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 mere fact that you can't read properly tells me an awful lot more.

I can read perfectly well. I can also quote you directly: "What cover supervisors are demonstrating is that using less qualified/expensive people to do the delivery makes very little difference to learning outcomes."

You appear to be claiming that this situation could happen on a regular basis, but this shows a woeful lack of understanding.

There is never a time when just delivery, and nothing else, will do - save occasional, unforseen absence.

And I don't believe that it makes no difference to learning outcomes - it would depend entirely on the person 'delivering', not their job title - but there is no evidence to suggest that a cover supervisor could replace an outstanding teacher wihtout affecting learning outcomes.

Crew - "So schools are increasingly mixing and matching. Teachers plan and assess and monitor what is happening in the classroom. Less expensive people do most of the delivery"

You still haven't actually come up with specific examples of this. What and where are these schools? Believe me, having been through an Ofsted inspection this week, there is no way a school could do this and be deemed adequate. Absolutely no way.

I really think that just because you have had teacher training it does not make you a good teacher. It makes you know about standards and the national curriculum but does not, imho, improve your ability to impart wisdom. I think that is partially innate and if a TA/unqualitifed teacher was doing a good job I really wouldn't quibble about their qualifications.

Teaching is not just about 'imparting wisdom'. That is a fallacy, and vastly simplifying the job.

Alas I can never aspire to be a CS as I cannot for the life of me use other people's planning

Personally I would be happy with a great TA if they have experience etc.

Our TA does provide cover sometimes and I onject but only as she is statement funded, Otherwise she's excellent and has 30+ years experience.

Oh and the bickering on the thread? Makes you look childish.

In secondary schools many supply teachers are utterly crap and are supply teachers because they are incapable of securing employement. The only exceptions I have met have been a couple of retired teachers and a lady with small children who did not want the pressure of a full time teaching job.

I would rather that my children were taught by a good higher level teaching assistant than a medicore supply teacher. A HLTA knows the children and the discipline policy of the school.

Many TAs have degrees. Term time working is very popular. It is true that not many have teaching qualifications, but good teachers are born rather than made.

incapable of securing employment reallytired
What planet do you live on? Yes, some teachers cannot get a job in the area in which they live - it doesn't mean they are poor teachers.

Most supply teachers I know only want to work part time, or need to be flexible due to family circumstances, or enjoy the challenge and change.

I am appalled at the way permanent teachers are coming across as very smug and see the situation as 'us and them'. We all have the same qualifications, have undergone the same training - but different strokes for different folks.

I don't think reallytired is a teacher?

I'm primary but I worked as a supply teacher for a term when my father was diagnosed with cancer (as his main carer) so that I could work around his needs and I would imagine many secondary supply teachers have similar needs.

I did supply for nearly a year after I moved from Warwickshire to London at shortish notice. It suited be to be flexible. Not that I enjoyed it particularly - I ended up working in one school which needed a long-term teacher and was employed permanently in the end.

Reallytired - your comments were pretty insulting.

I didn't enjoy supply because of the London schools I was put in - bit too much of a shock after leafy Warwickshire, I meant.

The problem with the degree thing is that overall numbers here at least are reducing.

I wanted to be a teacher but had to change my direction after child issues. So I looked at TA training- LEA has a blanket rule that all TAs must have NVQ3 on commencement of employment.

Graduates can't get funding for NVQ3 unde current rules, college doesn't take self funded people becuase it gets too fiddly with defaulters etc.

So educational attainment level of TA recruits drops.

That's a ridiculous situation SanctiMoanyArse. Hope you found a way to work in education :-)

TC no, but am doing an MA in ASD and then hoping to train in SW and am equally excited about that.

Was a terrible shame though.

Good luck!

based on most of the attitudes expressed here I suggest we simply dispense with schools altogether. Leave it to the parents - I mean - if any Tom, Dick or Harry can 'teach' based on watching a teacher then goodness...why are we wasting all our taxes on it?

oh no - I forgot....schools are a modern babysitting service (as mentioned before), and it seems that parents here simply don't care who's in charge of their offspring as long as they don't have to care for them.

It is exceptionally depressing and upsetting to have something for which you trained and for which you CARE about being dismissed in this manner. All sorts of judgements are being bandied about, especially in relation to supply which are simply not true. Assumptions are being made based on nothing other than the very propaganda fed to the media via cash-strapped schools and the government. 'Oh its better to have a CS because they know the kids'. A good teacher does not need to 'know' the kids to do a decent job - I didn't know half of my classes two weeks ago (yr 7s and yr 8s not previously taught for example) but I've not struggled. Its an utter fallacy with no basis in reality. CS's are NOT there because they are 'better' for the kids but because they are cheap.

Either you have a professional standard or you don't. If my qualification is obselete/meaningless then I want a refund, please.

rudbekia - I completely disagree with you re cover supervisors, and I am also a qualified teacher. I teach my classes better when I know them better, and I certainly manage them better too. My experience of supply teachers is just that - experience. I'm not making it up. I don't think they are necessarily poor teachers, but I think that the job of cover is best done by people who know the school. A good subject specialist supply teacher who has worked at the school a lot would be fantastic - but that's not usually what you get. If we are talking about teaching, then that is something else entirely. I think we do ourselves down when let the two things be confused. I did a Leisure and Tourism cover yesterday (so much for rarely cover ), and I didn't teach it. I covered it. I know nothing about Leisure and Tourism. I supervised the work, managed the class and wrote my equipment list for next week. Teaching qualification superfluous to requirements.

But the point of the OP was regular unqualified teaching. I don't think anybody minds the odd lesson.

And certainly in primary, schools tend to use the same supply teachers. I appreciate in secondary it can be hard to get subject specialists.

But really - why are schools exponetially expanding SLTs (Head, Deputy, a couple of assistant heads yada yada), yet skimping on where it matters?

TheFallenMadonna

fair enough - I did mention in a previous post that cover is just that and when I do it I hand out work and supervise. That is exactly what as CS is supposed to do. The issue arises when CSs are used for long-term cover and they end up 'teaching'.

I object to the idea that a CS is a better option than a teacher in all cases, as long as some poor, qualified soul holed up in a room somewhere has prepared the lesson and resources for them.

I don't think its a matter of teachers doing themselves down - I really feel that our profession is under attack by the very people who rely on us to educate their offspring. I also think that what we do is so little understood that its easy to watch someone experinced and think 'I could do that'....but thanks for sharing your views as a fellow teacher!

Five Assistant Heads. Five.

two deputies and two assistants.

last year? three deps and five assistants.

Crikey, FallenMadonna. And...what do they do, exactly?

You see what I'm getting at?