Bbc article about unqualified teachers

[rollonthesummer]

The tories are defending it by saying there were more unqualified teachers under labour anyway...?!

A Tory spokesperson says...

"There are some brilliant teachers who have not got qualified teacher status - nuns, great linguists, computer scientists, engineers and other specialists that inspire their pupils.

Nuns?!

I don't know of any unqualified people in schools near me that sound like that list. The ones I know are very young-no time to have been a nun, great linguist or successful in business- and have not yet passed NQT for various 'unknown' reasons.

Nobody is suggesting a PGCE is worthless. Nor do heads recruit random people from the street. None of this is happening.

Some teachers are unqualified. Get over it.

I'm not sure the acting analogy is all that useful. Presumably most actors have learned theory at some point - whether at school or later. You don't get very far in any job without knowing the basics. I can't imagine an actor would get very far if they're not sure of who Stanisklavski or Brecht were. I was in a play recently and the director spoke to us about the Brechtian style of some of the production. Presumably he would have been pretty perturbed if anyone had said "what's that?"

If anyone is going to get anywhere with acting, at least these days, they don't do it without training - no one goes to drama school to learn to act - the ridiculous entrance process of most drama schools ensures that you don't get in if you can't already do it. The young successful actor who has not been through formal training is rare.

It's no good trying to hone your skills as a teacher (PGCE etc) without a sound grasp of the subject you are trying to impart.

Analogies help up to a certain point. The purpose is just to stimulate thought.

Noble, maybe academic is the wrong word. It's something more like academic confidence. That's what a lot of teachers lack I think. Things that they "know" as practitioners can clash with things they are taught on bad courses yet they don't speak up and say "this is meaningless". In more confident professions there is a greater tendency to get rid of bad CPD providers or at least challenge them. Schools are also very very hierarchal which can lead to a sort of "why are you thinking when it's not in your pay-grade to think" type of attitude.

I wouldn't agree that exceptions are meaningless. It depends how you are thinking about something doesn't it?

I take what you say on board Evil. But are you not focussing more on the "slippery career pole" aspects? If those entering drama school can already act, how did they learn?

Derek Jacobi wrote an interesting article for The Stage recently, in which he said that drama school do not teach people to act. Of course they don't - that's not new - no one applies to drama school on a whim. It takes time, effort and a fair amount if cash to even try. Drama school refines, gives experience and, crucially, gives exposure and contacts. It's a world away from teacher training.

As for "academic", I have never come across a colleague, in a great many years of teaching, who did not know their subject. Subject knowledge, IME, is rarely the issue with poor teachers, it's the ability to communicate that knowledge in a way which ensures that every child in the room understands and makes progress.

How did they learn?

School
Youth theatre
Drama clubs
Am dram
Giving it a go
Being naturally talented
Having pushy parents
Having push drama teachers

Bonsoir, you are making me wonder what would happen if I had to teach physics (which I gave up at the age of 14then studied a bit with the OU as an adult).

(This is assuming I took a primary PGCE first).

I think I could "drill down" and grasp the academic concepts. But the weakness would be my inability to make independent decisions about the order in which material should be presented, because I would have no sense of the trajectory and in physics you have to study physics to learn about it (more so than with Eng Lit where you could transfer over other humanities degrees quite quickly I suspect).

Wher do you feel the big weakness is in teaching without deep subject knowledge?

Hi Hermia, that was just a little joke.

No Hermia, it was a little joke.

Covers PPA time with a specific (presumably arts based) activity. I think.

In what other profession do members of it go onto social media fora to attack and denigrate colleagues on the basis of the route they have taken to join the profession? It's rather unedifying.

I am trying to think of another profession where people are unqualified (apart from in entertainment) and cannot.

Agree 100%.

As I said up thread, lawyers have had to be qualified for centuries. Driving and pilot's licences are essential for safety. Teaching qualifications in England are a relatively modern invention and there is much discussion about what training courses should contain.

Meanwhile, as also mentioned up thread, Westminster School, for example, has more than 40% of its teachers unqualified, including the head. It doesn't do too badly.

There can be all sorts of reasons why teachers are unqualified. They're still teachers and they deserve respect.

To derail ever so slightly here, and sincere apologies upfront!
Someone mentioned upthread a current learning theorist, Daniel Willingham. Are there any other modern learning theorists that you follow or read?
(I'm a trainee teacher and would like to compare modern theorists with "traditional theorists" - ie Vygotsky and Bruner, which I am being taught at the moment)
Thanks in advance!

granola - your argument about it being a relatively new thing is ridiculous.

Back in the day, anyone could be a midwife. Does that mean current midwives don't really need qualifications? Same for nurses. I'm not sure any of Florence Nightingale's contemporaries had qualifications.

My mum qualified as a teacher in the 60s. Teaching certificates weren't new then.

Thank you Eviltwins,

One practical upshot of the denigration is that it is (ironically) very hard for me to find courses to go on! And not for want of trying. But that's ok as I am surrounded by people I can learn from and have enough experience leading my own learning to grasp weaknesses and work on them. Plus I am probably the most observed person in the school and most of the leaders in my niche subject are bloggers /on social media.

I think granola makes a good point:we are not sure what content should be in teacher training. That's one difference.

The point about subject knowledge is a tricky one.

Librarians have the same issues in that anyone can call themselves "librarian"' whether they have a qualification in Librarianship or not. In schools, there are loads of people working in libraries with the title of Librarian, who are not actually qualified to do the job. It has been an issue for many years in the profession.

That was in answer to the question about other professions having the same issue.