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?

All children have the right to be taught by qualified teachers. 80% of parents in a YouGov poll earlier this year said so. Few parents would send their child to an unqualified doctor who'd got, say, a degree in human biology but no medical training. Solicitors have to have a law degree AND spend three years training for practice. Few pet owners would allow their pet anywhere near an amateur just because they might have a degree in, say, animal science.

Private schools may employ untrained teachers and these schools may get good results but that's because they select their pupils. The private school "advantage" is overturned when socio-economic background is taken into account. And Ofsted found that more private schools were "Inadequate" than state schools between Jan and June 2013.

Look what's just happened at Al-Madinah free school - unqualified, untrained, inexperienced teachers let loose on children. And the unqualified, inexperienced head appointed to lead Pimlico Primary free school left after the first few weeks of term.

For more information see:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/10/all-pupils-have-the-right-to-be-taught-by-properly-qualified-teachers-80-of-parents-say-so/

Gosh I am so sorry. The first hundred or so posts were 99.9% about private schools, so the discussion was based around whether private schools should be allowed to employ unqualified teachers and whether a PGCE is worth the paper it's written on. I was surprised how few posters seem to be aware that state schools can have unqualified staff teaching lessons and without any subject knowledge at all apart from the lesson plan they are handed.

So it did not seem from the thread that people already knew that.

My apologies.

That's OK! I think you are right that a lot of people aren't aware how often their child may be sitting in a class with someone unqualified to teach in charge of the lesson.

Someone unqualified in that that subject but who have qualified in other subjects, you mean?

I think parents and particularly children can tell if a someone is unqualified and inexperienced as a teacher in a mixed ability state school with larger class sizes, though. They know the difference between a teaching assistant and a teacher and hate having supply teachers too.

rabbit when did I say teachers at selective schools aren't qualified? I was excited to be enrolled on a 'proper training course' and it was disappointing to find that many of the trainers disapproved of selective & independent schools on principle (it was definitely not my imagination) and that the 'training course' had more or less nothing to do with teaching my subject better. I did not do it cynically in order to get paid more - it was instead that being mid-career I could not afford to work for very long on circa £18k. If I was 'radiating' anything it was bafflement at how the process was intended to improve my teaching!

If I might put it in current teaching terms, the course I did was not differentiated nor personalised and no account was taken of students' prior learning or abilities.

My point (which may not have been clear) was that it can be so complicated and expensive to get officially trained that I can see why some people don't bother if they're not required to.

I would like the govt. to stop pretending training is linked to a subject and that it can possibly prepare students for all types of education settings and instigate a modular, distance learning course to qualify that could be customised for any setting and delivered by (say) the Open University - the training for a particular environment would be done by the school and any subject training by subject specialists. I also do not see the point of the artificial distinction between training for a school and an FE college that does GCSEs and A levels. I think I have just reinvented my Mum's HND .

I should add I know the OU already train, but in only a few subjects (and I don't know what the rationale was for them offering the particular ones they offer - Music is perhaps to fill the gap for experienced musicians working in schools but unqualified, that a number of previous posters have mentioned).

'the training for a particular environment would be done by the school and any subject training by subject specialists' -

Schools would need to be properly accredited for that, however. Schools would need additional staff to take on the additional supervision and assessment responsibilities in addition to classroom teaching. Al-Madinah or Discovery New School have already failed their first Ofsted so they would never have gained accreditation. Kings Acience Academy - the recent financial fraud case - had external subject specialists marking students' work rather than the teachers themselves I am about them being experienced specialist teachers. At Pimlico Academy it was the head herself who was inexperienced and untrained.

My own training was many years ago- 40 to be precise at a time when the route into teaching was BEd or Cert Ed for many teachers, as well as PGCE. I can honestly say that although the teaching practices were useful in some ways they were far removed from the real world of work which followed. There was a lot of theory on my course about psychology and the history of education and a far less time in the classroom. We were also subject to our lecturers 'pet theories' and prejudices at the time. I am sure that the training has changed and I hope improved since then, but I can honestly say that I felt I was jumping through hoops with my training. This is why I still believe that experienced teachers who are already doing the job should not be forced to become QTS- it's teaching hens to suck eggs.

