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.

If CSs are used as originally designed (to cover for short term sickness) then it makes sense. They know the school and the pupils, proceedures etc.

However many schools are going beyond this remit, CSs are scheduled on for cover for NQTs etc...and in the case of my last school they were solely resposnsible for some classes and subjects...including planning, marking, schemes of work etc. Now that I disagree with, they just don't have the training to do it...why else would we require teachers to train and be qualified if it wasn't necessary! And besides, it isn't fair on the CSs, there is no way I would take on the responsibilities of a teacher for CS pay.

I meant to say that schools can employ 'unqualified teachers' who have suitable experience, but they have to demonstrate that they couldn't get someone qualified and show a plan to rectify. So that would either be getting the unqualified teacher qualified, or hiring someone else next year, IYSWIM.

The reality is that far too much money is wasted on teachers. In future we will be seeing many more cover supervisors delivering lessons.

All that is really required are one or two specialists to take charge of planning and assessment and a team of specialist cover supervisors to do most of the delivery. A teacher can take classes for one in four sessions to ensure continuity.

This is the great new idea in education. Policy is well advanced and Cover Supervisors have proved it works. In three or four years time we will all be asking why it took so long to implement and why so much money was wasted on unnecessary teachers.

TBH I think CSs and TAs are an improvement. I remember in primary school Y6 babysitting other classes when teachers had meetings - only when they were old enough to be doing set work from a book or silent reading. I remember being left alone in class because teachers had meetings.

Even in secondary school prefects were expected to cover classes if teachers needed to be elsewhere. It wasn't at all uncommon for a teacher to come to the common room to find someone who had a free or to arrange in advance a cover. Never in science labs or art but pretty much every other subject.

IMO it's better to have adults doing it!

For a foreign perspective: my Swedish relatives tell me that their schools do not pay for either cover teachers or supply teachers: the class are just left to get on with it if their teacher is off. Just thought I'd offer a bit of a perspective here.

rudbekia: Firstly, a TA or Cover Supervisor is NOT allowed to 'teach'.

This is a gross simplification.

When the initial agreement was being formulated a whole series of weasel words had to be inserted to appease the unions. Phrases like, "no active teaching," which are meaningless but give the impression that the Cover Supervisor presence in the classroom is somehow inferior.

In reality, Cover Supervisors use their skills and knowledge to teach like any other teacher.

But without being taught how to teach, or necessarily having the subject knowledge of a teacher? Yep, cause it's easy.

I have worked as both a teacher and as an HLTA, and I have to say I don't think schools should rely on CSs or TAs to deliver the curriculum on a regular basis.

I spent 4 years training to teach, and contary to popular opinion it is not just about standing in front of a class and talking. It worries me in terms of accountability - if something happens in the class, who is responsible? Is it fair to place someone on a fairly low wage in that kind of position? What about results? Our education system is massively based on testing and results - surely our children are entitled to the most skilled practitioners?

I am appalled and surprised at the teachers who are supporting the denigration of our profession. Whichever poster said that teachers will be obsolete in a few years time is correct.

And the sad thing is it will be our own fault.

If Cover Supervisors do such a wonderful job why are many schools so coy about telling parents that they are being used in school?
I don't know of one single secondary shool in my area that has written to parents to inform them that unqualified staff are routinely taking lessons.

Why do schools hide Cover Supervisors out of the way when OFSTED arrive and call in supply teachers instead?

I think schools do the sensible thing and count cover supervisors as members of the teaching staff. Then, the person in front of the class is a teacher, as far as pupils and parent are concerned. Better for discipline and morale.

They don't hide Cover Supervisors away when Ofsted come. 3 of my Cover Supervisors had lesson obs, when they were last in my school.

I don't know of any school that hide Ts or CS away. Of course they don't sned letters home to say they are presentin the school and wha their role is, but if a parent asked they'd be told. Have worked as a teacher in secondary and as a TA in primary, and have friends in both roles, in both stages of education. Not one school I know of pretends that TAs and CSs don't exist or that they are used to do temporary cover.

TAs and CSs are "teaching staff" as are tachers obviously. Teaching staff is a geneic term to cover all staff that may be used in the teaching of children. Doesn;t matter if that is small group, one to one or whole class - they all count.

But IME and in my knowldge schools are open about TA and CS roles compared to teachers, and parents and pupils usually know who is who, and are always free to ask.

As to the issue of 'qualified' - granted, a TA/cover sup may well have a degree etc but that does not qualifiy them to teach. I have worked with some excellent support staff during my teaching career but I have to admit that they are rare. I often find them either too overbearing - to the point where they will interrupt my lessons and talk when I'm talking - or completely uselss i.e. they do nothing!

rudbekia, your entire post was much more eloquent than I could ever be!

