Private schools use unqualified teachers - but are they really any good?

[Talkinpeace]

One of the justifications for Free Schools etc being allowed to use non qualified teachers is that Private schools do so and get great results.

However, are the great results because those non qualified people are really better?
or is it because they are handed heavily selected cohorts to teach?

This can be tested.

Take two schools of similar size and age range, one that is fee paying and the other that is fully comprehensive
say Eton and Wallingford school in Oxfordshire (fast search for 11-18 leafy)
and swap the whole of the teaching staff for a fortnight - to run a whole timetable cycle.
TAs and support staff would stay put so the places kept going
but the whole staff from each school would teach the other's timetable.

How would they cope?

My hypothesis
The state school teachers would be pleasantly surprised that a lot of the private school kids were pretty normal.
The state school teachers would get some good ideas about how to make extension work more useful
Some of the private school teachers would rise to the challenge and come up with new ideas
most would be eaten alive by lower ability kids.

So, could a TV company make it happen?
What are your hypotheses?

I know rather a lot more about the reality of what goes on in private schools and what teacher training involves,even if I had missed what is a very small point about Oxbridge MAs -which must be of interest or relevance to a minute percentage of the population.

And yet you rudely post that people are wrong and don't know what they're talking about, and propogate utterly false 'facts'!

You must be an amazing teacher

Miss Bo Peep I am not OP but I assume your point was addressed to me. I was not taking a pot at Brighton College, I did say it is a good school and does well by many DCs but it does have a largely local catchment and isn't in the same league as the Westminsters and St Pauls' or the Winchesters or Wycombe Abbeys, so maybe the Head can afford to be, shall we say, more idiosyncratic in his approach (and that is not necessarily a bad thing). Schools that don't top the league tables do tend to develop their own niche offering and that gives parents who don't want or can't get into the big names a choice, and they can decide whether they are prepared to pay for it. However whether it is sport or music or drama at my DDs' schools the teachers have PGSEs, in sport they are taught by national and Olympic players but all have PGSEs or indeed their sporting careers were actually facilitated by going through the former PE teacher training colleges now merged with universities.

However in state schools most parents don't choose do they? Even where there are Free Schools in many places they are providing places where there is a shortage. I am an active supporter of a local Free School that will open in 2014, it is parent led and provides what parents want and that will not out of line with any of those policies. It is a locally rooted, parent proposed academy, that will fully meet national standards on teacher recruitment, curriculum and school meals. It will be broadly similar to other successful local community secondaries, because we know that is the sort of school that local parents want.

I don't disagree with most of that -shooting.
All I've said all along is that the tiny percentage of teachers in some private schools who don't have formal teaching qualifications are allowed to teach there 'unqualified' for a reason and that as parents who pay vote with their feet, then market forces will prevail.

I also made the point which the OP ignored, that not too long ago very very few teachers in further ed were qualified teachers. This is now being tackled but not all teachers have a PGCE or BEd and those who do study may come out with a Cert Ed only applicable to FE- very different from Cert Eds 50 years ago as the main training for most teachers.
Students in FE are either following vocational courses, resitting GCSEs or studying for A levels. My point was that unqualified teachers have been in the educational system for decades and it's not something that is unique to free schools. I accept that teaching students aged 16-21 is not the same as 11-18 but the principle is the same.

Unqualified teachers were indeed common in the past.
And that is where they belong.
Teaching is a profession.
Increased professionalism is part of the reason for increasing general standards over the last 20 years (and one factor in increasing grades - inflation is another).

This government is against that move : which is why it has broken LEAs and would dearly love to break the Teachers' unions.

The permission for unqualified teachers is probably ( thinking about it while digging in the garden just now ) all about money
because unqualified teachers cannot join the Teachers Pension Scheme, cannot join the teaching unions and have no recognised qualification to move to other countries and more rigorous systems.

Can it really be good for the people telling our kids to pass their exams not to have had to pass the relevant exam?

Increased professionalism is part of the reason for increasing general standards over the last 20 years (and one factor in increasing grades - inflation is another).

Sadly this is not the case as the CBI, universities and other employers will confirm.

Standards have not risen at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

You might like to read the paper by Dominic Cummings published a couple of weeks ago about the failings of education in western society. It's most interesting.

