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?

Yes, thank you for your input Xenia. Nice to see you. Hope you're well.

Alas it was 8 years ago now (her oldest is now 8) and she has had 4 more children (well, will have the day after tomorrow) since so hasn't had the time.

QT - it was a suggestion from the govt that the skills tests only be tried once and also that they must be taken prior to training, not during the course. However, it's not policy yet, if it will be at all. They seem to make many of these statements without thinking them through then they disappear. I'm just repeating what I heard at th latest prof mentors meeting at our partner university.

You're missing the point again, jabed

With respect I am not missing any point. You seem to be trying to make one where there isn?t one. QTS is no guarantee of either skills or knowledge base for teachers IME (and probably that of many others).
It?s a red herring.

The point you and other posters seem to want to make is that the use of some kinds of staff who do not have this status means the loss of protected status and pay cheque. Now that is possible but it has nothing to do with whether unqualified teachers are employed. It?s about the conditions of employment for all teaching staff.

.

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

That might very well be a good observation but it is not relevant here unfortunately.

However it is worth asking this especially in the light of the fact that half of all teachers who train leave the career within five years of their training.
However, I do not think that railing against "unqualified teachers" and such will address these very real and important issues in teaching. There needs to be an ethos change and change in hygiene factors in teaching if you really do want to attract the best.

But that is another matter.

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

Well that brings everyone down to earth solidly. Whilst it might not be palatable there is a certain truth (and as a teacher I am not afraid to accept it). There is no doubt that teaching does not attract the brightest and best. It is not that low pay actually but I don?t think teachers do it for the pay - although there are a few in the younger generation who I have heard say this.

But, no one who has potential will go into teaching. The hygiene features are just not there. The rather cutting statement has a point. Certainly historically also teaching has never been a top destination from university.

Many professions big themselves up. Incidentally some of the most stupid, ill-informed morons I have had to educate on basic law despite no training in law myself- have been solicitors. Im sure many are good, but the last 3 I encoutered have made my respect for the profession nose dive. The cheek I had to pay pay these incompetent fools too.

Anyway, on another note, Im glad I didnt bother finishing my hellish PGCE after all. I would be pretty pissed off to think I put myself through all that and got in Debt over it to find someone who just rolled up, got a job over me as they happened to be cheaper.

Schoolworries said

Anyway, on another note, Im glad I didnt bother finishing my hellish PGCE after all. I would be pretty pissed off to think I put myself through all that and got in Debt over it to find someone who just rolled up, got a job over me as they happened to be cheaper.

Exactly mate!

Jabed - no-one who has potential will go into teaching?

Potential for what exactly?

I think the point is that more stringent professional standards are about to be introduced to all qualified teachers but they will not have to be imposed on unqualified teachers.

Jabed - congratulations. You have just convinced me once and for all that you do indeed live in the past. My mother became a teacher in the early 1960s because she hadn't really the potential for anything else. Her brothers all went to university. Interestingly, two of the three of them ended up teaching as well, but not straight away. These days, I think the situation is rather different.

jabed - where have I made any reference at all to 'the loss of protected status and pay cheque'? And, as it's my post you quote and refer to wih your comment, I assume you're referring to it?

I said you'd missed the pont and, fortunately, you did it again, which is handy for my argument. Thanks.

I'll just go over it once more, as I'm anxious that you do get the point and I'd be horribly remiss if anyone left this thread without having learned anything. 'Every poster matters'.

Unqualified teachers will no longer be required to prove they can teach effectively if a school/Head decides they don't want their unqualified teachers to attain QTS at any point in their career.

Meanwhile, qualified teachers will now need to prove they meet the standards year on year through their performance management system. Which I don't have a problem with, btw, but that's because I work in a great (state) school with a very fair Head.

Questions, jabed?

Amusing to read in the Standard tonight that one reason London state schools now out perform schools in Hull by 2 grades in GCSes in similar neighbourhoods is we have brought in all those totally untrained Teach First posh clever 2/1 candidates often from private schools who went to the better universities. London has now risen to the top.

