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?

and an article in New Scientist demolishing delightful Dominic's statistics - will hunt out a link

* personal message to Rabbitstew below - diversion from central issue of the thread, but I wanted to address misconceptions *

Rabbitstew, you have asked: Schmedz - in what way am I misguided? Part of me wonders whether it is even worth bothering to explain given that I have already referred to the fact you know absolutely nothing of my personal circumstances , but as a teacher I am compelled to correct ignorance, so here goes.

Why are you misguided in you comment of Weds 23 Oct? Many reasons. But primarily because, knowing nothing of my experience, training or abilities, you have assumed that the only possible reason the school would refuse my request to gain QTS was because they 'weren't willing to pay' and 'if they had thought I was that brilliant, they would have paid for this and given me time for it'.

I will assume that you must be unaware of the fact that at that time the school itself had to meet certain standards (for the person undertaking QTS had to be considered to be working in an appropriate environment). The school knew it would fail the criteria. The OfSted inspection confirmed this, as while I was personally found 'outstanding' the same unfortunately was not said of the management. (Given your actute awareness of the fact that Head teachers are often incompetent and yet the blame for any failures falls on their staff, I am sure you understand the situation I was in better than most). I left this school as quickly as I could to be a SAHM for a year!

As for your suggestion that someone might think it is better to be considered unqualified and might actually refuse any opportunity to 'prove' their skills..well, it beggars belief. You have clearly not bothered to read my other thoughts and those of other people on this thread on why some people wouldn't/couldn't get QTS (or considering that there may be good reasons [not only to do with money or lack of skill] that it has not been possible for them to do so, despite trying) otherwise you would'nt ever think to ask if we consider it better to be thought of as unqualified. Once again, you make personal assumptions without knowing anything more about the people concerned apart from what you interpret through their posts in this thread.

Given that the rules for gaining QTS seem to have changed at least 3 times in the past decade, I am actually delighted (as I have already stated in recent posts) to learn that the Assessment Only route is now open again. I am also pleased that it is actually now affordable for our family with average costs that I can see from the providers I have investigated, being a few thousand pounds. My current school will also be thrilled to learn it is now possible for me and many other staff who trained abroad to gain QTS, because when it was first investigated (instigated by the staff btw) several years ago, we were all expected to leave and do a PCGE.

Sincerely hoping this adequately explains my issues with some of your previous comments, Rabbit. And I actually do appreciate you mentioning more recently that not all unqualified teachers should be 'tarred with the same brush' (though feelings of quickly turned to after the question about preferring to be thought of as unqualified!).

Schmedz - You spoke up defending unqualified teachers, so I asked a question specifically designed to get you to agree that you would actually rather be viewed as qualified - if you read all my posts you would see that I had already said myself that it beggars belief that anyone would rather not bother to become a qualified teacher... Whatever you may think about your posts, you did need to clarify that, given that you had stood up for unqualified teachers at a time when it seems to me there must only be a tiny pool of good teachers left that can't easily gain qualified status. Yes, I can see that a technically unqualified, but nevertheless good, teacher in a badly run school is a bit stuffed (along with the rest of the staff...), but don't see bad schools as a good reason to change the rules so that it's OK for unqualified teachers to carry on working as unqualified forever, particularly since they are more likely to be doing that in the bad schools which are also far more likely to have picked bad unqualified teachers in the first place (or unfortunate ones from overseas who didn't realise what they were agreeing to until they got there...).

Perhaps, also, Schmedz, given that you clearly have difficulty interpreting what I mean in my posts, you might try not to take so personally what you THINK I mean in mine. I have read all the posts on this thread, so no point telling me I haven't.

In accountancy we have people who are known as QBE : qualified by experience.
They are mostly people who got time barred on their exams and did not fancy retaking all the early papers.
They are paid less than their qualified cohort and have much less job mobility.
They can be utterly excellent and invaluable in a team
BUT
will never make manager or partner because their experience cannot be proven.

The same applies to teachers.

Some schools are using fresh graduates as cheap alternatives (the equivalent of lazy audit firms sending in gangs of first year students)

Some schools keep using non qualified staff because they can be paid less.

A good school will always try to support all of its staff to gain CPD and qualifications because it helps to improve standards.
Free schools are being given every financial opportunity to do the opposite.

( TiP hopes she has depersonalised the issue^ )

I am short of time here, so please forgive me for dashing this off.

I may have missed something here, but what exactly is it that people think having QTS means? Is it some sort of magic that makes someone a good teacher suddenly overnight?

What exactly do you think it achieves or demonstrates that 23 years teaching children in tough inner city schools (not just independents in my case) shows? I have more years teaching if you count my university years. And moreover, looking at my career profile and my qualifications what can I personally in terms of my career development gain from QTS? That last one is a genuine question.

I was reading the telegraph article linked above. I had thought I was the last one of the breed but clearly not. The fact is that many teachers like myself were once considered qualified. It was an alteration in the rules that shifted the position and that was arbitary. A friend of mine got QTS given him because he was older than myself. I had colleagues who did not have degrees (and still do not actually) who got QTS again because of their age or the time in the job or having a diploma that was seen as acceptable.

