How many of your children are taught by unqualified people?

[gapbear]

Just that really.

A lot of schools have stopped getting (qualified) supply teachers in to cover teachers' non-contact time. Instead they get TAs to cover the class, or in secondary schools, 'Cover Supervisors'. It's possible some of them have teaching qualifications, but the vast majority don't.

I am unhappy at the thought of my children having a couple of hours a week with someone who does not hold a teaching qualification.

A growing development I have noticed, as the number of teaching jobs declines is the number of qualified teachers working as Cover Supervisors.

I can understand schools needing to spend less money, with all the budget cuts, but I can't help feeling that this is not the area to do it in.

DH and I are entirely unqualified to educate a child, and yet he spends most of his time with us

Having a cover supervisor is cheaper than paying for supply teachers, especially in schools which use them more often.

I know, it is legal, but that doesn't make it right.

I agree with cat64 - in the case of an emergency, fine, but for planned absences, and for illness there should be somebody qualified to deliver the curriculum.

Apart from anything else, I think it is also unfair for someone on only £13,000 / £14,0000 a year to deal with the stress of keeping on top of 30+ children (and their parents )

Cover supervisors do get training and support. In secondary, (I teach 11-18), a cover supervisor will take a lesson if the teacher is away for illness or whatever. If the absence is going to be longer term (more than a few days, in a planned sense) then a supply teacher is used. The regular teacher will set appropriate work and the cover supervisor will facilitate that. The advantage is that the students know the cover supervisor, and the cover supervisor knows the various systems and sanctions of the school, and is therefore in a better position, often, to cope with the situation than a supply teacher who has never been to the school before, does not know any of the children, and does not know who to turn to if there is a problem.

I am fully supportive of the cover supervisors in our school, and think that it is an excellent system, as long as the cover supervisors are strong characters. We have three men where I teach, and all are very well equipped to cope with their jobs. I had to leave one of them in charge of a Yr 8 Performing Arts class last week, as I had a meeting with the Head, and he did a great job. Also, as this is a new class for me and we've only been back a couple of weeks, he knew more of the students' names than I did.

TBH, I think those of you who are moaning about your DCs being left with an "unqualified" person need to look into it a bit more before getting pissy about it. It is a valid, an, IME, successful system which is far more sensible than the old system of pulling in random supply teachers here there and everywhere, or getting already over-loaded teachers to cover for collagues.

Cover supervisors don't teach, but then neither do I when I cover lessons for absent colleagues. The difference is that they engage actively with the students while I try to get on with my marking . Supply teachers have the double disadvantage of not knwoing the children and not necessarily being trained in that subject, and so are really only useful for long term cover IMO.

We also have unqualified teachers in my school, and actually I think you'd be pretty glad to have most of them teaching your children, because they are excellent. Outstanding in fact. And very experienced in the field (usually vocational) they are teaching in.

All of mine.

I am totally unqualified to teach children and they have learned loads from me.

Well your schools sound like good places to work, and you are obviously very lucky to have such good staff.

I sincerely hope however, that a) your staffing situation continues to work well, b) the results at your school are excellent and c) that you never have to be a supply teacher desperate for work!

As it happens, there were 5 CSs at my son's last school - 1 was amazing and had a real flair for teaching, the other 4 were abysmal.

I do have sympathy with supply teachers. Must have been a nightmare over the last few years. But it doesn't change my opinion that actually, a good in house CS is a better option for the students.

I am one of those "unqualified" TAs you talk of. I work as and am employed as a level 3 TA. Part of my job is to cover PPA time and to cover first day cover if the class teacher is off sick or unplanned absence.

However I am also a qualified teacher with 10 years classroom experience, plus a further 3-4 years education experience in another setting. Before the TA job I had a year's voluntary work, working PT in a primary school getting additional up to date primary experience.

I actually sometimes more qualified in the teaching sense than the class teacher I cover.

I just chose to work as a TA as it suits my home worklife balance at present.

I actually make sure the amount of cover I do is restricted as I actually don't think TAs should be doing more than the above. We still get supply in for planned absences and sickness above a day.

Out of our 9 L3 TAs at school at least 4 have teaching degrees/PGCSE and teaching experience and the others have other teaching based experiences/qualications or TA qualifications.

We have L1 TAs without those levels ofqualifcations/experience but they do not work unsupervised doing things like cover and never with the whole class.

CSs are generally known by pupils in the school, know the school systems and how it operates and are able to interact with staff and pupils. I have always found lessons I have left for them to be well-managed and still beneficial to the pupils even though have not been 'taught' as such. On the other hand I have had countless lessons done by supply teachers where they have been unable to deliver a simple lesson effectively. A teaching qualification can often be of little value compared to experience and knowledge of a school and its pupils. As a short-term measure (they can only be allocated to a class for 2 weeks max) they are much more effective imo.

cat64 Why on earth should a class be left with a cover supervisor for a meeting ? Surely meetings take place before school, at luch break, during PPA time, or after school ?

have you ever tried arranging a meeting with an Ed Psych, or Behaviour support worker or the 101 other professionals that teachers have to meet with, for 7.30 in the morning? Or fitting a 2 hour meeting into a lunch break. Or getting a meeting with anyone after 4.30 ( when I finished clubs today, staff meeting tomorrow, PSCO meeting on Thursday and so on) ? In many cases teachers can't dictate WHEN we have the meeting, we need to fit in with local authority agencies, other professionals etc Much as we dislike having to leave a class, there are occasions when we have to.

But TAs with teaching qualifications are in the minority. I do acknowledge that there are some great unqualifieds out there, but I can't help but feel sad at reading some of the teachers on here deprofessionlising themselves. They've spent potentially 4 years training, x years teaching, and are happy for any old person to do their job.

I do think that schools should mainly use unqualified staff to support the teacher, not take their place.

cat64 often meetings involve a range of professionals - social workers, doctors, nurses, family workers, educational psychologists, court guardians, parental support workers, placement officers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, play therapists .... endless list and meetings have to fit in with their hours not just school hours.
It's a nightmare trying to get everyone in the same room at the same time

I would think that the private school children spend more time with unqualified teachers than the average state school child.

I am not sure that is true namey

I have had to had my lessons covered so I can attend child protection case conferences.

I am not happy for any old person to do my job. My job is not covering a year 9 RE lesson. My job is to teach Science. And not seeing that there is a difference is deprofessionalising (?) me more.

Vespasian I think nameymcnamechange means that independent schools are free to employ unqualified teachers (as the class/subject teacher) whereas state schools cannot.

It is not true that state schools cannot employ unqualified teachers, they can and some do. They are sometimes used for subjects such as sport and music, etc. It is unusual but does happen and can legally happen. they are, or were at least, paid on a different pay scale.

Equally, these days, the majority of independent schools only employ qualified teachers as their made class or core subject teachers. But again may use unqualified teacers (but qualifications in other specialist areas) for subjects such as sport and music.

We have unqualified teachers, as I said earlier on the thread.

In DDs independent school PPA and absence is only ever covered by either qualified teachers. I assume this is mainly because, as small class sizes there are no TAs in prep section, so they have to get proper cover in, as no TA to step in. Sometimes the head covers though, which the girls love - sheis qualified teacher though.

Hulababy in state schools they are normally called "instructors" rather than teachers especially for sports and music