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.

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?

Yes, it would have weeded out those who were totally unsuitable before they had been put in front of a class and messed up those kids education.

Out of the two who did last, should they have be required to complete a PGCE? They did a two year probation, were both scientists which even then were shortage subjects, and yes, they both thought that they would have been better equipped with a PGCE in their first couple of years. However, if there had then been day release or part-time courses that would have suited both well, I believe.

Even those Cert of Education friends that came out of college feeling that they knew it all, were quickly disabused of that notion, and found that the probationary year was where they really began to become teachers.

BTW an unqualified teacher i.e. one without Cert Ed./B Ed. or PGCE will be at least 63/64 now. There may be some around, but I suspect very few.

But getting a 2:1 or a First is not required to embark on teacher training which was the point - we cannot assume everybody who holds a qualification enabling them to teach has excellent qualifications.

It really does make you 'shudder'?

Why?

What do you think would have happened?

Indeed, very few, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't correlate with my anecdotal evidence hence perhaps why anecdotes aren't very useful.

Guy - maybe the school I was talking about couldn't get agency supply. However, the HOD, whom I know quite well, was certainly ranting at the time that the SLG had just told him to keep an eye on the TA because they'd spent as much as they proposed to on English supply.

If that were to be the case, doesn't that re state the problem? That teaching has become so unattractive that a fairly bog standard 'leafy lane' academy apparently simply can't hire, initially a specialist & then just a minimally qualified warm body?

Crowy something almost identical happened to me when I was head of English in a - you guessed it - LA maintained school.

Except that raining I am telling you something which is fact, i.e. the year in which new graduate entrants had to have a teaching qualification.

Anecdotally, I would say that all my teacher friends believed they learnt on the job and only became 'real' teachers after a couple of years experience. Personally I believe that applies to any professional job.

Probably something we should, as a country, be tackling, then?

Not making the T & C even less attractive?

Until the Government produce some kind of logical reason for forcing all schools to become academies people will oppose this. It makes no sense.

I didn't dispute that fact Peregrina

From 1973, teachers in secondary schools have needed a qualification in teaching. You presumably feel that's vital before someone can teach; I disagree. I am in agreement with you that you become a teacher by teaching - learn on the job, in other words.

jellyfrizz the reason will be to save money.

Teaching is a job where you never stop learning though surely. That doesn't mean that preparation isn't also important.

How do academies save money, do you think?

Crowy, well, the most obvious way is that they are not having to pay LA salaries. Many of the traditional LA roles such as subject advisors went when this government were first elected - it was the spring and summer of 2011 when an influx of ex-LA advisors were applying to schools - but there are obviously still some left. At its most crude it cuts out the middle man although it's obviously a bit more complicated than that.

I didn't dispute that fact Peregrina Since we are splitting hairs - after 1973.
I could have applied for a teaching post for September 1973.

Even then though, it was mostly people going for jobs in inner London schools, who did this, where even , they were provided with council flats as key workers.

Yes, I do believe it's necessary as a start. Nor do I necessarily think that having a good degree makes you a good teacher. Prof Pring, a very able man, who used to be in charge of Oxford University's Institute of Education, and was at one time a governor at my daughter's school, has thrown Maths graduates with Firsts off the course, because they lacked the right attributes to be teachers.

Yes, that argument would be correct had I stated that Firsts made someone a good teacher. They don't, any more than A levels at grade A including Chemistry and another science/maths subject make somebody suitable to read medicine: however they are basic entry requirements which we don't presently have in teaching to my knowledge.

well, the most obvious way is that they are not having to pay LA salaries.

No, they will be paying academy salaries instead; CEOs on hundreds of thousands, consultancy fees...
Plus all the services an LA provided will still need to be provided and paid for. Not to mention the legal costs to convert.

raining, for someone who just wants to toe the line you are spending an awful lot of time and energy defending Government proposals. Why would you do that?

I was being slightly disingenuous, raining.

I do know that's the party line.

Our LA advisers are long gone (& largely unmourned) but that's hardly a significant cut.

My own experience is that academies steer money into some interesting pockets, rather than saving it.

