She had abundance experience, but she was not qualified.

I'm not saying it was a good thing. But there was no problem with her being employed to be a class teacher with full responsibility. She wasn't paid as much as a qualified teacher, though.

That's not quite what the guidance says.

Maintained schools can't hire unqualified teachers into teaching roles.

That is not the same as saying they can't have unqualified teachers teaching classes. Legally they are allowed to under specific circumstances. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that they can.

I think, however, it is also a little simplistic to assume that a technically unqualified person is going to do a worse job than a qualified one. We've all worked alongside qualified teachers who can't teach for toffee. A qualification is not a guarantee of quality, and it's dangerous to assume so.

Do you think the HT is doing this for shits and giggles? You need to complain to your MP not the HT.

Scotland - children must have a qualified GTC registered teacher in class every day at school, all day. Support staff categorically cannot teach. Supervision in groups but teacher must be in room, directing.

I'm curious. Why are there so few teaching vacancies on Scotland, and so many in England?

I don't think you're unreasonable to think that at all. But, one thing that I've discovered recently after helping at school one day each week, is that the TAs do a phenomenal job. The HLTA in my youngest's class is amazing, leads some lessons and the children clearly enjoy them. I do think it's an awful lot of pressure to put on them, but if it's a TA they're comfortable with and lesson plans are put in place, it's better than having supply teachers in. I appreciate it won't be the same for all schools, but in this instance it's certainly the case.

I think, however, it is also a little simplistic to assume that a technically unqualified person is going to do a worse job than a qualified one. We've all worked alongside qualified teachers who can't teach for toffee.

Well then, we might as well bin teacher training completely because what's the point if it's pot luck anyway. Get them all in unqualified, why not?

This is just the opposite but equally overly simplistic assumption.

That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m just pointing out that there shouldn’t be an automatic assumption that an unqualified teacher is doing a substandard job to a qualified one.

How you’ve jumped from that observation to me advocating for the binning of teacher training, I don’t know.

No, it just pisses me off when someone comes on MN to say 'my kid doesn't have a teacher' people fall over themselves to say 'oh but the TA will probably be a qualified teacher' (OP says no and even if they are, why are they a TA and not a teacher - pay them to be a teacher) or 'oh but TAs are marvellous and better than teachers most of the time' or 'oh but qualified teachers can be shit so why worry if your kid's teacher isn't qualified, qualification doesn't mean they're any good'.

FFS it's just talking down the profession and talking kids out of having proper teachers. People should be bloody outraged at the state of education and that kids are being taught by someone without a teaching qualification probably paid peanuts. Instead it's all about justifying it.

No, it just pisses me off when someone comes on MN to say 'my kid doesn't have a teacher' people fall over themselves to say 'oh but the TA will probably be a qualified teacher' (OP says no and even if they are, why are they a TA and not a teacher - pay them to be a teacher) or 'oh but TAs are marvellous and better than teachers most of the time' or 'oh but qualified teachers can be shit so why worry if your kid's teacher isn't qualified, qualification doesn't mean they're any good'.

The person you replied to didn't say any of those things, though.

My daughter is in year 7. During year six, their class teacher was a teaching deputy head. Sometimes, During the teacher's PPE/Deputy Head time, there wasn't even a TA available and they ended up on a couple of occasions having a lunchtime supervisor/dinner lady supervising the class.

I don't blame the school and in fact, this year, there has been a letter signed by all of the secondary head teachers in our local authority that they are facing severe financial pressures and may not be able to deliver the full curriculum from September - That's How bad things are.

DO NOT VOTE TORY ON THURSDAY

They certainly said that qualified teachers can be shit so you can't assume that an unqualified teacher would be worse.

So what? We shouldn't care that our kid's teacher is qualified?

And the rest of the thread is full of the usual shit that comes up when some parent is concerned that their kid doesn't have a teacher.

@noblegiraffe

I have a lot experience as a classroom teacher and teacher trainer. The quality of trainees coming through QTS only routes and Teach First and so on has degraded considerably over the last 5-10 years. I’ve been forced to train English teachers without English degrees. I’ve been forced to pass trainees who can barely spell and who have no ability to plan or teach a functional lesson.

So forgive me if I don’t automatically agree that a qualified teacher is always better than an unqualified one. In my experience, that is not the case.

That’s not to say that teachers should not have to go through a qualification process.

That’s not to say that it’s ok to have unqualified but perfectly competent people teaching young people for a fraction of the pay their qualified colleagues get.

You can believe in the importance of a trained and qualified profession while also acknowledging that sometimes an unqualified person is better than a qualified one. The two viewpoints aren’t mutually exclusive.

You’re trying to claim that I hold a belief I have not stated anywhere on this thread. Please stop.

Thank you @AGoingConcern for your support.