All this QTS stuff - do you REALLY know what it means? Here's the truth...

[Itchyandscratchy]

Right - I'd like to think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but until today I misunderstood what the new ruling from the Govt about unqualified teachers and QTS is actually going to mean.

Forgive me my ignorance if you have already realised this:

Schools have been employing unqualified teachers - teachers without BEds, PGCEs, GTP, etc. for years. So the ruling about academies being able to emply unqualified teachers is not new.

So, even if you were unqulaified, you would still need to work towards Qualified Teacher Status within a set amount of time. QTS is 'proved' with a folder of evidence that shows each of these standards have been met.

QTS, as linked to in one of my previous posts (on the 'What every parents needs to know' thread) makes sure standards in the stuff you can't be 'naturally good at' are met: safeguarding, quality of teaching, subject knowledge and application; all the standards outlined in the QTs framework.

The QTS have been reviewed for Sept 2012 and will, IMHO, for the first time actually attempt to ensure standards are met in a meaningful way, with evidence needed.

So in this way, even OVER-qualified crap teachers will have to prove themselves as much as under-qualified great teachers.

QTS is the link that would hopefully bridge the gap between competence and qualification. In this way, IN THEORY, we should be confident that our fears about unqualified teachers are allayed. It will also mean that - for the first time - we might be a little more confident that the minority of teachers who do not care about the learning of their students are called to account without a lengthy and mostly unsuccessful competency procedure.

The Govt's announcement actually means that QTS is no longer required.

An unqualified person can now not only secure a job teaching your child, they are no longer required to prove that they are acapable of meeting those standards at any time in the future.

I realise I have probably been extremely thick in only just fully understanding this, but I'm guessing a few other people might be as well, and this is for them.

Scary isn't it?

Scary , why?

Nothing has changed. Unqualified teachers have always taught. Some of them are very qualified and very good in my experience. It has never actually been a requirement for an unqualified teacher to get QTS. There have always been ways round that. In my last ( state) school I had a lovely colleague who had been teaching for 30 years. She refused to jump through the QTS hoops on principle. She was good at her job as judged by exam results and lesson observations and she is still teaching (without QTS).

I really think this is mountains out of mole hills. I was told to give it a rest on independent schools (who by the way do not have to employ qualified teachers and often do not - they employ "good graduates"). Given the success of independent schools there might be something to learn there.

jabed

Before you start singing the praises of independent schools and the unqualified teachers you may want to consider the following:-

selected pupils.
Smaller class sizes.
better facilties.
A majority of parents who pay and want demand results for their children.
Little or no SEN (see selection).
The ability to exclude pupils.
The ability to remove under perfforming pupils from exams.
And not all of the teachers will be unqualified.

jabed
please name for me the independent school that does not select either academically or financially?
only then can you compare how we the 93% are taught with you the 7%

the QTS stuff is not a academic issue
its a management issue

and more to the point a way for academies for force unqualified staff to work for less so that there is more money for sponsors dividends

Before you start singing the praises of independent schools and the unqualified teachers you may want to consider the following:-

(edited -long list follows which relates to independent schools).

My first reaction was "What, in a state school?"

You have conflated and misrepresented what I said . Or just did not read it.

I said I had met colleagues in STATE schools who were classed as unqualified and who were very very good. I have worked in my share of rough to worse state schools, so this isn?t about being able to deal with nice kids.

These colleagues have taught more than their share of challenging children with many difficulties and disadvantages and they have done it well.

Let?s get a grip here; many unqualified teachers are overseas trained including those from Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada. Others used to be until a few moths ago, FE trained teachers. Others were ex independent school teachers who moved to state schools. Independent school teachers were treated as unqualified. Still others were unqualified because the rules left them that way following the introduction of QTS in the 1990's. They were often teachers who had started their teaching careers as graduates and had not taken any teaching qualifications (the only group of those just mentioned I might say who were without teaching qualifications).

A broad bank of well experienced and well qualified subject specialist?s, teachers with many strengths there.