I suspect - not sure if the evidence is out there yet, this is personal observation - that salary costs at classroom level will be a good deal lower.

however they are basic entry requirements which we don't presently have in teaching to my knowledge.

It's very difficult from your posts raining to discern what you do feel the basic entry requirements should be, except that you think that someone with 'a decent degree' should be able to teach KS3 in a related subject. I don't, I think some people with 'decent degrees' make awful teachers and shouldn't be let within sight of a classroom.

However, by stating that Academies don't need qualified staff, the Government seems to be saying that even this isn't necessary: anyone can teach.

I don't think I am necessarily defending them, jellyfrizz although in some cases I am playing devils advocate.

why would you do that

I don't want my voice to be added to the thousands of teachers expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of the (educational) nation because they are seen as the work of conservatives, regardless of the merits or popularity of those ideas.

Some of the ideas, namely the new curriculum and the reform of examinations following on from this are largely beneficial for teachers and children alike.

Other things I am neutral about. I don't automatically see academies as any better or worse than LA maintained schools and in secondary at any rate academies have been around for a number of years and haven't been swept away by people charging in off the street with a B in GCSE English Lit and halfway through Go Set A Watchman so I can't agree with much of the scaremongering. I have stated that I believe pay needs bringing in line with inflation and although it hasn't been part of this discussion I am against performance related pay.

Of course if that wasn't a genuine question but a way to discredit me by implying I am not an English teacher but a spy placed here by the government, I don't think I need to point out how daft that is!

I don't particularly have an opinion Peregrina

My point there was in response to somebody stating they wanted highly qualified teachers in front of their children and I was pointing out a teaching qualification does not guarantee that.

Crowy indeed it has been known although (devils advocate again, sorry) it's also used as a way of attracting good staff to schools who find it difficult to recruit so there is that side of things.

Whether academy or LA led, I feel head teachers have too much autonomy but that's perhaps a rant for a different day!

Hmmm. I've taken my school down the IGCSE route for English after taking a closer look at the 'new' GCSE.

I can see how you might argue less work for teachers, although I think you might get a nasty surprise from the weaker end of your cohort come exam time.

Academies have been an option so far - one the public & professionals alike have been unconvinced by. This has, I think, reined in their practices quite a bit.

Gloves are certainly off now.

The CEO salary is always trotted out, but that is a red herring. All over the country LAs are replicating roles that could be centralised using best practice and with economies of scale. For example, academy chains/MATs can standardise IT and instead of having every school with its own IT dept, far more efficient to have this managed centrally, similarly with other services.
No reason why centralised schemes of work could be produced to avoid all the unnecessary reinventing of the wheel done by everyone scratching their heads to create their own resources .

In what sense? If that's a reference to 'you will feel the pressure' then other than stating academic education isn't suited to the masses what do we actually do? In any case, my sense of relief isn't so much related to workload as actual logistics - knowing this is the last year I will have to stalk sixteen year olds around the building to get their essays puts me in mind of Sassoon's poem - 'And I was filled with such delight!' - although with the benefit of hindsight there have been some pretty comic moments but only comical AFFER I've got the essays!

The iGCSE is an option: it suits some and not others, I don't personally do it after the year someone decided I had to film the entire cohorts speaking and listening and I am still receiving therapy but I see it works well for some :)

It was a genuine question raining I really can't get my head around why a teacher would think forcing schools to be academies is a good thing.

I don't want my voice to be added to the thousands of teachers expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of the (educational) nation because they are seen as the work of conservatives, regardless of the merits or popularity of those ideas.

But this plan has no merits and very little popularity. I can't understand why a seemingly intelligent person would be defending it, whichever political party it came from. If a Labour Government had pulled this stunt I would be equally as outraged.

Why would it discredit you to be a spy? That would be really cool but you are a random on the Internet and I've taught enough e-safety lesson to know you could just about anyone.

For example, academy chains/MATs can standardise IT and instead of having every school with its own IT dept, far more efficient to have this managed centrally, similarly with other services.

Funnily enough, this is what used to happen under the old LAs. Then Local Management of Schools was brought in.