Unqualified Teachers

[everychildmatters]

Why is there not complete outrage re the above? I'd rather my daughter not be "taught" full-time by someone who potentially does not need one formal qualification to their name.
I'm glad I walked out of teaching profession last year after 20 years in.
Enough is enough.

Plenty of teachers with QTS are crap at the job.
Plenty of teachers are teaching subjects they only have basic knowledge of.
And I know people who aren't teachers, but who would be great in the job.
Private/public schools don't require QTS (not sure about PGCE) but people pay to send their kids to few paying schools.

Plenty of teachers with QTS are crap at the job.
Plenty of teachers are teaching subjects they only have basic knowledge of.

Neither of these things are good. Nor are they reasons to just give up training teachers and allow anyone who fancies it to have a go.

Agree, and many teachers out there have criticism of the teach first...in my experience it has not been the success many thought it would be. In my humble opinion just because you're academically brilliant does not automatically mean you'll be a good teacher.

Teach First is now the largest teacher training provider and isn't for 'academically brilliant' candidates anymore. They've lowered the bar substantially.

Not always.
I'm learning a tricky subject at college at the moment, at a night school. The 'teacher' knows their subject but isn't a good teacher. She hasn't broken anything down, doesn't check our understanding at various points in the lesson- just talks at us then gives us 20 min to do the worksheet. There's a real mix of abilities and some dyslexic people too in the group and many are finding it very difficult because we aren't being 'taught' the subject like a teacher would. We might as well read a book.

How do you know they’d be great at the job?

Do they know how to build a programme of study based on previous learning? And to check for this? And how do they check?

Do they clearly know how to assess every child in the class. Taking account of SEND or other issues that may impact or hide ability?

Do they know how to give clear explanations and what time proportion of the lesson should be spent in explanation and talking? Do they know how to check that every child has understood? Do they know how to differentiate the work according to ability?

Do they know how to assess and create worthwhile learning objectives? And link these to assessment?

Do they know how to control a class. And how to make them work quietly?

They might be great at the job. But they won’t know how to do it without training.

This is very true, I've been teaching for 23 years, never had QTS, never will, I have a BSc MSc & PhD in my subject (Engineering), have taught at HE & FE level and been head of Science in an independent school for 12 years, only one of the 10 teaching staff in my department have QTS, all are exceptional at what they do.

Having a deep subject knowledge is the foundation, having the gift to convey that knowledge to others in an engaging and successful manner is key, I don't think you can learn that - you either have the enthusiasm and gift of communication or you don't.

Teaching has a lot in common with stand-up comedy, which I guess is why so many stand-up's have been teachers. You get up in front of your audience, the class. You have a broad plan of your line up, but you have to bend with the wind and improvise as needed, maybe a piece of information you thought would sink in easily just isn't, so you need to adjust the pace, change the delivery, or go at it from a different angle. You can't learn that in any effective way, you either can or can't.

That's interesting... how far have they lowered the bar? That is potentially not a bad thing.

I have experience of academically brilliant trainee teachers (admittedly this was not teach first but a PGCE) who have not completed the course... but I guess my experience is different, as I'm an FE teacher.

The whole system needs looking at, as I'm qualified to teach in FE have been for over 20 years - I teach A levels. Yet would be considered unqualified if I moved to a school six form - it's all a bit ridiculous!

Having a deep subject knowledge is the foundation, having the gift to convey that knowledge to others in an engaging and successful manner is key, I don't think you can learn that - you either have the enthusiasm and gift of communication or you don't.

You can certainly get better at teaching by being trained, and we need more teachers than those lucky enough to be born with the skills to do it adequately without any sort of learning about it.

The TF trainee I had last year only had a GCSE grade C in the subject he was training to teach. He had no relevant A levels or degree.

TF do not have a procedure to fail trainees. As far as I know, he is resitting this year. He was a lovely man but utterly utterly unsuited to teaching of any kind.

All many of these providers are interested in is the money.

And that's a different issue. There was fierce competition to get into my pgce in the 90s.
There has obviously been a lowering of standards. I do specialist work now in schools and I'm surprised by the staff I talk to in primary particularly

That's interesting, I have a colleague who is now teaching in FE because when he applied to the teach first they wanted him to teach a subject he wasn't prepared to deliver, he suspects that this is because it was a shortage area, he also did not have an A level or degree that subject. This colleague is an excellent teacher.

Teach First have recruitment targets that they get bonuses for hitting.

Schools do not get bonuses for dealing with the candidates they accept who are perhaps not really suited to teaching.

Again with this myth "Private/public schools don't require QTS (not sure about PGCE) ". Many now do and as majority of teachers in independent schools are from state sector then they arrive with QTS + PGCE plus subject specialists. A lot less likely to have a PE teacher teaching physics in an independent school

No - we get endless hassle when we point out that the person is not - and will not ever be - an even vaguely effective teacher.

When I was teaching I constantly used my knowledge of how children learn. Various researches used to come to mind and were of enormous help. I know that the studying and practice I experienced over a full time four year period which included a B.ed was invaluable. That experience was built upon as I taught primary age children and other in service training was undertaken to add to that experience.

I am a qualified teacher but my training programme was pretty much entirely useless (except the placements, which I arranged myself).

I learnt everything useful I know on the job, from other teachers and by studying in my own time.

I was deemed "unqualified" in my first two terms despite having a first class degree in my subject, a masters with a distinction and teaching experience with adults.

I took over from a qualified teacher who'd taught the course so poorly, that sixth formers at a super selective grammar had got Es and Us!

What qualifications do the TAs have that are frequently covering classes these days?

They vary a lot. Most of the ones I know have degrees and two are qualified teachers.

Technically fuck all. You'll get people saying oh the TAs at my school are all ex teachers with a masters and PHD , but let's face it , most TAs will have Maths and English GCSEs at a minimum and maybe a level 3 in childcare or similar , but that's about it.

Some schools will be lucky enough to have a few TAs that are actually capable of teaching, but that causes other issues like the TA(s) getting burn out (never mind being overworked and massively underpaid) and the children that they're actually supposed to help and support not benefiting from their experience and capabilities.

Then you have schools where needs must , regardless of ability so anything will do because that's all you have.

The word supervisor says it all, may as well sub for baby sitter

But placements form a big part of teacher training so saying 'teacher training is useless (apart from the placements) isn't actually that damning?

Frozenalchemist
How do you know this? How many unqualified teachers does your school have vs qualified? How many have you observed? I have worked in schools in various roles for over 25 years and don't know how you can make such a statement.

None, often

Because learning on the job as a teacher is absolutely fine, especially if the school leaders are good? And send them for extra training and mentor them. Some of the best teachers my DC have had at grammar school have been career changers from banking/legal etc - often they had studied eg Maths at top unis to degree level and they were far better than a lot of the other teachers. At primary level though I feel teaching qualifications are necessary.