I said previously that a teaching qualification does not give evidence of either subject knowledge or experience in teaching and as such tells you nothing about the quality of the teacher who has the "qualification"

Of course, of you want the lesser teacher. The younger one. The less experienced. One who may not have secure subject knowledge The one who jumps the hoops well. Then get yourself someone who has that qualification and ignore all other factors. Good. All the more top notch teachers for independent schools to select from. You should be looking for the best person for the job when appointing a teacher, not the one who has a particular label.

Speaking as a parent I want my DS taught by people who have a suitable level of knowledge in their subjects and who have the experience to be able to impart that knowledge and the skills he requires to him. Whether they are qualified or not is irrelevant.

please name for me the independent school that does not select either academically or financially?
only then can you compare how we the 93% are taught with you the 7%

I cannot answer this for sure but I would say all independent schools select their teachers academically and financially. Most of the budget is usually taken up finding the the best graduates, the most experienced teachers and generally the best "qualified" persons they can. Many also offer financial incentive greater than that in state schools - or they have other perks (even the smaller ones). Its a poor school that does not value its best assets. But that isn?t necessarily about being a qualified teacher. It?s about secure subject knowledge and the experience and skills to pass on to pupils.

QTS is and always has been a red herring in the context of what makes an effective teacher. It was politically motivated originally and has proved to be useless in many respects. Now it is being ditched as it is politically worthless.

I am personally in favour of Gove's move here. It certainly won?t do any harm

and more to the point a way for academies for force unqualified staff to work for less so that there is more money for sponsors dividends

In state schools unqualified staff have always been paid less. Its qualified staff who may now be forced to work for less as you say. Management may choose to level the playing field so that all teachers are equal in terms of pay scales. But that is a management issue but it?s not to do with qualified status.

I've mainly got experience in state schools. The one private school I taught in insisted on a "good" degree, QTS and atleast three years experience (so no NQTs). I know this school is not an isolated case, as I have friends who have taught at similar schools.
In the state system, yes, unqualified staff do teach classes - students on teaching practice, GTPs, HLTAs. But, in every school I've taught at or have supported they are always under the supervision of a qualified teacher. By that I don't mean in the room, but teacher is responsible for the lesson. They assist with the planning, assessment and support with behaviour mangement, etc. There is even closer monitoring of the quality of learning and teaching than with the teachers.
So, yes, the change in the regualtions will make a difference.
PS please excuse typos, etc. I've lost my glasses!

You're missing the point again, jabed.

QTS (here, from page 7) are: "a formal set of skills and qualities that enable you to be an effective teacher" (from the DFE's own website).

It's not about the qualifications (although that's another kettle of fish but could be justifiable in some circumstances).

It's about the Govt saying that these professional standards do not matter. Read them: would you want anyone that educates your child to have these?

And yes, previously, QTS were tick-boxed by those assessing NQTs and then forgotten about. Performance management was supposed to ensure ongoing quality and continual professional development for teachers but we all know it was largely unsuccessful.

From September it will be hugely relevant for very teacher, NQTs to Headteachers.
Every school will have to demonstrate they have adhered to these and that there is proof for the standards continually being met. As a parent, I 100% would want this.

Gove is now saying it's up to new academies if they want to insist on this with unqualified teachers. This is bonkers. And a dangerous move.

Wouldn't it be better to have better screening of students trying to get onto teacher training courses? It seems as though, at the moment, from what people are saying on here, people with poor academic qualifications, poor written English, poor maths skills and limited teaching abilities are finding it too easy to get past the people selecting students for teacher training courses and all the supposedly brilliant headteachers who are supposed to be selecting the best staff for their school (or are the only ones available in an area offering themselves up for work...). It also seems that schools are already pulling a fast one, anyway, and asking people who are unqualified in every way to take charge of whole classes of children.

So, the question is, why is teaching not attracting enough high quality head teachers and teachers? I'm not convinced it's because there are droves of people out there who would love to teach if it weren't for the pesky teacher training requirements.

