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?

Your previous school employed someone who hadn't completed their induction year as a Senior Manager

Absolutely mrz. As I said it caused me to raise an eyebrow and comment. But it seems it was within the rules. She had gone within five years. Over the time I was there we had several like her. Bright stars of teaching.

I'm not surprised you raised an eyebrow ...even bright stars need some experience under their belts surely.

Jabed- please don't try to make out that you have taught in a huge variety of state schools (inc inner city & special measures schoolS) for over 30 years- anyone who has read more than one thread you have been on knows that this is an exaggeration (and I'm being kind there, as I think you know)

But I have. I am not exaggerating. Unlike you bright stars and highly successful types I have made my living as I can over the years. My work history is a catalogue of movement. As Maggie said ?There are no jobs for life anymore? and she was right.

I started out in 1977 as a graduate working in an inner city school. I did it for a couple of years and qualified. You see there weren?t too many jobs around and getting what I wanted was going to take time.

Then I got my academic career off the ground. I worked in a university. Got my Ph.D. Then the 1980's recession hit and I got made redundant. I went to Canada and worked for a while but couldn?t get tenure (Canadians first rule - rightly!) so I came back and

Worked again initially as a supply but quickly got a post in a school. Inner city and in special measure this time. Now that was tough! I stuck it through thick and thin for four years.

Then I got my university career going again.

Then I got made redundant. They wanted to get rid of older staff like me because it didn?t look good to make redundancies and as it was possible to pension me off they did it. They did it to several like me. Of course they put me up the scale and gave me a top job for my last year so my actuarially reduced pension would be substantial.

I was going to retire. I had to go down the job centre. A formality I thought (to claim my pension credit for my NI) but they told me I couldn?t retire. It wasn?t allowed. The rules had changed. Like several others I contacted HR at the uni and they said very sorry and gave me another handout for unfair dismissal as they had a ruling against them between time and they were avoiding the fall out (although I never asked for it).

Anyway the job centre made my life hell and I decided I had better do supply.
I did supply for a year and I got to know a lot of schools.

Then I got my job part time in my last school. Tough and rural and small but fairly ordinary as places go. I got a second job in another school nearby to make up some hours. That was a grammar school.

Then the story of my life struck again - redundancy as they closed the school.

This time I got a job part time in an independent school and have never looked back. I resigned before I was made redundant (I was on notice) and I resigned my other job.

So I can hand on heart say I have seen it all in my time. I am not exaggerating.
I am not claiming to be highly successful either.

These days though most people move on every five years or so. In teaching it seems that is what is required.

No surprise that you won't elaborate on the three or four students PER YEAR who have got onto ITT B.Ed courses from your school with only two A Levels.

Try two of the oldest education schools ( now university colleges) in the country.

I'm not surprised you raised an eyebrow ...even bright stars need some experience under their belts surely

Well thats why she ended up leaving but not before making a pigs ear of it.

She made a sideways move. We had three others who left teaching under clouds - just lack of experience and the Peter Principle and fast tracking.

So jabed you're not really conversant with current practice as regards QTS.

Qualified.

I do care about the children. Thats why I didn't do it for long. Its ok saying report this, but when you are an NQT you know things aren't always right and sometimes think well if they want me to do this it must be ok. My 2 ds's were secondary school age and it was because of this I couldn't do it. Many of my peers without dcs were happy to continue and are still there. Now, since April lawfully. As I have stated previously though, I don't /didn't feel inadequate because of lack of QTS. I had enough experience of classroom management and teaching/ assessing etc from my PgCE, thrown in at the deep end. My doubts rightly so were my lack of GCSE's and A levels. I think anybody with the right temperament can control a class, but without education and knowledge dcs will suffer. I'm also not stating that all of them didn't have GCSE's as I know some did. However, some were like me but had no conscience at all. I must also add I/ others were not unlawfully employed as we were qualified to teach 6th form. It was when employed we were expected to teach in the high school. I'm not talking cover neither.
Finally, I would like to add as an NQT I was given the responsibility of mentoring a student PGCE as she was doing the subject I taught and there was nobody else to do it.

So jabed you're not really conversant with current practice as regards QTS.

But I am. We have PGCE students in my school too. I have had to work with them and sign off their papers.

Jabed- a google search for the oldest teacher training institutions in the uk gave me Chester and Edge Hill. Both want 3 A Levels and a minimum of 280 points for primary teacher training, which would be BBC at A Level.

jabed If you have mentored PGCE students, you will appreciate the training involved - the checks against standards, the observations, the visits from tutors, the lesson evaluations.

I wonder how you can accept that an UnQ teachers will be as competent, having never been assessed against national teacher's standards?

Edge Hill, OMG you are so having a laugh now. Please read my threads.

Jabed said oldest teacher training colleges. Google says that is Edge Hill. UCAS says Edge Hill wants BBC from 3 A Levels for entry to ITT. MTPP - I haven't read your other threads.

Jabed, I agree with you: you do sound cynical.
But you do also sound bitter too, so we're both right.

I don't feel the need to justify myself either as I, too, am confident in my qualifications, abilities, knowledge about past and current practice and changes to school management and ITT. I'm lucky that I work with an 'Outstanding' partner Uni for our ITT. We used to work with 3 providers but the calibre of trainees and the course administration of 2 of them was poor in our opinion so we stopped working with them.

