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.

The plain truth is that schools are not adhering to the guidelines for the use of Cover Supervisors - they are being used for too lomg a period of time (including to cover Maternity Leave in one sxhool I know of) snd some of them are teaching. If a cover supervisor is used to cover an absent teacher for a period of 2 weeks in a secondary school (which is very commom) that amounts to more than 5% of the pupils' lessons in that subject fot a year. Completing written work which has been set by a teacher is not adequate for that period of time. Teaching is required for pupils to advance through the curriculum. In Modern Languages, for example, pupils need specialist input in the spoken element of the language.

In addition, are parents aware that schools can, and do, employ agency cover supervisors? This entirely negates the argument about cover supervisors knowing the school and the pupils.

We must accept that this issue is entirely about money and is a direct consequence of the 'rarely cover' rule which means that teachers do not usually cover for absent colleagues. This would be a good thing but no extra funding was provided so schools are forced to rely on unqualified personnel to provide cover in order to save money.

All our senior teachers cover lessons if we are stretched. It also helps us keep an eye on things. If a lesson needs covering within my department and I am free I will always volunteer as would most of our HOD so the students have a subject specialist.

Teaching is more than just following a lesson plan - shame on those of you who are suggesting a teacher should plan and CSs deliver. You have to know when to go off on a tangent, when to stop and assess, what to do when you realise they just haven't got it. You have to have a hundred and one ways of explaining the same thing - which means in depth subject knowledge and knowledge of VKA - and you need a thousand and one ways of managing behaviour.

You need to be able to see who is participating, who is holding back, who is way ahead, how the class gels together and learns in order to inform your planning. You need to be there in order to assess for learning - which means you need to be there.

You need to know your pupils to make the learning relevant - if half the class are into motorbikes you need to know that so you can provide an opportunity to link their interests to their learning.

Frankly, I think some of you are more interested in keeping your rarely cover than in maintaining high standards of education.

As a parent I would not want a TA or CS "teaching" my children, as a teacher I believe schools that use TA & CS to "teach" classes are exploiting their staff.
I didn't come into teaching to write lesson plans for others. I could have written books or opened a website instead.

But that's exactly what happens. Teachers leave a lesson plan for the Covers to deliver.

If a school can get it right, then the CS's are a great asset to the school. For example I employed a CS recently, specifically because she could speak French & Spanish fluently. I also have a CS who has a maths degree. She will be taking up a PGC next year and until then, she is priceless in the classroom, when the chips are down.

CS's should not cover for more than 3 days sickness/absence. After that, the school should put a supply teacher in place. That's the rule anyway. It's not always that easy though.

I had my supply budget cut to zero last year, so we had to make do with the resources we had and that meant CS's covering for far longer than was acceptable. Cheap labour basically, but my hands and the schools hands were tied!

Still, I wouldn't be happy if DD had a CS for more than a week tbh.

tangerinecat - I agree with you entirely about teaching being more than just following a lesson plan. Well put.

The "rarely cover" rule has made a huge difference though, and I believe it should be maintained. Previously, IME, teachers were so frazzled from lack of precious "free" time during the day, that they were less able to put as much into their teaching than they should. It bred resentment in all the schools I've worked in - people upset about doing yet another cover, comparing themselves to colleagues and so on. Cover supervisors are a good compromise, as long as they are used correctly. In the school I currently teach in, they are used correctly, and everyone benefits.

Eviltwins, my son's school nursery was entirely staffed and run by TAs. They had a planning meeting with a teacher on Wednesday mornings, and that was it.

I consider his nursery education to have been very good - but the nursery exists without the statutory presence of a teacher. They had a very good Ofsted recently - it has been pointed out to me on MN that a teacher must have magically appeared for that week. He has just started Reception in another school without a nursery.

The governors in my school refuse to allow non-teachers to take/teach classes, and advertise it as a strength of our school. I presume this works, since we are always heavily over-subscribed. They say they refuse to allow teaching on the cheap.

Ime, supply teachers in primary schools are usually known to the school who, once they have found a decent one, cling onto them for dear life.

It's interesting that people who don't know but don't like what they hear quickly resort to foul language.

It just needs a little research.

It's interesting that people who make wild and ridiculous assertions fail to come up with evidence when asked to do so.

Feenie - I would argue that nursery is very different to, say, KS4. The nursery my DDs went to didn't employ teachers or TAs - it was a nursery. It employed staff who were qualifed to work in a nursery. Not one of them had a BEd or a PGCE - but then, why would they?

But in a school nursery, it is illegal to run without a qualified teacher. I would wager that nursery teachers would argue that they are extremely important - they teach! I can't believe you would say anything different as a teacher, let alone something so insulting.

But whether you consider nursery teachers to be necessary or not is immaterial - they are statutory in a school setting.

Your point being?

Why do you imagine people with a PGCE don't have a teaching qualification? It stands for Post Graduate Certificate in Education, fgs.

But they are learning FioFio - that means they have input from mentors and tutors and are learning how to teach.

You're being a bit obtuse, imo.

Ah, I see, while studying - all student teachers teach in schools, but they are always monitored, FioFio.

totally agree op
I want teachers not TAs

It appeared that you were saying people doing PGCEs aren't trained to teach and were putting them in the same category as CSs and TAs to be inflammatory.

My apologies if I misread what you were saying.

Crew - I'm not sure where you've got your information from, or why (for that matter) you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder about teachers in general.

I spoke in my post as a qualified, working teacher who KNOWS what is legal/not legal/expected of these extra, non-teaching staff. TAs are support staff. Cover sups are a slightly different creature but they are NOT allowed to 'teach'.

Teaching is not a simple, straightforward job. Goodness, if I could walk into every lesson I taught with a pre-written plan, resources etc all laid out for me then of course I'd think it was the easiest job on the planet.

Short, mid and long-term planning take a high level of skill and experience. Being responsible for GCSE and A level classes; marking and moderating exam coursework, liasing with parents/outside agencies....these take time, skill and training. That is why something such as the PGCE and NQT years exist - and they are tough. I worked as an LSA with disabled students for a year before starting my teacher training - even so, nothing could have prepared me for the pressures of job.

Regardless of what the media/OFSTED say, the majority of teachers are bloody good at their jobs and work exceptionally hard for the benefit of the kids they teach. Its not about being 'worthy', its about taking pride in a chosen vocation.

Anyway, if you truly believe we'd be better of without teachers then I'm not going to change your mind. I just think you have a very two-dimensional view of education and this is a shame. I also think cover sups are woefully underpaid for what is asked of them. We all know they are a money-saving exercise, nothing more.

I am in total agreement with you, rudbekia.

It would help if teachers could read. The problem of a minimally qualified profession I suppose.

Nobody said that we should have no teachers. We need people to plan, prepare and assess. What we don't need are classrooms constantly manned by expensive teachers when it is patently obvious that for a large proportion of the time they require supervision.

The success of this approach is being proved in many schools. (It is bad form to name schools in newsgroups and takes a minimum of research to find them.)

The 'law' seems to be quoted so often as it some crime is being committed. No crime is being committed because it is mostly recommendation, custom and practice and national and local agreements. These will mostly be torn up over the next few years to clean out the dross in education.

You folks take yourself too seriously. If only you took the job as seriously.