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 had plenty of other skills. Teaching PE was not one of them. I was accustomed to PE being taught by those trained to teach it, not those trained to teach English.

I can, I do. I can't, I teach. I can't teach, I teach PE.

Helpful contribution. Thanks.

Glad any contribution other than yours is being shredded or largely ignored

I think it's quite normal to have other skills as a teacher than your primary subject so for example when a pe teacher is older they might teach something else....

Even though the numbers are tiny and are much as they were under the last government, there has been a great deal of rhetoric about unqualified teachers in the run up to this election campaign with Tristram Hunt repeatedly blaming them for "dragging down standards" and "harming our children's life chances" and the Tories pathetically trying to embarrass him over his "Nuns!" outburst on "Question Time".

There can be all sorts of reasons why teachers don't have QTS, eg family or financial pressures, or maybe their local TTC didn't offer the PGCE course they needed or, quite simply, they are actually undergoing training now.

I am a parent but I know a lot of teachers. I have never met an unqualified teacher who "walked into a classroom" (Mr Hunt seems to believe this is what such teachers do, quite miraculously, without any questions being asked by a head) to "have a go at teaching". Those I know have a real vocation for teaching, have chosen to work in environments where they can cope and know they can, are respected by their colleagues, by parents and pupils and often regret that they have not been able to acquire QTS. (They also regret that their own trade unions have recently decided they're not "teachers", even though they're members).

If they were "shit", as somebody posted above, that could be dealt with through capability procedures. But generally, like other teachers, they're not.

They are all in post because a head thought they were up to the job for which they were recruited. No doubt, some heads have taken the opportunity to cut costs. No doubt also some unqualified teachers, including very experienced ones, could do with some training. However, the notion that they all have lower professional standards than all their colleagues with QTS is grotesque. No evidence has ever been produced to support that.

Thank you granola!

Well said granola.

You make several excellent points Granola. Legal'- I have no doubt at all that you do a fabulous job. I suspect I know the kind of thing you do and imagine that you bring an awful lot to the school(s) you teach in.

The underlying issue, when you strip away the inevitable anger from people who did qualify, and feel they are being told their qualification is probably just a worthless piece of paper (and yes, I am one of these people) is that, under the current rules, a headteacher could fill up his/her school with cheaper unqualified teachers purely as a cost-cutting measure, and that if that were the case, the damage to children could be immeasurable. If that were not possible, then pay, at least, would not come into the decision. Given that schools are cash-strapped, it could be a tempting way to make sure that 7X2 or 8Y3 have a person in front of them without straining the overstretched budget further.

I am not saying that this is widespread practice, but under the current rules, it's possible, and surely that is not a good thing.

I have certainly read on the TES forums in the past supply teachers discussing how their work has dried up since cover supervisors became a thing. Cover supervisors can just walk into a classroom with no teaching qualifications (look at the adverts). They are not supposed to teach and they are only supposed to cover for 3 days before getting qualified supply in, but there were lots of stories of cover supervisors being expected to teach, and to teach classes, sometimes exam classes for weeks or months.
I also read accounts of HLTAs in primary schools who were thinking of quitting because the expectation on them now was that they teach whole classes. I've also read on here threads from parents who are worried about how often their class is being taught by a TA.

I mentioned upthread about the failing NQT I know of who is not completing their NQT year but being kept on anyway as an unqualified teacher as a crap teacher is better than no teacher.

That is the sort of thing that people are worried about when discussing the amount of unqualified teachers in schools. Not the brilliant sports coach or the engineering PhD.

In my school there are three covers and all are expected to teach but she employs covers with degrees only and this is the case at most the schools local to me (kent).

So they are unqualified teachers taking the jobs of qualified supply teachers then?

Perhaps they are covering subjects where finding a good, or indeed any, supply teacher can be extremely difficult?

I suspect if there are three of them then they are teaching everything.

I've used a cover supervisor for long term cover. She was postgraduate degree qualified in the subject, knew all the kids from being a CS in the school, and worked from our SOW. Before her, we had a supply in for two weeks who was dreadful. Qualified, but dreadful. Couldn't get another specialist. CS was by far the better option for the students, and if that meant the qualified supply losing his job to an unqualified teacher, so be it.

The task is not to provide jobs for people who have done a PGCE. The task is to provide the best long term education. The two overlap but are not the same.

Not being snippy here, but I thought cover supervisors were used to cover and weren't allowed to teach-is that right? We don't have them in my primary, so I could have misunderstood.

How does it work if you wanted to use a cover supervisor for long term cover? Do they cease being a CS and are then paid on an unqualified teacher pay scale? Or are they paid still as a CS but are expected to teach? Are they paid extra to mark and plan and assess?

No, but it does devalue the qualification and also short-changes the people like the cover supervisor above who are doing a teaching role but not being paid appropriately. If she's that good and in demand then it would be better if the school were forced to train her while she is doing the job. She'd get a qualification and more money, they'd get the good teacher.

And just because she was good and filling a role that was otherwise unfilled, it doesn't mean that there aren't crapper cover supervisors teaching classes where better and qualified teachers are available, because the cover supervisor is already at the school, cheap and convenient.

This "no active teaching " idea is ridiculous and makes no logical sense unless you start from the premise that the pupils are less important than the teacher.

I understand why people are concerned that some heads may use their ability to employ unqualified teachers as a way of getting less-good teaching on the cheap. On the other hand, though, if you do that to any extent, your results would presumably be worse. Would that be enough to stop them from doing it, or are there other considerations?

The head would say to give them bottom sets and KS3, it shouldn't affect results that much. Anyway, the head of department will just pick up after them.

Noble,

So it's not the principle, it's the way that poor heads may use the opportunity to.... Continue being poor heafs whilst saving their own skin? I can see that.

Can't blame the heads too much, money is extremely tight in schools.

So it's a structural thing pushing heads into a corner?

Thanks Noble, that's rather what I thought. I still find it frustrating, though, that so many people seem so much more concerned about ensuring that all teachers have QTS status, than with ensuring that teacher training courses aren't still teaching half-baked "theories" as though they are factually based and supported by good evidence. The trouble is that the more highly people value QTS, the more reluctant they may be to believe that it needs to be improved, as that implies a devaluation of their own professional status.