Something EVERY parent of a child in a UK State school should know about

[QualifiedTeacher]

The UK Government has new proposals to allow non qualified teachers to teach in UK schools. This means our children?s education may be placed in the hands of teachers without basic qualifications such as English and Maths GSCE let alone a Bachelors degree. This policy will mainly be affecting children from the lower economic backgrounds and the reasoning behind employing unqualified teachers is simply because it costs less.

I have attached an epetition which gives more information and is asking for signatures to oppose the use of unqualified teachers in UK State schools. If the numbers signing this petition is large enough, we can get the debate discussed in the UK Parliament. Please help and protect the education of all UK children in State schools.

Thanks

Certainly is thunk. That's shocking, too.

I'm bloody great at teaching secondary English to exam classes & KS3 groups.

I'd definitely need training & support to work with individuals with complex communication disorders.

& even with support, I might turn out to be rubbish at it.

So probably in no-one's interest to employ me unless & until I gain some sort of assessed experience in that particular role, just because I know someone else who does it (dh, as it happens) & think it looks easy (I don't).

Which is sort of where we came in! We may be agreeing more than I thought.

Part of my job is working as an adviser in partner schools as well as teaching my usual classes. Most of the other advisers are teachers who haven't taught for 10 years or more. They've got all the theory but they shit a brick when faced with the prospect of teaching teens again. Honestly, they wouldn't last 10 minutes any more. And that's not necessarily to do with behaviour management, although that's a factor. It's the relentlessness of teaching and everything that goes with it. My one day a week as an adviser is a walk in the park compared to the teaching. (But I'd never swap - I love it too much! )

In fact they are all facing redundancy now with the cuts. Nice people but worth the money they are paid (twice what I'm on)? - er, no.

thunk, the problems the teacher that came and went had was probably due to the fact that Special schools are set up differently from mainstream. When Gove gets going, he wants Special Schools to be different. And with all PGCE students having to do placements in them, and more mainstream teachers coming your way, that teacher who had problems may feel more at home in the future.

Gove isn't happy with the standards in Special schools and he hasn't even start on you guys yet.

I think you are missing my broader point, Feenie. The issue of qualification really isn't as important as a broadscale shift away from provision of appropriate education for individuals provided by individuals with relevant skills.

Currently, very few individuals with special needs in mainstream schools are receiving adequate education from appropriately trained professionals. PGCE does not equip most teachers to differentiate at the level I describe above. I know this because I work with SENCOs and class teachers in mainstream and in specialist units who tell me this, time and time again.

I don't think the attack on Gove's plans should appear to be protectionist in terms of suggesting it's about a particular qualification etc. It needs to be about educational standards and unveiling the lie that allowing schools to employ unqualified teachers is about increasing calibre and standards - it's about saving money, pure and simple.

This has applied to children with SEN for years however and I am slightly galled that there wasn't much greater furore about the rights of individuals with SEN to an appropriate education for such a long period of time. A lot of teachers didn't make a fuss about this because it didn't impact on their role and truthfully, I feel, because they felt: "teaching kids with SEN - how hard can it be?".

You all automatically assumed I was in cloud cuckoo land for suggesting I could do your jobs without training, yet I guarantee you that my knowledge, skills and experience in terms of teaching individuals with SEN far outstrips that of the average TA providing an education for that child with limited supervision or training in the school SEN area. It also outstrips that of the vast majority of class teachers. Yet there's very little exposure of this issue, much fewer calls to action and e-petitions etc.

Forgive me for being cynical about what's motivating this.

Our LA advisors all went last year, Itchy.

Whilst, obviously, it's not nice to see a perfectly pleasant occasional colleague made redundant, I can't say we've missed ours that much. (To be fair our subject one was crap - I know other departments who rated theirs highly)

We don't miss her as much as the learning support assistants, anyway .

thunk, why aren't you responding to me? The PGCE students of the future will be doing placements in SEN, they will probably be learning how to assess in the way that you are. Gove has visions for all qualified teachers, to be able to teach in both mainstream and SEN. This may impact on your employability.

