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?

Whilst there are a few people who go into teaching for vocation or take it up for the long haul many are opportunists who would rather do other things but cannot find the occupations of their choice at this time. These people are often not those who the university milk round employers will cream off anyway. Teaching is steady (ish) if you can get a job now, and it?s a decent income when times are hard.

There are a few, like me, who are has beens. People like me tend to work in very specialist areas and subjects and are usually part time. We do it because it fits with what we want from life.

This has always been the case with teaching. Nothing changes.

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

ITT requirements are not that different to what they were in the 1960's . For an undergraduate (a candidate presenting with A levels), the requirement was 2 A levels and five O levels including English Language and Maths (or equivalent)

It?s the same now. Even A level grades (or UCAS points) required for ITT B Ed are lower than most degree courses. The kind of student attracted is the same as back then too.

If you were a good graduate a PGCE was not required until the late 1970's for humanities subjects. It was not required until 1989 for science graduates.
Even after that one could teach as an unqualified teacher and that remains the case now. All entrants to teaching were required to have five O levels including maths and English Language. At certain times (1970?s I remember was one) even maths was not required. Just five subjects including English.

In fact all of the above (bar direct graduate entry) have been variations anyway. The standard requirement for teacher training in any guise has and remains 5 subjects at O level or its equivalent including maths and English Language. Even the degree is a variation and there remains a scheme for trainee teachers who need to work in school as unqualified staff and take a degree at the same time.

Nothing has changed.

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

This is the real problem with my comment isn?t it? You feel insulted. No insult is intended. It?s just sometimes speaking the truth isn?t too palatable.

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

I am sorry.One thing has changed. How we have dumbed down education and the state of the economy currently. So all must have prizes and praises. Congratulations.

I can tell you quite categorically that 2 A levels would not get a candidate onto a BEd course.

Stop pretending that you know things when you clearly don't, Jabed. You come across as a fool.

Jabed, a trainee teacher, like those in Teach First who are teaching a reduced timetable while being supervised by other teachers and supported by a university while completing a PGCE is not the same as an unqualified teacher working as a teacher. They are completely different scenarios.

Jabed says: There are a few, like me, who are has beens.

Now I see where you are coming from and your tainted world view.

Bitter cynicism serves no profession well. Time to retire?

Mtpp - and I can't believe you keep bobbing back in with the same set of arguments and you still haven't acknowledged that, from September, the playing field will be less even and more unfair.

All teachers with QTS under the new framework will need to have a folder of evidence kept on them about their performance and adherence to th QTS, and Ofsted will be able to ask to see it. In theory this has been happening already within the performance management system, but we all know this isn't the case. Now, I don't have a problem with this. As a teacher, I know I'm doing a good job, which stimulates and enthuses me, and I know my students make good progress. As a parent, I absolutely agree with this: I want to know that my dcs are being challenged, cared for and that they are making progress too.

My 'beef' is that, while monitoring of QTS will be tightened up, non-qualified teachers will no longer even have to work towards QTS and a continual monitoring of standards.

You say unqualified teachers have been employed in schools for a long time: this is true. But in state schools there has always been the stipulation that they work towards QTS within a set amount of time. This is no longer the case and it is patently unfair, no matter how good an unqualified colleague might be.

Boneyback, state schools (non-selective) ALSO remove DC's from exams. My DD's state primary had a shit-fit when I insisted that she sit her Y6 SATS, so that her results were included in the league table as below L3. Because I (and 8 others with DC's with SEN that weren't dealt with effectively by the school) wanted their league table results to reflect their abysmal record with SEN.

It took 6 months of fighting for them to let us, then they lied about how many DC's were IN the year so that they didn't have to include the 8 that were under L3!

(Instead of the 68 that were in the year, their league table only contained results for 60 DC's).

The school currently claims on their website and prospectus that there are 390 pupils, when in fact there are 420. And it's not just a case of them being old - the website is brand new, only opened at the start of the summer holidays, and the prospectus is updated every year.

They are basically already trying to hide a fair proportion of the DC's with SEN in my DS2's year, as it is going to affect their league table results TERRIBLY in Y6. These DC's are just going into Y4.

Couthymow - that's ridiculous of your dd's school. They can't possibly get away with that; their true numbers are easily accessible, as are their results and Ofsted would see that straight away. Bonkers! But shows you what desperate measures some shortsighted heads will go to in order to appear better in the league tables. It's a version of selection, as you say.

More stringent checks on qualified teachers = more money. NO checks on unqualified teachers = less money.

Which one is an Academy that needs to budget its books going to go for?

And how does that leave parents confident that unqualified teachers are teaching to a good standard?

And THAT is why parents have issues with unqualified teachers teaching their DC's.

Surely ALL teachers should be under the same, rigorous assessment system, so that parents can have full confidence that ALL teachers, qualified or unqualified, are teaching to the same, good standard? If that was the case, most parents wouldn't be bothered by teachers being qualified or not.

They couldn't see full results 3 years ago though, when DD finished Y6. The school only reported having 60 in the year group, so 8 people's results weren't included. Even in the full results papers I got Ofsted to send me.

I still think it's going to be rather more difficult for the HT to hide a whole classes results in a few years though...

