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.

Okay. Sorry I was in a rush and typed shorthand. I suspect you know precisely what I'm having to do to receive QTS but I'll type it out in a longer sentence.

Work are paying my tuition fees so that I can have a PGCE and QTS by the end of the year. The teacher training body are taking care of their side of things and my PGCE is delivered via a university.

My point was that I'm not paying for it. Work recognise that I'm doing a good job and are happy to support me.

I’d rather my kids were taught by someone with decent knowledge in the subject than a general teaching qualification. I think a lot more can be learned from experience than theory. I think we should be encouraging teachers to get into the profession from a wide range of backgrounds, I’m amazed we even have teachers as it’s so underpaid for what they do. I am outraged for the lack of support and demanding parents complaining at every little thing that are driving good teachers out of the profession.

If my daughter is taught by an "unqualified" teacher who is a specialist in his or her subject (degree/PhD/previous industry work experience) - why would that be a problem? I honestly wouldn't care if they have a PGCE or any other certificate.

While I appreciate what you're saying here, from experience I have seen some who have decent knowledge of a subject and industry experience, but struggle to teach this to others. Knowing how to teach is essential. There is cognitive science involved in teaching and many skills that need teaching to create effective teachers. And you're right teachers are generally underpaid and underappreciated.

You are correct, but you can only bring that ability out of those who naturally have it, I have worked with some dreadful PGCE/QTS holders.

Because - in my experience - the vast majority of "unqualified teachers" now do not have that specialist knowledge. They are simply warm bodies in the room.

Unqualified teacher means a TA or cover supervisor. It doesn't mean they've roped someone in who knows what they're talking about or who has a phd lol

I think I saw this question elsewhere, got me wondering.

Would you prefer an exceptionally skilled teacher, or an exceptionally knowledgeable teacher?

Just because I have a PhD and when I was out of work, I considered teaching. I didn't fancy all the long teacher training, but given how there's such a shortage, wonder, can beggars be choosers.

Agree, which is why I would argue that academic brilliance is not as important as the skills involved in teaching- which are sometimes difficult to quantify.

Exceptionally skilled, my dd at the moment has a physics teacher who has a PhD but is not a skilled teacher at all, her class are sadly all failing...

I have also taught with very well qualified but alas they have not been skilled and it has resulted in more work for everyone! If however, teachers were given more time to support new teachers then maybe I would not feel like this. But at the moment I don't want to be carrying colleagues in addition to everything else we have to do

I've said up thread that I'm studying bookkeeping now. Our teacher knows her stuff but she hasn't got a clue how to teach it. Everyone is confused and annoyed. It's level 1 so there is varying levels of ability in the group

Nope. Not always. I'm an unqualified teacher. I have three degrees and have been teaching classes for several years. I attend training and CPD, am supported by an excellent department and SLT structure, and my students are thriving. Lol.

I'm not sure you can be truly skilled at teaching something you don't fully understand.

I just don't think knowledge and skills are straightforward to separate.

I can focus more on skills as I know my subject really well.

It really is not that difficult to understand many subjects at GCSE level, especially when many teachers might have even done them at A level...

Teaching at A level or undergraduate level, yes you really do need to know your stuff and indeed they would not let you teach on a undergraduate course without at least a masters. Although I've heard some horror stories from HE too!

Fair enough, but long term cover is often complicated. I know in some departments there just aren't enough teachers. In others, a teacher goes off sick, comes back, off again, back, off... a term slips by. A year. Two or three years. Maybe there's a way to manage that? It's the worst situation as the kids see a different adult every lesson. Having the same person would be better, as long as the subject teacher is still in charge of the planning and monitoring.
This has been a great thread, a lot of interesting posts.

Thus adding to the workload of the poor sod setting and marking and monitoring - on top of their own work.

A PGCE or QTS is not the end point. It is a gateway to the starting point of a teaching career.

It says a person has met the minimum standards to teach a class.

One thing's for sure... we're just beginning to see the knock-on of a teacher retention and recruitment crisis. It is going to get much, much worse.
I am so glad I left primary teaching in December (20 years in). My work-life balance is so much better now and I think I was foolish to stay so long tbh.

Exactly. Why has no one made a fuss about that?

We have. No one cares until it affects their kids.

@ShowOfHands I can assure you, you are in the minority.

What do you do now @everychildmatters?

I think it helped me a lot to go into teaching later in life (I was late 30s when I started, 40 when I got QTS). It meant I'd done a number of other jobs and freelance contracts and could therefore evaluate working conditions, pay, pension etc in a way that's more difficult when you've gone into it younger and you've worrying about where to live, whether to get married, all that stuff.

I sometimes think the entire education system can be summed up by "people only care when they're directly affected by it."

I remember being astonished by primary admissions (you get more choices if you're religious?! Your child goes from full time nursery to a month of half days?! You can't prioritise a school that fits your commute?!) but of course I'd never had to consider it before.

And then I had a SEN child and wow, that's been a learning curve.

No it means that they do not have a school teaching qualification, they may very well have a teaching qualification from another country or from FE / HE.

One college I worked in we had a class of high schoolers, they came in to the college twice a week for 'health and social care'.

They were taught be someone qualified to teach in FE, including students attending part time from Yr9. But had the teacher gone out to the school they would be being taught by an 'unqualified' teacher.

I was surprised by that when I first started teaching. I discovered if I had QTS then I could teach my subject in the local 6th form college and would be considered "qualified" (and paid accordingly) but if I did QTLS with them, then I'd still be considered "unqualified" by my maintained school because I hadn't taught KS4. Despite the fact my school didn't offer my subject in KS4.

But once I had QTS I was "qualified" and could be timetabled to teach a subject in which I did not have a GCSE (Geography).

It is a bonkers, bureaucratic system.

Just to add a key piece of information for non teachers reading the thread: there are "qualified" and unqualified" pay scales and while academies (most schools) can set their own pay and conditions, the qualified pay scales essentially set a floor under how low they can go.