ItchyandScratchy, my role is about 60% face to face small group and individual intensive work (EBD, severe SLCN, ASD), 20% observation and advising and 20% training and MDT work. I don't think I'd work particularly amazingly well in a whole class situation to be honest and it wouldn't inspire me which is one reason I'm not interested in a PGCE. For my three days face to face I have a full timetable, just the same as teachers and have to plan and record etc. If I could do a focused PGCE to enable me to teach in a specialist setting I'd consider it, I'm not very interested in mainstream in much the same way many teachers aren't interested in teaching that lower end.

Again though, I was playing Devil's Advocate really... just pointing out that in some ways this debate has come too late. It's been deemed good enough for many kids with SEN for a long, long time.

I cross posted with you OP, that's why I didn't respond! Give a girl a chance!

Now your post of 22:07 I tend to agree with thunks.

I've taught very few students who enter year 7 below L2, because we've had very few come through the gates. It's not something I've ever had much training on & I'm quite happy to agree that you'd do a much better job than me working individually with those students.

I also agree there's never been enough exposure of the issue (& if any of my dc had significant LD I'd be even more worried about Gove than I am now).

thunk, do you understand that the whole manner in which you do things or are allowed to do things are going to be changed? Because the SEN provision is going to be cut in mainstream and more money is going to be put into Special Academies, more children that would have been in mainstream will be coming to you. The way you do things will change. Some of these children may be capable to doing GSCE etc.

This is why it's a called a shake up in special needs education. If I were you I'd do some research on the new plans and see where you will fit. Doing a PGCE now is probably a good idea for you as you will need both mainstream and SEN specialist skills.

I understand your point perfectly - the situation you describe is far from ideal, I agree. But two wrongs do not make a right!

If I could cross over to secondary with no training, even if I wanted to, I wouldn't feel as if I could without the requisite training. And to assume you could teach past level 4, with no prior experience, is at best ignorance - and from what you've described, you clearly know better.

If I came across an exceptional G and T pupil who needed teaching at level 7 in Y5/6, even as an experienced Literacy coordinator and 20 years+ teaching, I wouldn't 'have a bash' at it - I would seek appropriate guidance from secondary teachers, and arrange specialist teaching if I could. I would not assume that just because my excellent degree in English Lit could 'probably' cover it. That wouldn't be fair.

Perhaps not a PGCE, but something that gives you QTS.

It is something I'm obviously passionate about, I have been angered in the past by some class teachers treating students in the unit as "ours" and though we had no teaching staff, they would expect me to report on their levels at the end of term and would send class work to me to differentiate when this really is a class teacher role. Repeated attempts to pass this work back were unsuccessful in one specialist unit - it was seen as my job and over time, of course, I did training and developed skills to do it because I had to. It annoyed me that some teachers were willing to let some of our less hardworking TA's who barely understood a word of the curriculum be the main educator of these highly vulnerable kids. I understand now that a lot of it was fear because of feeling inadequately prepared and the plans to have teachers do more pre-service training in SEN and placements in special schools is one of the few changes I really wholeheartedly welcome.

Feenie, I was playing Devil's Advocate! Think of it as reverse AIBU.

I understand your frustration, Thunk. But I still think it's right that you have to do some sort of training on top of your excellent experience - and it really sounds like you should.

RavenAK, in the mainstream school in which the specialist unit I work in most of the time is situated, upwards of 60% of the school population come in below Level 2. The Level 2 kids in Year 7 and 8 are practically seen as geniuses. There is a massively high proportion of kids operating at P Levels to the extent that the students I work with who have very severe communication disorders and can't functionally communicate in their own homes, let alone with peers etc are often inaccurately levelled as being at 2s and 3's because the overall standard is so low that it has artificially deflated the levels.

I wouldn't know where to start with a typically developing population, I am not a teacher. However, it does bother me a lot that the attitude in many schools I've worked in seems to be that no specialist training is required to work with these vulnerable children and young people.

