What does Nicky Morgan not seem to understand?

[theluckiest]

Nicky Morgan urges teachers' unions to 'do their bit' www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35899478

No Nicky, teaching is not wonderful at the moment. No, teachers are not just moaning yet again (because that's what we usually do, isn't it?). No, your constant interfering, moving of goalposts and unnecessary 'reforms' are not helping anyone. In fact, you are damaging education irreparably.

Here's an example: the 'more rigorous' testing that you insist all 11 year olds should be put through are actually damaging. They are demoralising teachers but much more importantly, they are seriously damaging children's mental health. Yes, really. The stress these children are being put under is unforgivable this year. As a school we are held to ransom because of these tests (let's be honest, tests that we teachers, parents and schools know are bullshit).

They feel like they have failed already because your 'rigour' is inappropriate, unnecessary and completely pointless. They despise learning this nonsense and I can't blame them. At a time of their lives when learning should be exciting, they are force-fed inaccurate, archaic grammar and given the message that their writing cannot be good enough if it doesn't have a semi-colon.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? Because it is. So forgive me if I don't "Use the tools available to them to build up teachers, promote the profession and tell the story of what a rewarding job teaching really is" at the moment. (how I laughed when I read that one!!)

And don't get me started on academisation....Nicky, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Before it's too late.

Giraffe at the risk of making myself ever-more unpopular I've never found workload untenable. The main problem I had with coursework was the logistics of actually physically getting it from reluctant students and spending most of March and April charging around like a sheepdog trying to get a few lines from some students. Unless they literally want me to run a marathon nothing is worse than that.

I think most of us want what's best for young people, we just disagree as to what that looks like but sometimes constant foot dragging isn't helping anybody.

Curious as to what subject(s) you teach, raininginspringtime?

English.

raininginspringtime
"In the 1960s and possibly even the 1970s a teaching qualification was not required: a degree was seen as the sign you had sufficient knowledge to teach. Now for whatever reason that isn't seen as enough. Okay, but does possessing a teaching qualification actually make someone a teacher, a good one that is? I suspect not."

The 60s and 70s were not the educational utopia that posters seem to insist that it was, no transparency, schools buying into the easiest exam boards (and there were many exam boards to choose from), lessons that were write from this book, listen to this record. and if you want to look at left wing ideology this would be the era to do so.

"Let's be transparent - teachers are concerned about non qualified instructors as this may put their jobs at risk. That's a legitimate concern but dressed as it is just looks and sounds ridiculous - a big fuss about nothing."

Actually, I don't want children to have the frankly shit education that I had to dig myself out of. but yes there is some concern about my job, but fuck it I am very good at my job and a failed banker, or phd scientist with no social skills is going to be able to replace a Teacher (yes the capital is intentional)

and just FYI, the all singing all dancing curriculum is not here for the vast majority of subjects it is still being written, and guess who gets to teach it come September?

I'm not concerned that my job is at risk at all. The thought hasn't even crossed my mind. I'm a qualified maths teacher in a country with a STEM shortage. I could quit my job tomorrow and be hired back by the same school I work for to do intervention on a timetable of my choosing.

I didn't state it was an educational eutopia, Boney but certainly there will be some, albeit not many, teachers in schools now who do not have a teaching qualification because at the time they entered the profession it was not required. They are not less skilled in some way than those with PGCEs etc.

I also didn't have a great education but I am not arguing in favour of which era had the worst teachers. I am simply stating that I think a teaching qualification makes very little difference to the quality of teacher.

Yes, I realise that about the curriculum - so in other words next year you will be in the position we (English teachers) are in this year.

I don't think your job is at risk giraffe

Teacher shortage is a great thing from my POV but I recognise that from the government it is not!

I'm just saying that because some people seem to think that people are arguing out of self-interest.

Actually crap teachers would be to my benefit. Someone on another thread was quoted £40 per hour for further maths tutoring.

What can we actually do?Nothing

Sorry raining thread has probably moved on! But i didn't say agency staff should be forced in. I said the school - who by now had 3 English teachers MIA - tried to hire at least one permanent subject specialist & couldn't get one. In that situation, they could have opted for a qualified supply teacher - like Guy for example - but chose not to.

I do think there's an element of self interest which isn't necessarily down to individuals but once anxiety starts it tends to wind everybody up and then as someone already said it gets a bit Henny Penny with people running round saying academies are going to eat poor people's children and so on.

I also think there's a lot of very fixed thinking, people simply can't conceive any other way can exist other than the local authority managing schools so react in shock/disbelief.

Really things will tick on much as they ever did. I'm sure we've all been on that annoying INSET with a photo of cadburys chocolate factory in 1950 and now compared to a school in 1950 and now and then told we are doing it all wrong. Everyone nods and agrees and carries on doing what they always did!

raininginspringtime

But if you want transparency, you need some sort of datum line to measure it against.