Xenia, who's "we"?

Arf at you taking credit there.

Teach first is a training programme for teaching like the PGCE, GTP etc so those teachers START by doing some training usually in a university before they enter schools and they too have to do all the QTS Skills Tests, get all their QTS standards and do a year's induction same as every other QT.

So Teachfirst teachers are trainee QTs just like all QTs were at some stage in our existences and had training with input from universities BEFORE being let loose on students and continued support from mentors in schools and tutors at uni and were continually observed and assessed.

So your argument fails.

Teachfirst teachers are QTs in waiting.

Once you are accepted on a recognised course of teacher training you are regarded by the unions and the former GTC as a teacher. The term is called a beginner teacher. You are a different category because you are teacher working towards QTS unlike a unQT who is working towards, God knows.....

Wikipedia says about Teach First

Before entering the classroom, participants attend the Summer Institute, the residential component of the initial teacher training. This lasts six weeks, with participants spending half the time studying and gaining teaching practice in the region they will be teaching in, and half the time studying alongside the whole national cohort on campus at University of Warwick.
In the first year, participants undertake a 70% teaching commitment in school, during which they are supported by Teach First, their partner universities and school mentors in training to achieve Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) at the end of the year, and a postgraduate / professional graduate certificate in education (PGCE award).

Sounds like teacher training to me.

Well done, Xenia on your achievement.

[[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c0866fe-dbca-11e1-aba3-00144feab49a.html#axzz22mHp7nYL Here's] the link to the original ft article.
Of course you'll notice it also attributes the very successful 'London Challenge' strategies that you used to help narrow the gaps between poor, underachieving students and their more affluent peers.

I look forward to working with you soon as we in the Shires continue our attempt to narrow gaps in attainment of our students too.

Sorry, here

Jabed - congratulations. You have just convinced me once and for all that you do indeed live in the past. My mother became a teacher in the early 1960s because she hadn't really the potential for anything else. Her brothers all went to university. Interestingly, two of the three of them ended up teaching as well, but not straight away. These days, I think the situation is rather different

The situation is not different.
When you look at those entering teaching today nothing has changed.

Questions, jabed?

As I said previously, nothing has changed. I get your point but simply do not see it as an issue.

You are wrong. Please stop doing your infuriating "I know everything" crap.

Entry requirements for ITT are vastly different now than in the 1960s.

I have no idea why you feel the need to be so insulting about your own colleagues.

I was wondering that too, Evil.

I can't believe you're all still going on about this, even when it has been pointed out to you several times that nothing will change.
Qualified teachers have been teaching without QTS for many years and yes they are qualified without this, or why would they have a PGCE, and being employed.

Qts is obviously not that important as all these teachers without this unique set of standards would be unable to do the job. Which also isn't the case.

*The situation is not different.
When you look at those entering teaching today nothing has changed. *

Oh really? Strange, because I have just done my PGCE at a well-respected university and I would not even have made the interview stage without a 2.1. As it happens, I have a first, as did many of my eventual course mates. Of the many hundreds who applied, they interviewed 80 and 40 made it on to the course. All of us have worked really hard this year and know we will work at least as hard in NQT year. I really resent all this bullshit I see written on here about how crap teachers are, and how poorly trained we are, when I know the reality is so different.

So Teachfirst teachers are trainee

So teach first are trainees. They are not qualified so Xenia is correct in saying that they are unqualified. What is more frightening is that they have no experience - so what is being demonstrated is that graduates walking into classrooms are better at teaching than those who are newly qualified or those who have completed their NQT year - or even more experienced teachers. So any monkey can do better than the trained monkeys? Is that what you are saying?

I can see why it may be. They have not yet been moulded into failure. However these teach first are the same ones who leave as soon as the economy picks up. I say that because it happened in the 1970's and 1990's.