MissBoPeep I have read his "thoughts on education" www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2013/oct/11/dominic-cummings-michael-gove-thoughts-education-pdf It is not that I don't think there is a place for brainstorming extreme and off the wall ideas, just as long as the person concerned isn't allowed anywhere near policy development until those ideas have stood up to and been refined in the light of evidence and the rigor of academic peer review, expert and professional opinion, and of common sense...... I have a bit of the academic peer bit and a lot of the latter and though there are some grains of intellectual interest, the redundancy of a lot of disciplinary boundaries for instance, the whole is dangerous unevidenced and impractical ranting. The sort of extremism that caused Mao to cast aside all traditional knowledge of farming in favour of his forward scientific thinking and caused 60m to starve.

I had a very good Grammar School and university education, it would have been so much better if I had not been taught by unqualified witches without a clue about child psychology ("how many women's lives did that one woman ruin" was one entry on Friend's Reunited), but they did have Oxford MAs . However my daughters have been inspired, their confidence built up and been able to build up skills, particularly thinking skills, far beyond any I gained at school. They have had to work harder to pass their exams and they have been taught so much better which is why they have done better in them. One is now studying Natural Sciences at university, one of those cross disciplinary course Cummings is advocating, unbeknownst to him, those sorts of course are developing in our unis, but in response to advances in academic knowledge and thinking, not dogma. Frankly what bits of his ranting make any sense are already happening. She isn't struggling because she has such a good basis in the teaching by qualified teachers.

Shootingatpigeons - it's great that you feel your children are getting a good grounding for life. Unfortunately my experience is the exact opposite of yours.

I too went to a girls' grammar school, where I think I had a really good education. I have no idea how many of my teachers had an actual teaching qualification.

Having worked for many years in various state schools, I have very little hope that my own children (currently at a really good primary) will receive anything like as good an education once they start secondary. Unless I win the lottery and can send them to a private school .

It is very depressing to feel like this about the profession I chose at the age of 12. I never intended at the beginning of my career to work exclusively in the private sector, but am feeling increasingly exasperated by state schools.

I don't find the thought of allowing state schools to employ unqualified teachers scandalous, but neither is it going to do much to solve the many things currently wrong with our education system.

Shooting Pigeons. Would you have preferred to have gone to a comprehensive that was brilliant on child psychology but crap on helping pupils achieve decent lives.

As for ruining lives, i bet all the pupils who moan about one strict teacher
from a great school, have gone on to have University educations and decent lives.

Many pupils from poor schools like "Thornhill" with its socially aware
and child psychology expert head, will never get anything like the chances you
had.

You should be very grateful for the education you received.

There is a bit too much of an exalted view of the wonders of the PGCE by some on the thread. It is not particularly impressive qualification. yes, it is good that most teachers in private and state schools have it but let us not pretend it is some kind of hallowed major status.

holmes
I don't find the thought of allowing state schools to employ unqualified teachers scandalous
would you do your job without the employment rights of a teacher's contract - pension, union, training etc?

ElizabethJones
What would you change in the PGCE? - bearing in mind its primary purpose is to give graduates knowledge about management and how children learn and an understanding of the differences between groups of pupils?

Rabbitstew, you are really misguided and know nothing about my individual training, experience or abilities, nor that of many 'unqualified teachers'. I am sorry you or your own children have obviously had such a bad personal experience of some to have such negative views.

If indeed it is now possible to gain QTS via an Assessment-only route the rules have changed in the past few years (back to what they were about a decade ago). This would be great news for those who, despite being Head of Department with a proven track record of results can finally be considered properly 'qualified'. Given that the standards expected for the QTS tests some time ago required a minimum of C level grades at GCSE, I shouldn't think they will prove to be an issue for those with Honours and Masters degrees... But clearly they will make someone a better teacher .

which post was that aimed at?
confuddled?

Out of interest, do schools that take on non qualified teachers give them teachers contracts?
With full pension rights?

Talkinpeace - was responding to rabbit's comment on Weds 23 Oct at 10.08am

Not sure about state system anymore (as I am currently in independent sector) but I pay into the TPS and have done since starting my job. My last state school was a grammar and this was contracted as usual (because I had young children at the time I only wanted part time work and the HT was able to organise equivalent pay to the qualified teacher scale...don't know exactly how, but otherwise I could not have afforded to work!) I didn't pay into the pension scheme at that time so couldn't comment, but it was some time ago so things may have changed since then anyway.

Actually agree with rabbit that if state schools want someone badly enough they can (to a limited extent) organise it (and arrange an attractive enough salary with it) but unless the last government restriction on the 4-year 'window' has been lifted, it is illegal for them to employ an 'unqualified' teacher whose 'time is up'. Given that most, if not all, interviews are only conducted after HTs have carefully considered numerous CVs and rejected all but about 4 or 5 of these, and then these potential candidates are only appointed after teaching at least one demonstration lesson, intensive interview and a fresh CRB check, I think that most schools are pretty prepared for the standard of teacher which they employ. I think it is a shame for a state school if they feel a candidate is right for the job but they don't have QTS, especially as anyone who is any good will have no trouble finding employment in a good independent school.

