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.

It is very difficult to discern between competing theories as a chalk face teacher by simply using critical reasoning!

E.g. What is the best way of teaching reading? Is group work more effective than chalk and talk?

So the critical teacher thinks that they will look at the evidence. And they find that 'phonics' is the answer to the reading question, but a whole load of stuff online disputing the evidence. As to group work versus chalk and talk - my own personal experience tells me that group work is a shit way of imparting mathematical knowledge. But then you get loads of people singing the praises of group work and how it improves loads of other skills in kids. Who is right? Maybe I'm crap at group work?
I don't do group work with my classes. If an edict came down that all work was to be done in groups (which at one point was plausible, although Ofsted now officially don't mind chalk and talk) what exactly would I appeal to to say 'No, I won't'?

Noble - you are completely right. My classes do group work every lesson and I could go on for hours about the skills they develop in doing so.

What I don't do though is the role-types within group work thing. But I know our English dept does that.

Would an inexperienced graduate (albeit with a top degree) be able to analyse the pros and cons here? At least on teaching placements, they could have experimented and found out what works best for them.

The assumption is that teachers are all new graduates aged 22...
There are many of us who have had other careers before teaching - certainly the experience gained in my previous working life is vastly more useful and relevant to 'real-life' teaching that what was presented on the PGCE course.
Rather than a 'qualification' being necessary, I would rather see a requirement to have worked outside education for a while.

But that proves nothing! I have worked alongside plenty of teachers who have done other jobs and are terrible teachers. Likewise, I have worked with teachers who went straight into it from university and are great. I'm currently working with a 40-something NQT who is really really awful. She thinks she has nothing to learn, but proves over and over that she cannot do the job competently.

Arcangela-are you suggesting that having worked outside of teaching makes people good teachers? Do you think no teaching qualification is necessary?

Evil I imagine that you trying to teach drama without group work would be as effective as me trying to teach maths with it. :) The thing with education is that different things work for different subjects and for different teachers. Part of training is observing loads of different teachers and trying out lots of different things to get ideas and find out what works for you.

I'm good at chalk-and-talk. Crucially, a lot of kids have said that they understand maths better when I teach them (some less, but you can't win 'em all). I've just had a PGCE student take one of my classes and she has seen my lessons and talked to me about my teaching. She'll have also seen lessons from other maths teachers with different styles. She can pick and choose and find her own style. An unqualified teacher who comes in off the street and starts teaching straight away will completely miss out on that. Once you start teaching full time there is very little opportunity to observe other teachers.

I don't do group work with my classes. If an edict came down that all work was to be done in groups (which at one point was plausible, although Ofsted now officially don't mind chalk and talk) what exactly would I appeal to to say 'No, I won't'?

Your expertise - which includes qualifications as well as experience and knowledge of your class.

We had this with Kagan. At one point there was talk of seating plans for every classroom based on this. We said we would evaluate it and use it if/when necessary...now it has gone away like many more fads before. Being qualified adds to your status as pedagogical expert.

I was "unqualified" until last year - had PGCE but not QTS. I've just jumped through the QTS hoop last year for the sake of getting the bit of paper - I'm no better or worse for it, it is literally just a piece of paper.

The PGCE is a total waste of time anyway imo. There were some truly fucking awful teachers who "passed" with flying colours in my year. Until the PGCE is sorted out to provide a half decent platform then I wouldn't be worrying too much about qualified vs unqualified. As pp have said, as long as crap teachers, qualified and unqualified, can be weeded out then I don't see what the big deal is.

Who decides on the appropriate definition and level of crapness?

fourteen were you not paid less as an unqualified teacher? Lots of schools see it as a money saving thing, which is crap.

And why did you not have QTS if you'd done a PGCE? Had you not completed an NQT year?

"Unqualified" is such a blanket term, though, isn't it? It encompasses everything from the fresh faced graduate who hasn't done a PGCE but doesn't know what else to do with their degree; to ex-forces instructors with 20 years under their belt; to teachers who have always worked in the independent sector and never completed their PGCE; to those with overseas qualifications which aren't automatically recognised here etc etc

And when the Tories talk about academies and free schools being able to hire unqualified teachers, they expect the vast majority to be from the latter groups but Labour fear they will almost exclusively be from the first

No I worked in a private school and wasn't paid any less.

I didn't do my NQT year after I did my qualification - I taught abroad for a few years instead and couldn't get my QTS in the school i was in. The rules have recently changed.

I would like to see the statistics behind the statistics. How are they counting trainees (Schools direct/ teach first) and those employed as instructors but with no training program?