However, no matter how confident I feel about my knowledge and understanding, I'm aware not every parent will realise the implications of current policy changes so I think it's important for posters to air views so parents can make informed decisions about how they feel and where they might stand. It's also good to have a balance between facts and opinions, and differentiating between what is reasonable and what might be biased.

My experience, fwiw, is based on 20 years' teaching experience, in 3 schools for 3 different authorities, inner city, rural and suburban. I mentor trainees and coach other teachers; I also work for the National College and I advise other schools on teaching & learning. Not blowing my own trumpet: just saying where my views and experiences come from.

Well, what all these posts tell me as a parent is that there are some bad schools out there with an awful lot of "grey men" as teachers; schools which clearly are incapable of attracting appropriately qualified staff, so they make do with inappropriately qualified people and then leave them to it. Clearly there are also plenty of good schools employing teachers good enough never to have walked through the doors of the bad schools and seen just how bad they can be (whether because they were lucky or because they didn't have to, because they got job offers at better schools, instead, or a mixture of both reasons....). Maybe there is also a certain amount of lack of consideration for some subjects - more under-qualifed sociology A-level teachers than under-qualified maths and physics A-level teachers????? Because sociology A-level isn't considered a "serious" A-level for seriously academic children, so you can get away with only being one step ahead of the kids?.....

jabed If you have mentored PGCE students, you will appreciate the training involved - the checks against standards, the observations, the visits from tutors, the lesson evaluations

Hoop jumping. I have yet to see any fail. Often my school is telling because in my school they have to teach. I have seen a few who cannot.

I wonder how you can accept that an UnQ teachers will be as competent, having never been assessed against national teacher's standards?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. If a person has subject knowledge, can take control of a classroom and can teach the pupils, and demonstrate good outcomes in terms of what students learn and can demonstrate they have learned, then they are teachers.

National standards you can keep. Most of those I have worked with would excel at them anyway. Not so many of those qualified teachers I have seen over my time.

A teacher is made from a strong knowledge of their subject and the ability to impart that knowledge and experience. It?s nothing to do with "standards" or meeting them. I sometimes think those who can do that are not at all good. You can generally tell a good teacher when you see one.

IMHO I don't think the 'subject knowledge' argument works when you're talking about primary school teachers.
The only really proficient (and confident) students I have seen in a primary school classroom were TAs who were on a conversion course to become teachers (now defunct) because they had good classroom management experience.

Jabed- a google search for the oldest teacher training institutions in the uk gave me Chester and Edge Hill. Both want 3 A Levels and a minimum of 280 points for primary teacher training, which would be BBC at A Level

Shows how you should not rely on Google doesnt it?

No, they are not the oldest. St Mark and St John is the oldest. Used to go by the name Chelsea College I believe but I am no expert. They give out RG validated degrees as well I think. I will tell you that. We have had several apply and get in there. They take each candidate on merit and make offers accordingly.

The other is old Lampeter ( goes by another name now. In Wales. But there are many universities and courses which make quite low offers in fact.

One of my students this year has an offer of BCC from Nottingham for a degree. The web site and prospectus says mugh higher but that was what they offered. She will get AAA but don?t think anything is stuck in stone in offers anywhere.

You might want to actually LOOK at the standards you are dismissing, Jabed. Claiming that the teachers you have worked with have excellent subject knowledge and can impart that to students but don't need to bother trying to meet QTS standards is somewhat amusing.

It?s nothing to do with "standards" or meeting them.

I disagree it's all to do with standards although not necessarily the ones dictated by ITT

On the UCAS website, St John wants 280 points. Only possible from 2 A Levels if they are both A*, which doesn't exactly support the argument that teaching is for the less intelligent.

And Trinity St David wants 260-340 points.

Jabed said

'You can generally tell a good teacher when you see one.'

I can't. I have no idea what a good teacher looks like. Please elaborate.

Thanking you in advance.

From their web site for their teaching courses:

All applicants are required to have
?GCSE English and Mathematics, minimum Grade C, or equivalent.
?Evidence of experience of working [paid or unpaid] in an appropriate educational setting (for example, primary school, early years setting, special school, children?s centre).
?Candidates will be formally interviewed, encompassing a range of practical assessments.
?All candidates will be required to undergo a CRB check.

?Applications are welcomed from students with experience and non-standard qualifications
We recognise the value of learning that takes place outside formal education institutions. Those who do not have UCAS points, but do have other qualifications and relevant experience will be considered on an individual basis

I have placed the last part in bold for your attention.

Which "St John's College" did you lok at?

May I throw a spanner in the works. Most of the unqualified teachers working without QTS are OTTs (overseas trained teachers). I have a PGCE and 10 years teaching experience, but was hired as an OTT in the UK, and therefore paid very poorly compared to people with UK qualifications and the same level of experience. Added to that, I have had all my qualifications NARIC assessed as being equivalent to UK qualifications, yet when I looked into what it would take for me to get QTS I saw that evidence I was required to collect was exactly the same as the evidence required of the NQTs, without any of the support they get, or the extra free time in my timetable. I would have been required to produce almost 300 lesson plans, many of which are repeats of things I did in my actual teaching course which, I stress, has been found by the qualifications board to be equivalent to a UK one. My head of department wanted to write to them to say that I had been observed doing all/each of these things but was informed that I was to provide the proof. Another person pointed out to me that it had taken her 9 ring binder folders to collect all the evidence and the person who came to observe her didn't even open them. I stopped teaching because I was so offended by the QTS requirements for me, and if it is scrapped I would possibly consider going back.

York St John's. I went to the UCAS site.