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.

I do think that you are either suited to being a teacher or not. But that doesn't mean that those who are suited to it will be immediately brilliant with no practice. Part of the problem in all of this is that it is very hard to define what makes a good teacher. Ofsted certainly don't seem to be able to .

IME the same teacher can be fabulous for one child and dreadful for another! This is very true at primary.

Agree that teaching can be learnt, and that no teacher ever stops learning! There is always something you can improve and do better, something new you can try etc. At primary level it is very difficult to pinpoint what makes a good teacher as the curriculum and skills needed to deliver the complete education of a single child/class is vast. What works for one child in one situation won't be effective in another. What makes a good teacher can be about willingness to learn, perseverance, adaptability, and creativity.

Over the years I have known of several fully qualified teachers who were expected to teach outside of their subject areas, at secondary level.

I myself was expected to teach Maths when I was infact a teacher of computing and business. Not to mention having to teach PHSE including sex ed and drugs ed. Although my experience was a while ago now I know it still happens now including GCSE and A level level.

And this is in normal state schools, not independents and academies.

Is a qualified teacher of subject A better at reaching subject B, than a non teaching-qualified specialist who has a good level of education and expertise in subject B?

But the PCGE is a filtering mechanism that until recently precluded people who did not want to pay large amounts of money to be patronised by mediocre staff who have never worked outside 'academia'.

And the prize for the most idiotic comment of the day goes to.... Arcangela Well done...

Just because your own PGCE was delivered by "mediocre" staff does not mean that they all are or have always been so. I point you to my previous comment about my subject tutor being someone who was and still is very well respected in my field.

Arcangela, I assume you teach in state schools? How can you stand it? Why not go and join your DC in the independent sector? Frankly, state schools can do without someone with your vile attitude - these are your colleagues you're talking about. I wonder why you bothered to do a PGCE at all given the feelings you've expressed on this thread.

Indeed, Hulababy. A relative of mine, who was until she recently retired a very successful secondary English teacher in a highly respected state school, was, for several years earlier in her career, expected to teach secondary MFL (French and Spanish) in some years. She had O-level French and no qualification in Spanish.

That's hardly restricted to the state sector, Bonsoir. My first job interview when I qualified was at an independent school. I was being interviewed for a job teaching English, but was asked what else I was willing to teach and then told that the school did not employ PE teachers, and that everyone took their turn teaching "their" sport.

I withdrew from the interview.

That's quite normal in private schools, EvilTwins, and doesn't surprise or shock me in the least.

Archangela-when did you last teach in state education?

I think what teacher training should be about is teaching styles, classroom management, theories, pedagogy, assessment methods and learning from experienced teachers. It doesn't matter which subject-the theory is the same.

I dislike the assumption that loads of unqualified teachers have PhDs in linguistics or a lifetime experience with RADA. In my experience, the benefit they bring is being cheap and with massive cost cutting coming our way in September-I think cheap is what heads will go for.

Standards will massively drop and that'll be why. I'll be well shot of it.

Bonsoir, - happens now in state schools. I regularly teach outside my own specialism, and sometimes teach the same class more than once a day in different subjects. Their parents may well think that because they are at an LA school, they are taught by qualified teachers. They are, technically, but because there are not enough qualified eg specialist physics teachers, their physics lessons may well be delivered by a PE teacher. But at least the school can tick the 'qualified' box.

Exactly rollon, I am amused at the idea that there is an army of Nobel prize winning scientists snd Olympic standard athletes all waiting to teach but put off by a one year funded training course.

I have taught five subjects other than my own in the last five years to A level standard and our head is ver much of the belief that if you are inspiring to children and passionate you should be able up teach across the board. We have three 'unqualifieds' - MFL (native language), tech and English (PhD) but they are all on some form of training.
I do believe you need some flexibility particularly if you teach in some of the tougher schools. I have witnessed trainees who are very qualified on paper but can't manage their timetable at all!

I think what teacher training should be about is teaching styles, classroom management, theories, pedagogy, assessment methods and learning from experienced teachers. It doesn't matter which subject-the theory is the same.