I often read the comment that we would not allow doctors to practice without qualifications but we do. Most doctors hit the wards qualified with just a degree in medicine and train for other specialisms on the job. Nowadays we let nurses do much of the work too ( how is that different for teachers qualified or unqualified and TA's?) I would say that the analogy of medicine is a poor one anyway in the scenario we are discussing here vis this wonder certificate

More appropriate to what happened in education (and certainly for me and those like me as well as a raft of FE teachers and university teachers who were all graduates, post grads sometimes and often did have teacher training) was that a cut off date was set and some people got QTS and others did not.

This was rather like the government proclaiming that all mothers must take a parenting certificate before they are allowed to become pregnant and keep their own child because there have been cases where some mothers have been found to be unable to take care of their children and are lacking parenting skills. If they do not become so qualified before they have a child they will have their baby taken away from them and not returned. Not only this but it takes 18 months to get the certificate and you are already six months pregnant and so your baby will be taken from you and not returned. Even worse, this is not even your first child. You have two others already and one has already reached adulthood and can be seen to be happy,thriving and well adjusted and your second is going along well too. Do you, already established mum need a parenting certificate after two children with a third on the way?

Thats pretty much what QTS is to me.

abbiefield - so you would rather teachers can teach unqualified until they have fucked up on numerous occasions, got given chance after chance to get it right (because the equivalent of social services are too busy to look into it, anyway) and then only been removed from teaching after they have accidentally done the equivalent of overdosing in front of their neglected children? It's nothing remotely like declaring parents must take a parenting certificate. For one thing, it's easier to stop someone teaching than it is to stop them becoming a parent and also easier to have quality controls...

Also, I fail to see how you can compare a doctor getting onto the ward before they have finished qualifying in their chosen practice of medicine (with the aim of qualifying) with someone who goes into teaching without having shown prior interest in this and who then thinks that, now they have the job, they shouldn't have to bother with gaining any further qualifications. A GP IN TRAINING is a GP in training, not a fully qualified GP the minute they start seeing patients. Likewise other specialisms - you are not a fully qualified surgeon the minute you pick up a scalpel.

In accountancy we have people who are known as QBE : qualified by experience.
They are mostly people who got time barred on their exams and did not fancy retaking all the early papers

I am not sure how this a situation where ability has been "unproved".

There have been a few of these kids of people in universities who have made professorships. What universities do ( because they can) is APEL and give an award of a dgree or Ph.D by time served and papers published.

I cannot see why QTS cannot be the same.

All QTS and fast track management following it has managed to do is produce a whole cohort of teachers in state schools who seem to be qualified but lack the experience and wisdom to make good management decisions. I was in one such school in my last job. None of the SMT had above five years teaching experience but hey, they all had QTS, so thats OK isnt it? shame ofsted didnt agree.

That has become the big issue in state schools in my opinion. Its not unqualified teachers that make for poor standards, its often qualified ones who have been promoted out of their ability and experience zone.

rabitstew, see my post above.

If you have a job in an independent school you do not get given chance after chance. You are either doing it properly and effectively or you are sacked. Same with most proivate firms.
Its only state schools where you seem to get so many chances (do they really or is it only PGCE students who keep getting the chances?)

I don't think the comparison between accountants and teachers is valid.

You see it's always been possible to teach and become a head even if you haven't got a PGCE- or QTS- in the private sector, though I expect 99.9% have.

So your argument that you can't progress is not correct.

'Some accountants have experience but not full qualifications, therefore they cannot be managers because their experience cannot be proven' is illogical. If they have the experience then of course it can be proven.

Schools have always plumped for younger teachers to save money- I know of many teachers who didn't get job offers because they were too expensive.

The point about free schools and private schools is that they are a choice. If parents think the teaching is sub standard then they won't enrol their children.

sorry about the typo's. Need to go. Maybe back later tonight.

abbiefield- I agree.

Ages back I posted about my first year in an private school- 3 new teachers were asked to leave due to being useless.

What is irritating me about this thread is that there are lots of posts from people who are not teachers and who have never been in a school as a teacher- private or state- yet think they know how they work .

Rabbit

'so you would rather teachers can teach unqualified until they have fucked up on numerous occasions, got given chance after chance to get it right'

The only teachers I know who have fucked up on numerous occasions and who are still in a job are those in the state sector- and yes they have the magical QTS.

One of the overriding strengths of the private system is that they weed out the rubbish teachers pronto. Whether they are QTS or not.

And parents who vote with their feet weed out rubbish heads- something that never happens in a state school ever or when it's far too late.

Why on earth are you talking about the private sector when this relates to the state sector? You've all already admitted they are different, yet simultaneously whinge that you can't flit from one to the other with or without qualifications. We already know the private sector doesn't need qualified teachers, despite the fact most teachers in the private sector are actually qualified.

