Would you be happy with this?

[susanmt]

Schools in Scotland have just gone back, and someone I know has just taken up a position as the chaplain at a private school in Edinburgh.

He will do assemblies, individual pastoral care etc, BUT, though he has no teaching qualifications or experience, will teach RE as a subject as well as English and History (his degree subjects).

I'm a teacher and it appalls me! How can he teach 3 subjects with no teaching qualification? Do you think the parents know? Would you mind if it was your kid? This can only happen because it is a private school, it wouldn't be allowed in the state sector (this is not a pvt v state school debate, I was just shocked and wondered if I am being silly about it?)

I would be disgusted if I found out my children were being taught by someone with no qualifications.

Mind you my dd starts school in September and I am annoyed coz her teacher is fresh out of University. She has no teaching experience and even though she seems very nice - I don't think my dd will benefit!!!

Sweetheart

My DS1s teacher last year (Year 1) was fresh out of University (just 22!) and although I wasn't worried (they've got to start somewhere!) I was keeping a close eye on his progress.

Well, she was fabulous - he came on in leaps and bounds, left Year 1 at top of the class in both Numeracy and Literacy. He loved her, she was kind and caring, easy to approach and I thought she was great.

DD2 starts in 2 weeks in Reception, and I would have no problems with her going in this teachers class in Year 1 (in fact may actually request that she does).

Also, just thinking some more...

DD1's Year 2 teacher, although lovely and DD1 got on extremely well in her class, she was very much of the "old school" type of teacher. Had been teaching for years and years and seemed to be very "stuck" in her way of doing things.

Advantage of "newly-qualified" teachers is that they are like a "breath of fresh air", open to changes/new ideas etc.

DD2's Reception Teacher is a newly-qualified - only been there since last September (DD2 will be her 2nd intake) and I have no qualms about her, or DD2 and her progress.

Slink,

I hope your situation is something I will be able to relate to in a years time. She seems like a very nice girl - I think it may be the fact that I think she is younger than me which makes everything see a bit odd - I'm only 23 by the way.

I have heard people say - perhaps she will be full of fresh ideas. Well he is hoping, but back to the original question, I would be miffed if they had NO qualifications!!!

Yep, did find it weird that she was so young - looks younger that 22 too! On the first day, (she was new, so I have never seen her), I was looking around for her in the playground. When I saw her, I honestly thought she was an older sister of one of the pupils.

Sadly, I'm older than all of my 3 kids teachers this year - DS1 has another "young" one for Year 2 and DD1 a "youngster" for Year 4.

I think it's a sign of the times that I'm getting on - although DH is delighted with DS1s Year 2 teacher this year (same as DD1s Year 2) as he has a MAJOR crush on her

Susanmt, I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as the children he teaches are being monitored in some way. As it's a private school the classes will be smaller & if he's got a Degree in the subjects he's teaching I can't see the problem. I doubt the parents know but then they probably don't care either... If he is a chaplin I'm assuming he has experience as a minister anyway, so what's the difference?

I would not like it if they had no teaching qualifications!
However, in reply to sweetheart, i would think that soemone fresh out of university would be full of enthusiasm and raring to go.
DD starts next week() so i'll reply again then!!

You can work in the state sector on the 'unqualified' regester in England. I did my PGCE on a part time basis. The school I did my teaching practice employed me before I was fully qualified (I assume they must have been happy with the teaching they had seen in my teaching practice) and I worked on the unqualified regester. It was a source of great amusement to the department and me that I was called 'unqualified' when I was one of the best qualified members of staff, but lacked the PGCE. Most state schools will 'encourage' you to the the PGCE, or GTP as soon as you can.

I would keep a weather eye on how the kids were doing and act accordingly.

I was an unqualified teacher for 2 years while I was doing my QTS - I think I was OK
Private schools are a bit different in that teachers don't have to be qualified. I wouldn't worry about it too much - he may well be a natural and better than lots of qualified but bad teachersthat I'm sure you've come across susanmt!

It wouldn't bother me at all. If he was rubbish it would, but if he's good, who cares about the bit of paper?

