Unqualified teacher increase of 60% in last 4 years

[noblegiraffe]

The latest workforce survey appears to show that more than 5% of teachers are now unqualified. I really doubt they are all experts with PhDs who just couldn't be bothered to get QTS, and that children are being short-changed because the government keeps failing to meet its own recruitment targets and qualified teachers are leaving the profession in ever-increasing numbers.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40720697

It is difficult to tell what percentage of these 'unqualified' teachers might be due to teacher shortage (maths, physics etc.), downgrading or 'new roles' in teaching.

Looking at some of the job adverts for 'unqualified' teaching posts, quite a few are for PE or sports teaching. Has PE teaching been downgraded or are there more sports teaching jobs available in schools due to extra funding? Certainly, some of the jobs advertised are for primary schools and this is surely due to the extra sports funding available since 2012 (average extra funding is £9,000 pa per school).

It would be considered a luxury to have a PE teacher with QTS in a state primary school who only taught PE. The same can be said of 'specialised' language teachers in primary schools which also seems to be increasing. Also, dedicated 'pastoral care' teachers in secondary schools - is that a relatively new role?

I looked at 2 'random', 'outstanding' primary schools in London:
Rosendale Primary, an academy in SE21 which has 'specialist teachers' in Mandarin (2 full time Mandarin teachers), French, PE, Sport and Fitness, Welfare and Forest School plus an Artist in Residence.

Pimlico Primary, a free school which was criticised before it opened in 2013 for planning to employ 'unqualified' teachers, attained an 'outstanding' Ofsted within 2 years and has 'specialist' teachers for History, Computing, French, Music, Art and Geography.

Are these 'teachers' counted in the stats?

Yep, bad training is a reason to revamp into good training, not to ditch training altogether.

Teach Firsters aren't just dropped into the classroom, they have a 5 week residential summer boot camp which at least acknowledges there's some stuff you need to know before cracking on with the job.

can'tkeepawayforever

You're right about the stability of the Finnish curriculum. But the reason it's been stable, IMO, is that Finland never had the enforced move to 'constructivist', enquiry and skills-based, knowedge-light education that began here with the Plowden report. Teaching there has always been largely traditional in its approach.

The reason the curriculum has changed so often here is due to the seesaw effect of the struggle between this constructivist view of education (promoted almost universally by university education academics until fairly recently), and the concern of governments that this approach is ineffective. The result has often been unsatisfactory compromises, which are then undone later. Labour in particular has sometimes taken the constructivists' side, or produced a damaging compromise like the National Literacy Strategy. Conservatives on the other hand go to the other extreme, as seen recently, demanding curriculum changes without resourcing them.

The problem is, how do you make training good? I watched the struggle by the Reading Reform Foundation to get education academics to accept the evidence for systematic synthetic phonics teaching over the years from 1997, and the degree and kind of resistance and denial were absolutely mind-boggling. A lot of these people are ideologues, not interested in proper evidence. The Institute for Education still provides a home and support for the Whole Language, incredibly expensive Reading Recovery programme, despite it never having been properly demonstrated to work better than a phonics based approach. Yes, things are changing slowly, but it took direct government intervention to do it, and there is still plenty of resistance.

And it isn't just in the area of reading that this attitude to evidence is a problem. It permeates 'recommended' teaching approaches in all subjects; less so in secondary, perhaps, but still hugely influential.

I believe the government has been investigating the possibility of a set curriculum for teacher training courses - would this help?

Personally, I think the PGCE should be extended to 2 years, with the first year taught entirely by academics from Departments of Psychology who specialise in developmental and cognitive psychology of learning, along with SEN and how to recognise rigorous, properly conducted research.. Then at least trainee teachers might be less vulnerable to indoctrination by education academics in the second year.

I would ount 'Teach Firsters' as 'trainee teachers', along with those doing SCITT or other school-based training routes leading to QTS.

What worries me is the proliferation of 'unqualified teachers', required to informally learn on the job but with no formal or standardised training or mentoring, rather than 'trainee teachers' of the different types, which at least acknowledge the necessity of some training....

Clavinova, Rosendale primary only became an academy in April so those specialist teachers are either qualified, or not hired as teachers.

cant These are people we've had after their training year. One was a highly qualified psychology grad. Not sure why she thought she knew more about Lit A-level and exam specs than the Lit teachers. Behaviour management was also awful.
I find people trained 'on the job' haven't been taught to reflect on practice properly. Reflection is the cornerstone of good practice.

noble

I really appreciate that post, have copied and pasted-some excellent advice to follow!

op
No it's a different school. I will be paid as a cover supervisor while I'm a cover supervisor, then i will do teacher training when I do teacher training. 👍🏽

Not me, thank DesperatelySeekingSushi!

Kitty no by nature of it being super selective , attracting good teachers the children who achieve the 94% A*/A at gcses generally don't require any further tutoring.

The term super-selective usually refers to a state grammar school with a massive catchment area or no catchment area. Clearly some private schools are highly selective but hundreds of Independent schools have employed non qualified teachers for many years. Also teachers from abroad whose status is not recognised here. State selective schools, of which there are less than 200, have tended not to until the dire recruitment situation. Most schools now would rather have a well qualified graduate who they can train above a poorly qualified and less good supply teacher. Where I live supply teachers for maths and science are virtually non existent anyway. I think comparing state and independent schools is like comparing oranges and pears.

Kitty no by nature of it being super selective , attracting good teachers the children who achieve the 94% A/A at gcses generally don't require any further tutoring.*

My husband and I both privately tutor in the evenings. All of our students are from super selectives (in Bexley/Bromley) and private schools....

Kitty I suspect as we are in Cambridge and the majority of the parents at our school are academics or scientists the kids are just naturally talented or have parental help! As merely a couple of lawyers our poor son has to fend for himself

Oh, enough of the snobbery and stealth boasting Allthebestnamesareused - it is oozing out of your last post. KittyV's point that there will always be other factors contributing to the success of exam results is perfectly valid. It is even backed up in your line just naturally talented or have parental help, as opposed to high results solely on the amazing 'teaching' of your Oxbridge unqualified 'teachers' as you previously inferred.

I teach in a super selective. Have done for over ten years. In that time we have had one unqualified teacher. For two years. One year waiting for a space on the training programme, one year doing it. It was a subject our local SCITT couldn't provide. The vacancy came up at short notice and the individual was a former student and a known quantity who had helped in the department leading extra curricular groups as a sixth former. He attended (at school's suggestion) the programme in place for new teachers in the school and had a similar timetable allocation to our GTPs. It was acknowledged that it was not ideal for all parties but we did the best we could.
Anyone who thinks no one is tutored at a superselective is naive. Those students who are dragged through the exam by hot house tutoring do not miraculously no longer need extra support. I wish tutoring for the exam wasn't a thing. A lot of students also get extra outside class support from teachers (as in all schools).

The best teacher (science) my DD had was a guy with a PhD coming from the industry. He had enough of the corporate politics that took him away from what he truly valued, his passion for science.

He had to drop a huge salary to become a teacher, but his enthusiasm was amazing and his knowledge unbeatable. He picked my DD has talented and picked up an interest in medical science.

Unfortunately, 10 years on, he has also become disillusioned about teaching too, having had to face that the corporate politics gets as much in the way of education than the private sector and he has now decided to retire early. So so sad that such wonderful aspiring teachers end up thinking they are wasting their time.