To be honest I think it must have changed a lot. I don't know when it was that having a degree was made a compulsory requirement but I know people with Cert Eds who have taught in private schools but were never allowed to teach in the state sector. So I really, really support subject specialism at degree level. There is so much teaching practice on PGCEs on top of that, but it must be properly supervised.

PhineyJ - what a shame that your tutors were so unprofessional and the course did not meet the needs you were seeking to be met. I'm quite sure that teacher training can be improved. That I would be happy with. Letting schools with no track record for anything get their hands on unqualified people to work unsupported as teachers in a brand new school venture does not seem to me even the tiniest bit sensible, however. I can sort of envisage the idea of specialist teaching schools, like specialist teaching hospitals, but not the idea of a brand new hospital/school opening itself up and declaring itself to be competent to employ people with no past experience of working in hospital medicine/schools to help get it up and running whilst they simultaneously learn on the job without expert support.

Straggle- that's not the case with Cert Eds. There was a Cert Ed teacher at my grammar school in the 60s, and I know plenty of older teachers who studied a specialist subject over a 3-year Cert Ed, who specialised in an age range too, and who went on to teach in secondary state schools- many many of my grammar school peers did that.

I think there was a cut-off point some time in the mid 1970s where Cert Eds were converted into BEd courses but those who had just finished the Cert Ed couldn't have their qualification upgraded - and in any case, entry requirements became stricter for the degree (e.g. English and Maths o-level). I imagine it may have been harder to get a job in a non-shortage area with a fresh crop of BEds to compete with, and then the deadline for completing the probationary year passed. It certainly happened to a relative of mine. For years she worked in private nurseries and later in a prep school. Ironically it was her recent experience as a (not very well paid) state school classroom assistant which enabled her to do the job because she was up to date with best practice from the state sector. But it was still a struggle for her to work unsupported.

The other example I can think of was my old chemistry teacher - not a graduate, just a Cert Ed, but worked for decades in state schoos. She was very good at teaching, but only when sticking strictly to the syllabus - her subject knowledge became out of date and she had not studied it in depth beyond 18. But she would have retired 20 years ago.

Wikipedia suggests that the Cert Ed was discontinued in the early 1980s when a BEd or degree + PGCE became the requirement. The BEd overlapped from 1968. I think most BEd courses are for primary teaching.

Straggle- there are some of my peers still teaching who have Cert Eds- they qualified long before 1984. (The BEd as an option was introduced around 1975-76 as an extra year on top of the 3 yr Cert Ed. It was optional.)

Two of my peers from school became head teachers ( primary and sec state schools) and the one who was a primary head was also an Ofsted inspector and she retired a couple of years back after a long career. The one who became a secondary head did so after many years as a dep head in a state sec school during which time they converted their Cert Ed/QTS to a BA through the OU. This has been a popular route for many teachers from the 1970s.

One other point- when you do a Cert Ed as a secondary school subject, it's studied way beyond A level- a Cert Ed counts for 2/3rds of a BA if you top it up through the OU.

Obviously those remarks are in the past tense- my friends who did the Cert Ed as it was then. And in case it's not clear, the one who had a very long and unbroken career as the primary head /Ofsted inspector had only a Cert Ed. She was an excellent head and was even interviewed for a BBC education documentary prog some years back.

So, it seems you have begun to realise through the diiscussion what a myriad of qualifications carry QTS and not all are degree level? Like it was not known before?

I worked in my last school with a colleague who had a Cert Ed ( around 1978 I think she got it. Didnt top up to a degree. She had QTS given her automatically in 1992 even though she did not have a dgree ( a cert ed was sub degree).

However, a couple of years ago, the teacher training college where she got her cert ed ( now called a university college and awarding ITT degrees) upgraded her cert ed to a degree. This without any additional study or " top up" via an course. They just put out an edict that any person who had a certed awarded by them up until 1989 ( when they stopped doing them) would now be considered degree holders and they could apply for their certificates to say as much. ( a bit like an Oxford MA which gets automatically awarded without any study and on application).