A friend of mine also teaches in a private school, she has a German degree, but French only up to A Level, and she teaches French up to A level. Which I found very odd to begin with. But her pupils all get A's and B's, so I think it's OK.

I must say I'm surprised that people are OK with this. WOuld you want an unqualified Doctor looking after you?

There's no such thing as being able to teach unqualified in the state sector in Scotland. You get your PGCE, then you do probation, but you are qualified while you are on probation and also supervised. I think that newly qualified teachers are a great thing (especially when I was one) but there is so much more to teaching than just being in front of the class - I was taught to prepare resources, plan a lesson, follow a curriculum properly etc etc. In Scotland you can only teach a subject if you have it to 2nd yr Uni level (Uni is 4 yrs here) and I wouldn't be happy to teach something that I wasn't qualified in, I've done it for a week on supply but not on a regular basis!

He's not a minister either - he's been a church youth worker for 10 years, so has experience of working with teenagers. But if it was my kids I would be very upset. Where's the quality control, where's the appraisal, where's the accountability (you can't report him to the GTC for unprofessional conduct, for example).

I'm sure he will be good. Its the principle, rather than the individual case, that I was asking about.

Having gone through the private sector and had more than a few teachers who were not "qualified" teachers-actually the majority weren't, I would have very few problems with this. I may get shot down in flames here, but I would rather my DD was taught by someone who is intelligent and can pass on enthusiasm for a subject than someone who knows all the theory but is a completely uninspiring teacher. At the end of the day we're not talking about him teaching kids the absolute basics, there's no danger of kids being functionally illiterate if he's no good.

As for the checks etc. IME private schools are much quicker to get rid of staff who aren't up to scratch-they tend not to have to worry about unions in the same way as state schools and are more accountable to parents.

At the end of the day every school has at least one teacher who isn't up to the job and all the "professional training" in the world isn't going to change that. The most inspirational English teacher I had hadn't even done English A-level and had no formal teaching qualifications.

Speaking as someone who has done a pgce believe me they dont actually teach you that much. You mainly learn on the job. I expect good teachers for my kids and whether they have done a pgce is irrelevant. PGCE's are hard to fail, you have to be really crap and I mean really crap to fail.
On my course there were several who had no business being in the classroom but passed. The rest of us just hoped they'd never teach our kids.

You cannot compare an unqualified teacher to an unqualified doctor. A pgce and a degree in medicine have completely different aims. There is nothing in common with which to put that as a valid argument.

Well I dont know where you did you pgce but I got taught SO much on mine. how to do so many things. I cant imagine teaching without having gone through college, teaching practice etc ... Yes you learn on the job, but you need a basic grounding. During the course several people who were chucked off for being too crap and at the end of my class of 25 (in my subject), 3 failed. Thats more than failed A levels last week!

As for the doctor thing, well, would you be happy if your GP had a degree in medecine but no specialist training in GP (3 yrs minimum). It was my dh, who is a GP, who made this comparison. Yes he/she would know all about medecine but not about how to work in a GP setting. Suppose that wouldn't bother people either!

I think though in the end it is me who is feeling devalued by all this. Why bother going through teaching college and probation and working hard to keep up to date and learning how to teach new things and going through appraisal and keeping up to date by marking exams while I am a SAHM and going on courses unpaid to make sure I am up to date with changes, and then someone with no qualifications or experience can walk into a job (albeit one I would never do as I would on principle not teach in the private sector) and everyone be happy with that on the grounds of 'enthusiasm'.

I'm genuinely surprised that MNetters value their childrens teachers so little that qualifications mean so little. No they arent everything, but they are important.

Depends how the school mentor him I think as to how I would feel. My first job was full time teaching in a private school, and I didn't have a PGCE, but got a lot of mentoring from the school - in my subject there is a lot of individual teaching anyway, so I didn't have to do classes straight away, and they were really supportive of giving me feedback etc when I did. I don't think the kids I taught suffered (at least I hope not!) - and in fact my first GCSE group that I put right the way through had 11 kids in it and they got 6 A*, 4 As and 1 B, and one of the children got an award for having one of the top 5 marks in the country.