I was wrong to use the word 'unqualified' in my OP - of course TAs / HLTAs / CSs have a diverse range of qualifications, I didn't mean to imply that they are degree-free.

I should have said - not qualified to teach. I think there is a massive difference between teaching as a vocation, and doing only a part of the job, that is, delivery.

My dd is 14, she has had lessons taken by cover supervisors, and I have absolutely no problem with that.

The CS do not teach. The supervise the class whislt they work on stuff which has been set by the teacher (either the dept head or the absent teacher). They are there to supervise the class (the clue is in the name) not to actively instruct.

You probably get a better experience from a CS than a regular who is asked to cover (which is what used to happen, and they would sit there and not interact with teh class at all).

Plus, Supply teachers are generally supplied by a private agency, which charges an enormous amount per day. Although they are qualified teachers, they would not add any value, as they may not know the subject, and will probably not know the kids. Would much rather the school buget went on their regular CSs, rather than extortionate rates from a supply teacher agency.

This is all a load of fuss about nothing. CSs are a good idea in my book.

budget I meant

We've had Ofsted in for the last two days. Two members of staff called in sick (that's another story) and so two of our three cover supervisors were used. The school is open about who they are and what they do - our school website has a full staff list, and their roles are against their names.

I maintain that CSs do a good job (in my school at least) and that the use of a CS rather than a supply teacher is effective, when used properly - as they are where I teach.

I think crew's suggestion that teachers are going to be obsolete in a few years is ridiculous. Having spent a term working part time but planning for lessons (taken by a supply teacher) on days when I wasn't in, there is no way that this will ever be a sensible approach to teaching and learning. I had no idea how much was being achieved, had to chase people up for work and homework, and was planning lessons without knowing how far the students had got previously. It is simply not an effective way to teach, and certainly not a way for students to learn. No government would ever allow it to happen. It's the kind of preposterous scare-mongering of the "one day, there will be no need for teachers - all children will learn from home with just a computer" ilk.

And also! If you could see the state a regular teacher gets in, at my school, when they have to teach out of their field. It's hilarious! They get in a right old flap and I'm sorry to say, many times, the cover lesson usually ends up a complete waste of time, as they don't know what they're doing! 'Welcome to my world' is what I usually say.

So, what I'm saying is, probably better all round to have an occasional Cover Supervisor, who knows the kids, than a supply teacher OR a member of the teaching staff that are already at the school.

occasional, yes, but for a long term planned absence I feel that a subject specific supply teacher should be brought in.

Supply teachers I have had in the past (primary) have always been diligent, marked the work, left the room tidy, and left good notes about the day. They have always made an effort to learn names, aided by the seating plan that frankly every teacher should have in place anyway. Most schools have one or two regular supply teachers who they get in the first instance and know the school, the staff and the children.

CSs are good short term in secondary schools - and by that I mean first day of absence only, and that if a subject specific supply can't be found.

It would only be ridiculous if it wasn't happening in some schools already, being proposed for others and being actively discussed by those that make decisions.

Not all teachers will be obsolete, the best ones will remain and just be better used.

Seriously, crew? I think that's bollocks. Which schools? Find me an example please. I think you're talking shit.

Hula I agree that there will be times when meetings cannot be held after teaching time however when they can be arranged after school or in free periods they should be.

Evil I am very surprised the head covered you to review results, we interview our HOD in their line management time/ free periods.

Utter tosh I am afraid, departments may have schemes of work planned but the person teaching the students needs to be planning their lessons. Following in their interests, revisiting what they did not understand, stretching them where they can respond. Children fly in classrooms when taught by dedicated, trained professionals.

I quite like doing the odd cover, it is nice to see students I teach or under my care working in a different environment. When I used to be a head of year I would always volunteer for cover if my year group needed a teacher.

People are being very naive if they think CS are never being used as teachers for weeks or months on end, and this is hidden from OFSTED. This often happens in the schools that really need good teachers and instead vulnerable pupils are being fobbed of with substandard teaching. This is going to get worse as budgets get tighter. A CS is significantly cheaper than a teacher and a lot of schools have defecit budgets.

Vespasian - you shouldn't be doing cover at all. It's one of the things that was removed from teachers' duties after the government review of conditions of service - hence cover supervisors.

As for my meeting with the Head - she wanted to get through all the dept review meetings in a short period of time (we're in special measures and had to get results analysed and reviewed before a visit from HMI) so I guess that's why it was done like that. I would expect future meetings to be arranged in my free periods.