So, my question is, ( daft maybe) why is it that someone such as myself , who has all the qualifications and more than one degree as it happens - but lets say any graduate) and a requisite number of years in a classroom ( lets say for arguments sake 10 years?) and who got their qualifications before 1989 ( when QTS got introduced) cant be given QTS by one of those ITT colleges - they could do it on an APEL tick list. They might even award it as a teaching qualification ( not as I need that as I have one but some other teachers may need it).

See, the rules are all rubiish really.

As for those smug enough to think that the teacher in front of their child in a state school is qualified ( even if not in the subject they are teaching) think again. There are many more totally unqualifed and inexpereinced teachers there than in independent schools because they are cheap.

In most independents , not having a teaching qualification does not mean the teachers are inexperienced or that they lack training and have just rolled up off the street in front of a class. That rarely happens or happened.

Sorry many typo's. Didnt check it. DH wants the computer and is pushing me off.

The holy grail mentioned here of the "Assessment Only" route does notgive QTS without strings unless its changed radically this time around. I looked at this back around 2000 .If you can get onto it, you may if lucky be able to get the papers signed off in 6months ( I have only met one man who managed to completein three months as suggested). They have to come and observe your teaching twice before signing off the QTS and then you have to complete your NQT year after that. For me also, that would mean going back to the bottom of the NQT pay scale.

I could not give a flying antelope which teaching qualification people have

but I care very, very deeply that people let loose in the classroom have done a reasonable amount of training on
group management, learning theory, child development, SEN, child protection and teaching legislation

Gove seems to think it OK to ignore those.
He's an arse

Qualifications have changed over time. As I said, my chemistry teacher was good, particularly as a deputy head, but retired 25 years ago. A Cert Ed with a OU degree is no different from first degree + PGCE for a teacher who has worked continuously in state schools. Meanwhile assessment route should be with an accredited provider. The details get refined.

Independent schools can do what they like if parents choose to take that risk. abbiefield can continue to teach in an independent school if she wants the same salary. Free schools and academies are state schools not independent schools and now the only type of new school allowed (apart from VA schools). In areas of shortage parents have no option but the academies. Some academies are accredited providers. The schools most likely to fail their pupils with inexperienced untrained staff - free schools with dodgy governance - are not.

OP you said these were important....'group management, learning theory, child development, SEN, child protection and teaching legislation'

When I trained we did all of that ( though not so much legislation because there wasn't much then) and I found 90% of it useless! I loved my teaching practices but found that the theory and lectures didn't teach me a thing. I can see the mighty tomes on my bookshelf now as I type and very little applied to being in front of the lowest set, 4C last lesson on a Friday.

I hate to say it but because you haven't been at the chalk face there is a lack of understanding which can't be gained 2nd hand.

Straggle- the difference is that some teachers with Cert Eds who were working as subject specialists did so for 25 years or more, often as very good teachers, before upping to a BA/BSc- not quite the same as a degree followed immediately by a PGCE before being let loose on the kids.

Well you are clearly supremely clever and already aware of all of the issues.

How many Army officers arrive in schools understanding the nature of SEN - that they will never have encountered in their professional lives

How many bankers will be ready to cope with 30 kids, 20 of whom do not want to be in the room?

How many fresh graduates will arrive with the skills to control the 29 while they take the 30th to the head teacher?

THAT is why teacher training courses are essential before new entrants - who already drop out in huge numbers - are let loose on classrooms.

You are right, the only part of the chalk face I've been at was five years as a volunteer classroom helper
and I would never be so arrogant as to assume that my degree and work experience entitles me to teach a class of kids without further training.

I worry about the ethics of anybody who thinks they can.

It's no different to me. I don't know how that might have affected salaries. Things obviously evolve over time - Cert Eds were originally assistant teachers to the 1960s then BEd or degree + PGCEs took over. But on PGCEs two-thirds of the time is spent on placements than in the lecture theatre. Teaching practice in at least three different schools must give trainees a better overview than being based in one school but you are supervised in either route. Was looking at this course and the theory covers subject-specific principles, the National Curriculum, lesson plans and self-assessment, use of resources and peer support. All sounds pretty essential and very practical.