I agree that if you want someone to teach plumbing (for example) they ideally should be trained in plumbing, but that doesn't mean that they can teach.

I can still remember quite clearly the feeling of being the only responsible person in the room for the first time (not including the time the class teacher forgot to turn up) and just how scary it was, and this is from someone that managed people and controlled major company budgets.

As an aside I can honestly put half of my teachers in to the group "people that wouldn't be allowed to teach today" due to racism, sexism or inappropriate behaviour. I don't claim that these issues have gone away.

'I do think most people with a decent degree could teach KS3 in related subjects with the arts and sciences '

Wouldn't it be nice if all children actually were vessels that a person could just pour their knowledge into.

Well yes, it is scary, but where I think we will disagree is that a teaching qualification through any route automatically elevates an individual to being able to teach.

I feel that what most teaching qualifications do is give the student a taste of 'teaching lite' - in other words, a small timetable, avoid giving them the class with the child who routinely throws chairs at adults' faces if they are lucky and let them learn.

It's a job that comes with experience, you learn on the job.

So what do you think teachers do weirdsister?

Do you believe that the teacher doesn't actually have to have any knowledge at all other than teaching methods?

raining - I've worked in an LA school that converted to an academy. We didn't become a better school. It was a slightly scarier place to work & the head, sorry, principal, bought a nicer car.

I now teach in an international private school. I also know lots of teachers who teach in all sorts of schools.

Really, I'm not spooked by the thought of different ways of doing things.

I'd just like to see some evidence that there's a good reason for it, & it won't make things worse, & I'm not convinced by any I've seen.

Nor that Pollyanna is a better model than Henny Penny, tbh.

They may have tried to get long-term supply and not been able to.
I and most others I meet on the supply 'circuit' - including someone (who has now become a friend as our paths cross so often) who used to be head of maths at an o/s school - resist endless pressure from agencies to do long term - which has all the issues that perm staff face without the commensurate salary/security/pension/sick pay. For P & C, long term supply - eg more than a couple of weeks - is the worst of all worlds.
I once went to a school for a week covering German (not my subject) where the school had tried for months to get a perm or long term supply and could not recruit. Felt extremely sorry for the kids, and also the other dept staff who had to set work for non-specialist delivery - including to KS4. I like others would not stay for more than a week because it was a toxic environment. (Was an LA school btw - and was and is highly sought after by local parents).

I would certainly agree with your last statement! (Good joke!)

I would agree with you for what it is worth that academies aren't 'better' than LA schools; where I suspect we disagree is that I don't think LA schools are 'better' than academies. Schools tend to differ quite a bit in terms of the catchment, ethos, faith and sex (if applicable) and size too.

In the 1960s and possibly even the 1970s a teaching qualification was not required: a degree was seen as the sign you had sufficient knowledge to teach.

1970 was the last year that graduates were able to go straight into primary teaching without a degree. It was 1973 for secondary school teachers. I know because I graduated in 1973 and some friends did just that - admittedly in London schools in shortage subjects. Only two lasted more than a couple of terms.

Even then, you had to pass the probationary period, which was one year for those with a PGCE (and B Ed) and two years for graduates without a PGCE. The probationary period could be extended if deemed necessary.

Do you believe that the teacher doesn't actually have to have any knowledge at all other than teaching methods?'
Not sure how you got that from my post.

I think that a teachers skills and experience should be valued just as much as their knowledge. Teaching needs to remain a skilled profession.

Yes, I thought it was probably around then.

So is your argument Peregrina that because the teachers you personally know who entered teaching without a teaching qualification didn't last, that the teaching qualification was necessary?

Out of the two who did last, should they have be required to complete a PGCE?

I agree with you weirdsister but I don't think a teaching qualification means those skills and experience can automatically be ticked.

I'm not worried about my job-my notice is written and will be handed in.

I've already resigned, finished for Easter so no self interest other than that of being worried for my offspring - like millions of other parents who are not teachers.

As a parent I want my children's teachers to be qualified. Just looking at the drop out rate of PGCEs shows that about 40% of people who think they would be good teachers either fail or decide it's not for them, that's 13,000 dropping out or failing on last years figures. I shudder to think how many children that will affect.

Re. the comment on getting onto a PGCE with low grades - in the past 10 years about 70% of people doing a PGCE have a first or 2.1.

Sorry, missed a bit: I shudder to think how many children that will affect if those people had gone straight into the classroom.

I think there's a case for looking at the route by which teachers become qualified, raining, & I agree that a traditional PGCE isn't necessarily an exemplary model of how to train teachers.

I would argue that you reform it as a qualification, providing different routes in, more classroom experience etc. By all means look at the rigour of the standards & the way in which they are shown to be met.

BUT I think if you want to encourage excellent candidates you need to retain a valued & internationally recognised qualification at the end of the process.

The government's proposals don't do that.