Yes, AbigailS: good schools -private or state- will insist on them anyway. But weaker, struggling schools, or lazy, complacent schools may feel it gives them licence to recruit cheaply where they have shortfalls. And then not spend the time/energy/manpower ensuring the meet high standards.

Heads are taking on unqualified people because it's cheap. No more no less. A PGCE is only one academic year after all, just nine months. If you're that good and that keen what's stopping you doing the PGCE?

One can ask the same question about people who object to getting married, something that can be done very quickly, easily and cheaply, and instead want the law changed so as to suit people who have chosen to live together without ever thinking about formalities. People like to suit themselves.

How can you sack an unqualified teacher for being incompetent if there isn't a set of standards they are required to meet?

noblegiraffe Presumably they'll be given flimsy, temporary contracts and will have even fewer rights?

When we recruit a new teacher, s/he has to take a lesson as part of the interview procedure, and this is observed by the HT. Will unqualified teachers have to do this before they are employed?

I guess that would be down to the Head - but it would seem the sensible thing to do. I would imagine it's even more important for unqualified teachers.

FB Surely you've heard of schools taking out the 'undesirables' during Ofsted inspections. The same ideas could be applied here. Let's not frighten the unQTs, please!

rabbitstew- for a primary PGCE you would typically need a 2.1, recent relevant experience with a good reference, and on the assessment day you would have a 1:1 interview, a group activity, a presentation to do and a written maths and English test. Fairly rigorous IMO.

What's scary is that you don't seem to understand what QTS means but feel able to blether about it.

In my case it meant surviving teaching a full timetable in a difficult school for the first year after my PGCE. There was no tutoring as such, and I got QTS after a year of teaching.

My sister also did a PGCE (which incidentally is an extremely demanding course) to become a languages teacher, passed her literacy test with flying colours but failed her numeracy test (3 times, all while 9 m pregnant) and as such would never have been able to teach in a grant-maintainted school in the UK. Is that logical? She might actually be able to teach here now.

It's sounds really odd Itchy.

So, a qualified teacher must continually prove that their are adhering to the professional standards, but an unqualified teacher might never have to do that. Have a got that right?

That seems to make a complete mockery of the professional standards!

It's not about whether qualified or unqualified teachers are capable of being good teachers, it's that unqualified teachers will not necessarily be subject to the same checks on their teaching and professionalism.

Who's 'blethering'?
Slightly aggressive post there, duchesse. Not sure why...?

Info about the QTS/Unqualified debate here

and

Info about Threshold / Master teachers here

LFandLC You've got it!

Now you see why we want this debated by ALL parties in Parliament.

Duchese

Sorry about your sis, wish I could have helped her. She may still have a chance to do it because the rules re-retaking have recently changed. Also if she hasn't done her NQT year she will have 5 years from when she got awarded QTS status to complete it. Being pregnant, having time off on mat leave will be excluded from that period etc. It's not over yet and she could appeal because she was not her best when doing the exam because she was pregnant. I hope she attempts to retake it and gets it because she is definately an intelligent lady who just has a few issues with Maths.

I think the format of the QTS Maths test, i.e. having to put the answers in otherwise it just disappears from the screen really threw some people. I'd tell her to never give up. Best wishes.

I know PGCE is a demanding course, duchesse, I did it myself 20 years ago and I teach, coach and mentor teachers, train & assess PGCE trainees and advise partner schools.

Incidentally, the Govt have also announced a 'one strike and you're out' approach to the lit and numeracy tests from next year; no retakes. Not sure if it will come to fruition; they also stated teachers trained in England would have to get jobs there too, and that's subsequently been brushed under the carpet as it was rather ridiculous (what about applying or jobs in Wales?!)

I&S, re QTS tests it isn't in force yet (I think) and I thought it was 3 attempts hence why I said to Duchesse to get her sis to try it again AFTER some tutoring and practise. You can actually go to the centres and do practice, well you could in my day.

These teachers always big themselves up. Yes it's quite hard but tons of people can do it which is why the pay is so low.