What has also occurred to me about Teach First is that the trainees are put into challenging and disadvantaged schools. These disadvantaged schools are likely to be the ones with a high turnover of staff, that can't hire maths and physics teachers who have qualifications in the subject, that are using cover supervisors to teach exam classes and who have to hire from overseas. Parachute in a well qualified trainee who has the best resources and support given to them (by a charity) to teach a subject that they have a degree in and it is probably no wonder this improves results.

It's only going to get worse with the 'short-sighted' HT from September, due to Academy conversion.

Yes.

Parents might find they begin asking prospective schools about what proportion of teachers are unqualified and - more importantly - what measures exist in schools for the CPD and support of all teachers in attaining standards? Do all staff work towards QTS and if not, why not?

Yes, noblegiraffe. I saw an interview with a Teachfirst graduate who had decided to stay on in her school after her 2 years, unlike many of her Teachfirst peers.

What was interesting was that she freely admitted she was completely out of her depth to begin with: her classroom management was awful and the students weren't learning anything. But 'by about March', she said, things were much better; she started enjoying it, developing positive relationships with her students and they began to learn. So for 6 months, from September til March, her students made no progress. At least when you do a PGCE, most of the initial mistakes are made during training and less damage is done.

Itchy.

It may have been the case that unqualified teachers had to work towards QTS, but many were just over turned, promised and not delivered. Too expensive for the schools to administer.
Also, just because a teacher doesn't have QTS does not mean they are unqualified. Many have a PGCE or qualifications gained many years ago, that are considered as qualified status.
What do the teachers who are complaining consider should be done, to make it fair for all? I can't see all those without QTS now being made to gain this.
I have said before that I think that some of the teachers WITH QTS are unqualified to teach, as their education isn't up to it. Maybe the so called unqualified teachers may be able to spell.

One thing has changed. How we have dumbed down education and the state of the economy currently. So all must have prizes and praises.

That sounded rude. Did you mean it to?

Why do people assume that the government is relaxing restrictions so that brilliantly qualified individuals can get straight on with the job of raising standards?

They are removing the restrictions so that cover supervisors and TAs can take classes on the cheap. Currently cover supervisors aren't allowed to teach and can only cover absences up to 3 days. Come September, presumably no one's going to bother to hire proper supply teachers any more when the cover supervisor can just keep doing it for months.

I meant we as in the nation etc and yes that FT link is the best summary in the papers I have seen of the amazing turn around in London results. I am afraid what really shocked me was the average results in so many parts of the country being things like for GCSE DDEEE. Yet all the press is always about how easy GCSEs are now and too many people get A and A*.

Precisely, Noble. And what will happen is that schools that are doing well and keeping pupil numbers high will carry on employing properly qualified staff and paying them properly because they can afford to do what they know is best for pupils. However, schools that start to struggle financially because pupil numbers are dropping, either for demographic reasons or because they have start on the downward cycle that occurs when a school starts to slip and parents begin to vote with their feet, will have no choice but to cut their staff budgets and they will be the schools employing the unqualifed teachers and thus go spiralling ever downwards to the detriment of pupils. That is the reality, not this fantasy of schools being free to employ all this marvellously talented unqualified high-fliers that are supposedly queuing up for the opportunity to teach in state schools.

And Jabed - regarding your jibe about my worthless first class honours degree - I am in my mid-forties, have had a very successful career in a highly competitive industry before going into teaching, and I actually have two degrees - and the new graduates that I trained with this year were just as clever, and motivated as my contemporaries at the very prestigious university I attended in the 1980s. They will all be excellent teachers.

Agree - and I think the 100m running must have also got easier, looking at the medal-winning times over the past 100 years. I think they've dumbed it down for Usain Bolt.

London Challenge has worked for a whole swath of reasons but, notably, involving the joined-up thinking and shared support given to and by many schools: quality cpd and innovative practice, motivating heads so they felt that they were working towards a common goal with strong support and continual reflection over a sustained amount of time, rather than the 'sink or swim' approach tht can eave heads/schools feeling isolated and unsupported.

Itchy I thought when I was watching the Olympics last night that the pole vault had got much easier as they go so much higher now.

To explain AGAIN

TeachFirst teachers are trainee teachers just like PGCEs, GTPs, RTs etc. They are beginner teachers/trainee/student teachers working towards QTS and will eventually be fully qualified teachers.

The same thing occurs in the NHS with trainee nurses and trainee doctors. There is no scheme to allow unqualifed doctors and nurses to work on NHS wards.

Trainee/beginner/student teachers all undertake preparation courses BEFORE they enter schools and at various stages throughout their training, they are also supervised by qualified teachers just like trainee nurses/doctors are supervised by qualified nurses and doctors. There are also training courses that take place in schools which they have to attend.

Towards the END of their training, they will be given lessons to teach on their own. Only if they are up to standard will they be awarded QTS. If not, they will have an opportunity to try again.

However unQTs will be given the opportunity to take over classes long term immediately. What criteria they will be working to, how their abilities will be assessed, what their qualifications are will vary from schools to schools and be at the HTs discretion.

Also, QT QTS teachers, will, under new appraisal arrangements, be required to meet targets set at yearly performance management meetings. The process will be much more stringent, and will affect pay. At the same time, the capability procedure is being changed, and 'poor' teachers will have less time to improve performance.

How all this increased rigour in performance monitoring ties in with being able to hire unqualified teachers is completely beyond me.

Anyone see Michael Rosen's letter to Gove in the Guardian today?
Here it is