Most schools will ask a prospective teacher to do a trial lesson as part of their interview so I guess they'd be able to see if he didn't have a clue!

Thinking about the medical example, when I had ds, I was primarily looked after by a student midwife, and only once ds got into trouble did I get a qualified midwife, and then a junior house officer, who was then checked up on by the registrar on duty. So I guess that is comparable - the junior doctor had little or no training beyond the medical degree, but she did the 'donkey work' whilst the doctor with more obs and gynae experience kept an eye on things.

Susanmt- on my pgce we spend most of our time in secondary schools and although the college stuff was useful alot was idealogical crap. I have learnt far more actually in the classroom than in a few lectures at uni. My uni was one of the best for teacher training.
Those on my course were amazed that some people passed who clearly had no business teaching and I am glad to hear that it's not the same at all colleges.

My experience of a pgce was mainly a few weeks in college and the rest in schools which an unqualified teacher would get anyway. What can be learnt in a college room which cant be learnt in a school?
My understanding is that unqualified teachers get lots of support and training on the job. They certainly do in my school and are taught everything and more that they would learn on a pgce but done in a school.
This is very different to a gp who cant learn on the job as a teacher can. Let's face it things like SOW etc are hardly rocket science and no where near as difficult as what a gp has to know.
I wouldnt work in a private school either although I would have no qualms sending my own kids there tbh.

Obviously the Scottish system is totally different. I'm glad I work in it, and that my children will not be taught by people who have no qualification in teaching.

Its funny how my dh, who is a GP, compares my training with his, where you lot dont.

How do you think GPs are trained anyway? On the job!

I have not long finished my PGCE, having one into teaching as a mature student. I already had my subject degree. It think the amount you learn in the PGCE depends on the quality of the mentor that you have. My first mentor was a nice guy but a waste of space tbh. He would watch a lesson and say, 'yes that was good'. In the second school my mentor was far more helpful, he said 'that was good and this is how i think you can make it very good'

To a degree I think that you learn most about on teaching while on the job. Yes the PGCE taught me how to structure a lesson and how a lesson fits in within a SOW. It also told me about assessment and multiple intelegences, learning theory etc. However when it gets to the nitty gritty stuff of classroom managament , IMPH, that only come with practice in the classroom as the teacher in charge.

I would be far more worried at someone teaching a topic that they had no qualifications in, than someone teaching without a PGCE. Both would need support.

The PGCE was helpful, but in the end my teaching was assessed by experienced members of staff as being very good while I was working on the Unqualified regester. I didn't magically become a better teacher when I got the bit of paper.

Message withdrawn

So should we just do away with teacher training and stick people in the classroom with a mentor and do it that way?

I beleive I'm a natural teacher - I'm passionate about my subject, and from my first day in the classroom I was good at it, it came naturally. But college made me into an educator, a professional in my field, and I'm proud of it.

Well, that is sort of what is happeneing with the GTP training programme. They get a reduced timetable and are expected to read the required theoterical stuff while they are training. It takes a year. I think it must be very hard work, but don't see that it will produced poorer quality teachers.

There is some theoretical information that is needed for teaching, my PGCE had theoretical work which took 180 hours of work. I don't think that has to be done in lecture form etc, it can be done, as I did it as individual work.

Why not encourage people to train on the job? Properly supported and audited they could be excellent teachers who enter the profession with realistic ideas on how schools and children succeed and fail.

Message withdrawn

Well, I'd agree with you, Susanmt! I wouldn't be happy for my children to be regularly taught by an unqualified teacher. Of course there are people out there who who might make good teachers irrespective of training but as a parent a PGCE tells me a little about a person, that they have committed to being a teacher and will be up to date with latest thinking etc.

Tbh, looking at the hoops schools have to go through to prepare children for exams, I'd be amazed if it was possible to just walk into a classroom and make a decent fist of it. There are no guarantees in life but it's nice to have some sort of standard to go by, imo.