Given that you are all arguing that state schools are less good at getting rid of bad teachers than private schools, do you not agree that state schools NEED more formal quality controls?... And QTS may not be a perfect quality control, but at least it demonstrates that someone other than your current employer, who may be giving you a good reference just to palm you off onto the next school (maybe a state one?... )as a way of getting rid of you, has agreed that you do have the skills necessary to be a good teacher. And QTS is a way of getting qualified status just through having had classroom experience (ie worked unqualified like you...) - it is NOT the same thing as the PGCE.

ps in my experience, state schools can be just as ruthless at getting rid of staff as private schools if the headteacher is that way inclined. Unfortunately, my experience of this is also that such ruthless headteachers do not always limit getting rid of people to those who are no good - it tends to stretch to those they personally dislike. In my experience, also, many parents will put up with some fairly rubbish teachers in private schools if there are enough good teachers at the school to make them want to stay and they don't want to pack their child off to boarding school to avoid the local options. It is also my personal experience that parents will stick it for quite a long time with a headteacher they dislike - clearly it would surprise you to find out that even private school parents don't like constant change and uncertainty, which constantly moving your children about to avoid teachers you have taken a dislike to, can cause. Tbh, you are sounding a bit smug and complacent, implying that the private sector has few issues with bad teaching... . Also - do you know where these teachers that your schools have got rid of end up? I'll bet they don't all leave teaching altogether, or indeed necessarily the private sector...

I can just imagine this as a way of arguing you are the best candidate for the job, "I'm currently teaching in a private school, so I must be good, despite my lack of a teaching qualification, because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to have got a job in the private sector."

rabbitstew - I couldnt let your comments go unchallenged and refuted before I went out.

I do not see anyone whinging about not being allowed to teach in a state school. I personally would not go back to a state school no matter what pay and incentives I might be offered ( and if you recall I said I had done 15 years in state schools before moving sectors

Neither do I think anyone is talking about independent schools, other than by comparison. My suggestion would certainly be that if you want improvement in state schools it would be better to follow the independent school model and choose your staff carefully, invest in the best ( rather than wet behind the ears graduates and QTS and getting cheap staff) and weed out the poor ones quickly and efficiently and keep those who can do the job.

(We won't mention the fact that said candidate is currently looking for a job elsewhere...).

Exactly, abbiefield, and in your experience, do you think that will be achieved by saying to all state schools that it is OK to employ unqualified people? Do you really think that the schools which currently employ qualified people who aren't good at their jobs will suddenly become better at choosing them because they are now free to employ unqualified people?

ps I think Schmedz was somewhat upset at the notion that she was not allowed to teach in a State school, abbiefield...

And then there's that friend/colleague of wordfactory's... You may not see the whingeing, but I've noticed it!...

abbiefield - yes, I agree, you should choose your staff carefully, invest in the best and weed out the poor ones quickly. Now, shall we raise taxes to pay for the extra funds needed to pay the best teachers what they deserve, rather than keep all the bad ones, but find ways to pay them less? Because a state school stuffed full of excellent teachers is going to have serious financial problems, otherwise.

And re the Telegraph article. It doesn't explain why army veterans as teachers is such a compelling idea? I'm afraid I don't see the obvious link between army discipline and obeying orders however ludicrous, and outstanding teaching??? Or the link between army training and good academic qualifications, spelling, punctuation and grammar? What makes army veterans such good candidates for becoming untrained teachers?

I'm also not sure canvassing the opinions of the untrained people themselves is the best way of assessing their suitability for the job? I'm quite sure they wouldn't say in a newspaper article that they were surprised anyone had let them near kids in the first place.

I started as an unqualified teacher and then trained on the job (which was very hard work but my school supported me to the best of their ability, and paid). I wanted to have the piece of paper and to be better paid, and felt that if I went to the independent sector later I would then have the option of coming back to state & would also be qualified to work abroad should I want (although I had to pay towards an MA and write extra essays in order to achieve that - as the on-the-job routes don't equal PGCE).

Sadly, I learnt very little that was useful from the training, because they insisted I focus on teaching a KS3 subject that I have never studied (apart from at school) because my main subject is a sixth form only one. As I teach at a selective school I was also persona non grata at all the training sessions and ended up sitting there in silence at most of them, rather than be lectured about the evils of selective education (again). It was a really depressing and irritating experience - especially given that the taxpayer/school were forking out for it.

I learnt and continue to learn an enormous amount from talking to and watching more experienced colleagues, however. I also find the transferable skills I brought from previous careers very useful, and likewise the time management skills from working in other pressured jobs. I had taught and trained adults and HE students. IME secondary teaching is a little easier as there are sanctions for bad behaviour so you don't have to put up with students texting in lessons etc.

I considered waiting and doing Assessment Only but was concerned that the route would be withdrawn before I could go on it.

My DM did an HND in teaching adults in the 1970s and thought it was a great course - she then taught her subject successfully for 25 years until being told that she was unqualified and would have to do QTLS (at her own expense and content was identical to the HND more or less). Needless to say, she gave up local authority teaching at that point as there was plenty of private work.

The system is quite mad, the rules change all the time, many of them are simply ignored or got around and I'm not surprised non-teachers find it baffling. Incidentally, it took me 8-9 months research, networking and general detective work to find ANY training route I could do without leaving my job.