Actually, I disagree with this, I think the subject does matter. I'm a maths teacher, and have no idea how to canvass opinions, get kids to write essays and learn reams of facts. Facilitating class discussions on sensitive topics is well out of my comfort zone. I'm also an introvert and socially awkward. I am good at explaining tricky mathematical concepts. Hence I am a good maths teacher but really struggled with PSHE and really wasn't very good at MFL - although I could have got better at both with some dedicated subject-specific training.

I'd be shit at Art or PE.

Arcangela - you are a SUPPLY teacher. Of course you teach outside your subject area [face palm]

Bonsoir - I'm confused. Are you saying it's ok in private schools but an issue in state? Or that it's ok anyway? Or that it's not ok at all?

IMO teachers need to be trained and qualified. This starts with a teaching qualification but needs to continue throughout a teacher's career. The best teachers are the ones who are always learning. I would imagine it is the same in a great many other professions.

Sooo... if some or many PGCE courses are rubbish, and the vast majority of a teacher's learning is done on the job, and if there are many, many qualified teachers struggling in the profession, why is it so important to have that certificate which claims you are qualified to do a job which so many qualified teachers are desperate to get out of because they no longer feel able to meet its demands?

Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be qualifications that people can do (and which most people WILL do) if they want to be teachers. I just think that it is not really a problem if some teachers come into teaching by a different route. I don't believe that insisting on every single teacher having a teaching qualification would really do anything to improve the quality of the education. It's just another way for politicians to blame the state of the education system on the teachers instead of taking responsibility for the unholy mess that governments continue to make of it.

Sooo... if some or many PGCE courses are rubbish, and the vast majority of a teacher's learning is done on the job

A lot of the PGCE is spent in a school, learning 'on the job'. You get to observe the class teacher teaching the class before taking it over, you have support with planning lessons and you have lots of observations and feedback. You also have a very small teaching allocation which gives you time to plan properly and reflect on your lessons.

Even if the lectures are shit, surely it's agreed that the school-based part is useful, and preferable to being hired as an unqualified teacher, being handed a full timetable and being told to get on with it?

I don't believe anyone should be able to walk into a classroom and have a go. As I said upthread, an awful lot of damage can be done that way. Who would want their child being taught for GCSE by someone who thinks that they would like to give teaching a go and figures out, a few months later, that they hate it/are not good at it/can't earn enough doing it and then leaves.

Granted a PGCE does not guarantee anything, but it does mean that the first two years are done under close supervision thus limiting potential damage.

I don't believe that "many" PGCE courses are "rubbish". I think the government needs to stop playing around with it all and stop touting the idea that pretty much anyone can step into a classroom and play at being teacher.

EvilTwins - I'm saying that it is perfectly traditional practice for private schools to recruit teachers who have something beyond their classroom subject to offer to a school, and in particular a sport.

So it's ok in a private school but not in state? Forgive me but did you not present your relative who taught an MFL he/she was not qualified to teach as a bad thing?

Yes, because she wasn't recruited to teach MFL and didn't know how to speak one - she just got landed with it after the event. Which is completely different to recruiting someone with a highly developed skill like a sport and that being a criterion/condition of recruitment.

I was being recruited to teach English. Not sport. Sport was not mentioned at any point in the recruitment process until the interview. They had seen my application form and obviously liked it enough to invite me to interview.

You are deliberately missing the point. You double standards are clear.

I haven't deliberately missed any point and there are no double standards. There is a world of difference between having a high-level skill which you are recruited to teach and between having a PGCE and being required to teach a skill you do not possess.

Was I not being asked to teach a skill I do not possess at that private school interview then?

No you weren't. You were being asked whether you possessed an additional skill to the one you were being primarily recruited to teach. And you said no.

"I dislike the assumption that loads of unqualified teachers have PhDs in linguistics or a lifetime experience with RADA. In my experience, the benefit they bring is being cheap and with massive cost cutting coming our way in September-I think cheap is what heads will go for."

what's the story with the cost-cutting?