Whereabouts are you, if you don't mind saying?

FWIW, I completely agree that as an NQT I'd've been totally out of my depth in your school without SEN-specific training.

Not going to say because it might identify me but let's just say an urban area of significant deprivation with a multiethnic community.

fairy nuff.

I really don't know where to start with this, so I'll just jump in and start ranting, if it's all the same to you.

I don't know where people get the idea that qualified teachers are not experts in their fields. I did a Primary SCITT PGCE (School Centred Initial Teacher Training), which means that I covered the academic side of teaching while spending the majority of my time training in schools. It was the toughest year of my life. The learning curve was the steepest I have ever climbed.

A significant number of the people I trained with were experts in their fields. The college where I trained was an independent college run by Head Teachers of partnership schools within the city. They recruited mature, experienced people with good degrees from good universities. Among my cohort was an engineer, a chartered accountant and a successful television producer. We all had 2:1s in academic subjects (I only make the distinction because people seem to think this is important, not because I don't think media studies or tourism students necessarily wouldn't make good teachers).

I would suggest that we are exactly the sort of people who many of those in favour of this plan would have been happy to see walking into a classroom and teaching without being qualified.

The problem is that we needed the training. Although talented and bright people, we had so much to learn about how best to impart knowledge to the wide range of children we met on our placements.

In truth, it took us a couple more years until any of us would say that we felt like good teachers.

It is a profession because it involved so much more than knowledge and academic learning. I know this from experience.

Well said Lifi.

Feenie, my eldest was working to level 5a at year4 going into year 5 and his school has consulted with the secondary school ( in the top 10 top schools in the UK ) all the way to cater to his needs, which we are extremely grateful for but they are struggling to keep up with him now and there is no way an unqualified teacher could give him the help and support he needs.

On the other end of the scale we have DC2 who has Aspergers and due to the help and support of his extremely qualified SEN teacher he has achieved 2B's across the board with a couple of 3A's. It would worry me if he was taught by a teacher who did not know how to cope with his needs as they had not had the right training.

Similar with DC3 who is the youngest in his class and has speech and language difficulties and because he has a teacher who has the training he has managed to come out average to his peers on the EYFS scale, which I think is a great achievement.

Could someone who has not had the training be able to deal with a class of children who vary on the scale from SEN to G&T and have completely different ways of learning.

LOL at thunk's post. I had significantly more qualifications and experience than you Thunk when I applied for my PGCE. Like you, I thought I'd make a pretty good teacher. I reckon it took me about 10 years to become the sort of teacher I expect of myself and I'm still learning.

I also wonder why not go and train if you think you'd be so good.

I also wonder why on earth you'd want to get paid at the minimum wage if you can get paid AS A TEACHER for doing a TEACHER'S JOB once you are QUALIFIED.

Your post, right there, is why this is a bad thing.

There may well be some TAs who spend all their time in the classroom and have got to know the pupils and developed some classroom management skills who now also think they will make great teachers even though they have no qualifications whatsoever.

'I'm dubious that some 23 year old who has completed a one year PGCE because they couldn't think of anything better to do'

I'm frankly amazed at the arrogance of this statement.

What gives you the right to assume that 'some 23 year old' has completed a very demanding course 'because they couldn't think of anything better to do' whereas you are far above this?

This '23 year old' has, in fact, shown a commitment (including taking the loss of earnings) and proved his or her competence in a way that you have not.

As I say, I have worked with 2 NQTs at different schools, both Oxbridge graduates who had 10 years plus experience in their fields (one at a very senior level) but who buckled down and did their PGCEs anyway.

The fact that neither felt they were above doing the training and both were willing to take a vast loss of earnings was a really good sign to their future employers and also a sign of the humility and willingness to learn and develop that they went on to demonstrate as NQTs.

'It's just a shame no one in the school agreed and no training was given, isn't it? '

Yes.

Employing untrained teachers IS a bad thing.