I have worked in schools where due to being unable to recruit have had departments filled with GTP/Schools Direct/ Instructors...not ideal but better than the pupils being sent home part time. Most trainees qualified within a year and then we had a stable period (but lots of NQTs) before staff moved on and the cycle started again...still lots of schools direct/teach first, but have programs for mentoring and training in place.

I have also worked in a school with all staff qualified and experienced ....still had to provide training and mentoring for floundering staff, but a lot less stress on the department as a whole.

Currently in a school with a mix. Have a fab teach first who is blazing a trail and used every opportunity to observe staff and push ahead their own training. Also have a struggling schools direct who has taken up hours of mentoring/observing/ peer planning/ team teaching time...... we are determined they will be able to cope. This is an older person with PhD and looks fantastic on paper, and is producing fabulous essays for the PGCE and who I am being pushed by uni to pass, despite their struggling with basic class management.

I do agree though that there is an attitude of "anyone can teach" that has not been helped with the high profile TV and online campagins.

Do unqualified teachers need to have a degree? A levels? GCSEs?

I think it depends on the school - AFAIK, academies/free schools and independent schools can employ whoever they like.

Agree - it depends entirely on the post. There are adverts out there for tutors, learning mentors etc which are euphemisms for non-qualified teacher. Some posts are offering very poor remuneration so are clearly not looking for teaching professionals yet when you read the post spec they want a teacher!

Some posts are offering very poor remuneration so are clearly not looking for teaching professionals yet when you read the post spec they want a teacher!

Yes, that's the problem.

How can heads justify their 'teaching' staff being paid such a pittance but their SMT being paid such a lot?

Noble, I’ve been thinking about what you wrote earlier about phonics and the disagreements about the evidence. It seems to me that phonics is a perfect example of why the PGCE qualification is problematic. Since the first cohort to be taught via phonics did the Keystage 1 SATS in 2010, the reading comprehension pass rate has risen by 5 percentage points ( 8 percentage points for children with SEN) Think about what those numbers represent. They mean that every year before 2010, there were thousands of actual children who could have achieved the same but didn’t because the people who teach PGCE were determined to ignore the well-estabished scientific consensus among reading psychologists with regard to phonics. Did you know that reading lists for PGCE programmes in 2009, acquired via a Freedom of Information request, showed that nearly all PGCEs listed no or almost no works on phonics, but lots of books on Whole Language? That’s two years after the requirement to teach phonics was introduced in 2007.
This is the kind of irresponsible behaviour that, if it took place in the field of medical training, would generate headlines and outrage. It’s calculated to bring the profession into disrepute. On any comment thread about teachers, you get people complaining about literacy standards, and asking why teachers don’t teach reading better. Well, they’re wrong that it’s the fault of the teachers, but right in that the teaching methods that have been used for years don’t reflect proper professional education and standards.

Interesting Kesstrel.

I did the Primary PGCE in 2009 (and got a commendation) and it barely covered phonics. I didn't really have a clue what phonics was or why it is taught. It wasn't until I actually taught it and did some research that I started to understand it.

Same with SEN - was barely covered, if at all on the PGCE. What I know, I know through gaining experience "on the ground".

ESL was not covered at all - I now teach at a school with majority ESL so had to gen up pretty quickly.

My experience of the PGCE was that it was taught by failed or burned out teachers, who spent the entire time telling us how hard and tiring it was, how it would be the "hardest thing you've ever done" (which wasn't true) and how awful the government was and how they'd buggered up teaching.

We went to history, maths and geography lessons where we were taught as if we were seven years old - we basically spent a lesson faffing with artefacts, doing sums or looking at maps as if we were still at school. The mechanics of teaching weren't taught, the mechanics of planning etc weren't taught.

It was absolutely hopeless. The real learning happens when you get into a school as far as I can see. If I were a headteacher I'd be tearing my hair out at the quality of the knowledge possessed by recently qualified teachers. It's appalling.

Interesting, fourteen.

While you clearly have the critical faculties to understand the limitations of your PGCE training, what of those who don't, and attach themselves to what they were taught and to their qualifications in the face of any competing ideas?

I think it's a shame your PGCE wasn't great fourteen. Mine was excellent (qualified in 1997) and did equip me for starting my career. I have definitely moved on from it though, as things have moved on and ideas and research have progressed.

Perhaps there is a case for ensuring consistency in ITT rather than scrapping it.

Having mentored two students this year from different universities, I've been surprised at how different they are (and frustrated at the differences in paperwork!)

EvilTwins - I don't think anyone has suggested there is a case for scrapping ITT.

There is clearly a case for ensuring consistency and, above all, quality in ITT. The greatest danger lies in widespread faith in poor quality ITT being a better preparation (or indeed, the only preparation) for the classroom than other routes.

Decades ago when I did my ITT, the college had a rule that staff had to do at least term in schools every 5 years. Real teaching, not just advising.