Have investigated, and am glad to see the Assessment-only route to gaining QTS is definitely back in action. Much less expensive than a PGCE, too - most providers seem to cost fewer than a couple of thousand pounds and you don't have to quit your job to do it. Also, you only need a minimum of two years experience in two settings to be eligible to apply, so reasonably fresh and energetic recruits from abroad should be lining up to prove their worth!

PS : Talk - my final comment to rabbit was based on the tone and ideas expressed in other posts in this thread.

soul and holmes No it wasn't one strict teacher, it was an entire cohort of bitter women (Oxbridge bluestockings who should have had better outlets for their talents) who maintained discipline via sarcasm and sapping girl's confidence. You either rebelled or went under. Work would come back with red pen that had gone through the paper with the pressure of the venom and spite. It wasn't an isolated experience either I know women who attended girls' grammars across the country who had the same experience (don't lets start on convent schools) It is no surprise that however much knowledge they imparted to us most women did not go on to a successful career, of all the alumni that have come out of the woodwork for my year, around 70%, 4, yes 4 have reached the levels of senior management / leadership in whatever organisations or walks of life we chose to pursue. Yes more than average went to university (those not side-lined into the "secretarial stream") but without confidence you are not going to get on in life. That I think is one of the key things that modern teaching delivers, a focus on the child and building their confidence not knocking it.

My daughter's peers in state schools have all gone on to gain good places at universities, going to private school has all sorts of benefits but it really has not made a difference to where they have ended up, the bright ones have got places at good unis including Oxbridge. We are lucky to have outstanding comps around here, and one thing about the London challenge and other initiatives is that they are now in partnership to share best practise. The London challenge worked so well because whatever was good and worked was implemented everywhere including effective leadership. Ofsted are now saying that that approach should be rolled out nationwide. It seems to me that sort of bottom up improvement is the answer not untried dogma raining down from above.

And if you want me to really get on my hobbyhorse about a development that really sums this whole regime up is that my bright dyslexic daughter found out with weeks to go this summer that at the Dof E's instigation exam boards no longer subscribe to the principle of levelling the playing field for those with dyslexia. The new regulations, as they admit, discriminate against bright dyslexics, one of the most heartening developments in modern education has been the recognition that you can be bright and have a learning difficulty (as 10% of people at every level of ability do) On the one hand we have the MOD and universities developing recruitment practises and environments that work for those with SpLDs because they value the strengths, on the other the DofE deciding they shouldn't be doing so well and getting the As their hard work and ability merits. But it will please Daily Mail readers......

I have been reading through this thread a couple of days ormore nowand toyed with the idea of posting. I am still unsure I am doing the right thing.

I am an unqualified teacher. I have been teaching for nearly 23 years. I have more than one degree. I currently work in an independent but that has only been for the last six years. Prior to that I worked in some very tough state schools.

The story is quite an odd one for me and I suppose I may demonstrate the difference between an older unqualified teacher and a new one. Most new ones seem to be TA's made up. Many old ones like me joined teaching when QTS didnt exist. There probably arent many of us left now.

Back before 1989 if you were a graduate you didnt need a teaching certificate. I taught maths - maths and science were the last "unqualified teacher" subjects.

I started out teaching in a university until I had my first DC. Then I gave up and when I went back I went to work in a school because of the hours. It fitted my needs. I was not considered unqualified then. The unqualified came about when QTS hit around 1992.

My qualifications didnt match up to those required for QTS so despite having taught in a school for around 10 years I was not qualified.

For a while it didnt seem to matter as many teachers like me were not qualified.

Around 2002, a second DC later and a different school, I was told I would have to take a teaching qualification if I wanted to remain as a teacher. That actually was not true. I could work if I wanted as an unqualifed teacher ( the pay scale existed) and if the school wanted they could employ me as a manistream teacher. There was and never has been any rule against it. In fact in many ways being unqualified makes you hightly employabe ( cheap). Especially so if you are good, a graduate , experienced and get results.

