People who described themselves as teachers when they’re actually teaching assistance or cover supervisor

[KarlWrenbury]

This is a thing I’ve noticed recently. Is it because they can’t be asked to describe what they really do or is it slightly more disingenuous? For reference no I don’t think it’s a great amazing thing to be a teacher but it’s interesting that they do.

assistants *

What I don't like is when people say they are "just" a TA.

“I would not necessarily want an unqualified teacher teaching my children unless they were doing sport or practical subject, I suppose? Maybe. I dunno”

OP stating they would not want a TA teaching their child!

I have not stated a TA is a teacher. I was commenting on my experience as a TA. Then the origins of Teaching. TA’s or Cover Supervisor do not necessarily hold QTS. Currently teachers in Independent schools are not required to hold QTS they are still teachers.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for teachers and the work they do, it's hardly something to brag about is it?

Why are so so concerned?

You never used to have to 'qualified as a teacher'. I think that's actually quite new. It just used to be you had a degree and wanted to be one so did teacher training, maybe on the job. It wasn't necessary to have an actual qualification in it.

As Marge Simpson once said when contemplating being a piano teacher 'you only need to stay one lesson ahead of the kid'. 🤣

This is wild & so, so wrong.

It is completely & utterly different in Scotland. PSAs (pupil support assistants) - the equivalent of TAs I imagine- are very, very far away from teachers. They do a phenomenal job, and with constant cuts we couldn't survive without them, but they support, they don't ever teach.

Some responsibilities they may have:
Organising equipment/ photocopying resources/ prompting /reading for a pupil/ scribing for a pupil/ reiterating instructions/ explaining steps again/ looking after disability needs (lift access/ medical needs)..

Absolutely never teaching a class, or being alone with a pupil or group of pupils. It would be within a classroom with a teacher. There is no planning/ marking/ admin.

I'm in secondary, and I imagine the primary role is somewhat different, but they would never teach a class, ever.

I've been teaching 30 years, & have presented 1000s of pupils for our national exams (equivalent of GCSE & A Level), so whilst PSAs/ TAs do an amazing job for very little pay, their job in no way resembles mine, so they are indeed not teachers (and wouldn't want to be, I imagine).

Edited to add: here we need a degree plus the PGCE to teach your subject. There's no teaching another subject until a certain age (like they do in other parts of the UK). Then there's also a probationer year, which is very robust, & you must pass, and finally another 2 years of 'probation' within a school environment. Never, ever just learning on the job.

The vast majority of TAs I have worked with in Secondary School have no degree so most teachers have four more years of academia than they have actually. Pilot school is about 2 years….

Where I worked nearly all the TAs had degrees. They wanted a job that fitted round their families. Yes we taught classes often covering long term sickness, meetings, etc - And to be fair we were more qualified that a new teacher - we had the behaviour management skills lacking in a lot of new teachers - and special needs - some new teachers were like a bill in a China shop!!

Honestly, go try it and see for yourself and then come back and say they aren’t teachers.

Presumably Primary?

I'm a teacher. I'm registered, with a TRN, and if I don't uphold the Teachers Standards, then I can be reported to the TRA. The TRA have the power to end my career.

I'm a TA, I'm not registered with anyone, there's no statutory standards that I must uphold. You can only report me to my employer and if I'm dismissed I can just go and get a job as a TA in another school.

Yes, there's a difference.

Saying a TA is a teacher diminishes the status of teachers, thats not snobby, teachers work hard to get qualified, whereas (anecdotally) I’ve known schools that will take anyone they can get as a TA, I’ve had one TA tell me she only works in classes below year 2 because her maths and English skills are good enough to go into higher classes, and another woman I know got a job as a TA without even an interview because she was the only one who applied, and she will admit herself that she’s not academic and has no qualifications, her spelling is shocking and she’s got no general knowledge skills.

But they're not teachers. If they wanted to teach, they would.

Unfortunately, this can be the reality. Many others are just amazing, but some are lacking in basic skills.

This is my experience of Secondary TAs too. Some are very good at working with the children. Most can’t even help the students find an adverb….

Even so, having a random degree qualifies someone to take a PGCE, it does nothing to prepare them to teach, and it is the PGCE that trains them to teach. In theory a degree proves a certain level of academic ability, but not all degrees are equal, and plenty of people have degrees who are not exactly brain of Britain.

I don't think teaching a class for a day while a teacher is off is the same as being a teacher. Does this cover TA also do all the assessments, targets, planning, parent evenings, curriculum lead?

And plenty of primary teachers don't want to work in year 6, because the maths is too hard for them to teach!

TBF if all teachers had to do was plan, prepare and teach the curriculum, lots more people would want to be teachers -it's all the other crap they have to do that puts them off.

The government will welcome this - they're ultimately the reason why anybody nowadays can call themselves a teacher. I wonder how many parents are actually aware that their child's class teacher may not even have a GCSE? Guessing they're OK with this?
When I first started out you needed at least a 2:1 degree. It took me six years to qualify - 4 years BSc Hons, 1 year PGCE, and 1 year to gain QTS (qualifying year in school).
Not now.
I left classroom teaching last December after 20 years in primary and it's one of the best decisions I ever made.

My degree level knowledge of Shakespeare, war poetry, Orwell and Dickens has definitely helped me to teach GCSE and A level Literature and I’m sure the same is true of many secondary subjects.

You need to be a qualified teacher to take kids on a bus?

And I know a lot of qualified teachers who couldn't teach swimming (nor could I)

Secondary yes, but to do primary PGCE the degree is not important, and even if you have studied a NC subject, it's unlikely to be much help when teaching the same subject to 4-11 year olds.

I've just read an email from a HT whose knowledge of English grammar is not quite what I would expect.

And a number of teachers who haven't the faintest idea of how to use an apostrophe. Not helpful when they're teaching primary pupils

Tell me you’ve never taken 28 ten year olds on a bus without telling me you’ve never taken 28 ten year olds on a bus.

@Nanny0gg All the schools I have worked in would require a qualified teacher to accompany any off-site visit, yes.
As someone has said previously, a qualified teacher is bound by Teacher Standards; ultimately to keep children safe. Support staff are not.

I am a TA/AT. The school I work in refers to us as Assistant Teachers rather than Teaching Assistants.