I did the course but I had an argument with a young whipper snapper of a kid teacher who had just completed her NQT year and was fast track management who was appointed my tutor and mentor. I was forced to train in a subject not my own and one I didnt have experience of although one of my degrees was related ( RE and PHSME - not that the whizz kid had more experience or knowledge of it). The Upshot was I ended up with a Diploma in Education (and all that rubbish theory , which I didnt need anyway as I had a degree with far more backgound in it)

I changed schools. I worked again as an unqualified teacher. I was paid less but teaching my own again subject now . I carried on doing that for several more years and was even allowed honory qualified status and was paid as a mainstream teacher. I got up to HoD.

Then I was made redundant. My next job was in an independent school ( I am still there) . I am SMT now. The school take more notice of my years teaching - and besides I have a teaching certificate just not QTS and I now also have a Masters degree in Education (teaching my subject) as well as my academic PH.D.

Now maybe the only reason I am still teaching is because I am rubbish and I shouldnt be but my results are good. I am considered "excellent" consistently by school inspectors both from Ofsted and ISI and many pupils past and present regard me well too I am pleased to say.

The mentor who wanted me failed QTS is now running a holiday camp
(I kid not). She got into a bit of difficulty and had to leave teaching. I have left many QTSers along the way. One rose to HT before Ofsted rated his school in special measures and he left. Another went to work as a caretaker in a college . He was under a cloud ( he had been HoD of the dept where I did my teaching practice before Iwas failed for QTS). Many others who I trained with got QTS but have never managed to get a job. I would have said many of them should never have been given QTS but who am I to say?

So there you have it.

Wow, Abbie. I did not realise that there are many British-trained teachers with your experience who also do not have QTS. Like you I have around 20 years teaching experience in a variety of state and independent schools. Like you, I have a teaching certificate and undertook an intense induction period in my (Commonwealth) country of origin. NARIC recognises my university degrees with a British equivalents, but my teaching certificate (probably reasonably, due to the different curriculum of the UK and my home country) is not recognised. My lessons /planning etc.. have also been graded 'outstanding' (old OfSted) and 'excellent' (current OfSted).
I would like QTS simply to have the piece of paper which confirms what my employers, colleagues, students and parents already know. I was not prepared to give up a year of a good HoD post (and pay for an expensive course which would undoubtedly cover less than already studied in my other degrees) to gain a PGCE when told this was the government requirement. Now I see Assessment only channels are available again, I will attempt once again to apply for QTS. I like my current job very much, but would like the flexibility of being able to work in the state system once again.

I would be happy to employ an 'unqualified' teacher with 23yrs proven experience and references saying that results and lessons are excellent. I would not be happy for my children to be taught by a 21yr old graduate with zero experience and zero qualifications.

because unqualified teachers cannot join the Teachers Pension Scheme, cannot join the teaching unions and have no recognised qualification to move to other countries and more rigorous systems

Thats not tue. The TPS is open to all teachers QTS, unqualified, FE lecturers and independent school teachers if they want.

The lack of a qualification isnt a probllem asmany countries require you to take their own qualifications anyway and you can work as "unqualified " there too - just as US, Canadian and ANZAC's work here.

would you do your job without the employment rights of a teacher's contract - pension, union, training etc?

This is another falacy. I have always had the same contracts and employment rights as so called qualifiedteachers. I am also in a union. Most of the unions will accept teachers like myself too. Ditto training and INSET

If a school offers a poor contract , its down to the school not the rules.

I have posted this before, received a flaming but one teacher actually thanked me and stood up for me.

I qualified (PgCE) Post Compulsory my Degree was Leisure, Travel & Tourism. Along with several of my peers we gained teaching posts at several local 6th form colleges.
After a while it became apparent that we would need to cover other classes, quite normal there. Except, QTS was not a requirement for PC neither were GCSE's of which I and several of my peers have none.
We were expected to teach in the lower school so years 7 - 11.
I kid you all not, I had to do long term cover, so the whole teaching bit for GCSE Maths and some further.
The union were no use even though the school was breaking the law.
I left as my ds2 went to the school at the time and I really didn't want somebody like me teaching him, so it was a no brainer.
It isn't the unqualified teachers who know their subject that were the problem here. It was qualified teachers having to teach subjects and levels they weren't qualified to teach.

abbiefield
Your post has actually made my day. Genuinely.
Because it disproves my most cynical fear that the whole thing was about money.
I'm now reassured that its only 80% about the money

And yes, I'd rather you covering my DCs school than any twerp fresh out of teach first
BUT
I remain very, very concerned that the political obsession with breaking unions and leas is throwing the bath out with the bathwater, let alone the baby.

Private schools get away with hiring fresh graduates who are still wet behind the ears because their pupils are pre selected.
State schools have got to have teachers able to cope with their own delights.

ahhh,,, gove ......
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24653574