Schools advertising for 'unqualified teachers'

[roamingespadrille]

This is what a number of our local schools are advertising. Very low pay attached to it. Job description is a full teaching job.

The point is, that jobs that were previously available to well qualified, experienced teachers, are now being sold off to the lowest bidder.

There is also the major issue of different terms and conditions amongst colleagues that would previously have been equal. Unqualified teachers will not need to be given PPA time, for example. As they will not have to meet teacher standards they will not need to be given CPD.

I'm sure 'user' can see this really. Love their assumption that posters on this thread don't understand the 'reality' of working in schools!

And then schools can dick unqualified teachers about assessing them for qualification, like the poster above who has been teaching for four years without being put forward. If she'd done a proper training route she'd be looking at promoted posts, yet she hasn't felt ready to qualify? Why not? Either she's crap (she's lasted longer than most teachers so prob not) or the school have been happy stringing her along on the cheap without the need to do the paperwork.

Just like the poster on the first page said went on in their MAT.

Can unqualified teachers join a union?

So we've got unqualified teachers working who are being dicked about with the impression that it's an actual training route, with no requirement to actually train them. They've got all the qualifications needed to embark on an actual paid training route and be qualified much more quickly.

Then we have unqualified teachers working who don't have the qualifications to train to be a teacher, so will never be qualified, who don't even have a degree and aren't ever required to be assessed against the teaching standards.

Why would any teacher support this?

would you be happy to be treated by someone who had a passion for their subject and real life experience over someone who has a qualification and no passion if you needed to consult a doctor?

Every time a class is taught by a PGCE student, or even an NQT really, they are being taught by somebody very inexperienced. Certainly far too inexperienced to compare with the amount of medical study a junior doctor will have had. And given the amount of 'cannon fodder' - people who just about make it through a year or two after their PGCE before quitting teaching - this is happening a lot.

I've worked in private schools where there have been teachers with no PGCE. They haven't been noticeably any worse than the qualified teachers.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have trained teachers. I'm saying that teachers vary in their innate aptitude for the job and some will be better after a few months' experience than others may be after years. Once they have had a year's experience (whether as part of a course or on the job), the playing field is basically pretty level. The college-based stuff I did in my PGCE was a tiny sprinkling of icing on the cake compared with even a week of experience in the classroom.

The thing with accountancy and so on is that on the job training can start simple. Do a bit of photocopying and data entry, fiddle with some spreadsheets, I don't know. You're not dropped in at the deep end doing some complicated contract, on your own in front of a roomful of clients. If you were, you'd be rubbish at it.

You've missed the point. There are people who are setting themselves up as accountants or accountancy practices without that "on the job training", and there's absolutely nothing to stop them. You can give up teaching today, and start your own accountancy practice tomorrow, and yes, standing in front of a roomful of clients!

I wonder how many teachers use "plan drawing services" firms rather than a qualified accountant, or a will-writing service instead of a solicitor, or a "cheap accountant" for their own tax return instead of a properly qualified one?

It's not right, and I'm not condoning this "dumbing down" of professions, but it's happening throughout virtually all professions, not just teachers.

I meant qualified architect rather than a plan drawing service!

The college-based stuff I did in my PGCE was a tiny sprinkling of icing on the cake compared with even a week of experience in the classroom.

But classroom experience on a PGCE is a very different kettle of fish to working as an unqualified teacher. Comparing the schools experience part of a PGCE on a massively reduced timetable being mentored by the class teacher to actually being in charge of a class from day 1 is bonkers. A PGCE isn't a better way of training than dumping someone in the classroom just because of the academic side but also because of how the classroom side is managed.

Yes, that's true. UQTs should start on a reduced timetable. Don't suppose they do though. They should at least be able to come in and do plenty of observation before they start.

I think relaxing the rules on qualifications is a good thing if it allows schools to employ excellent staff.

My DC's school has 'unqualified' teachers. Yet on any measure it's one of the best schools in the country. Its ludicrous to think that some of those fabulous teachers are not allowed to teach in the state sector.

That said, if it's just used as a money saving exercise then the bad may outweigh the good. Sigh.

I wonder how many fabulous unqualified teachers have moved from private to state now they are finally allowed to work there.

Well it's only a recent option noble.

And people have to move for all manner of reasons. Partner gets a new job elsewhere. Teacher has children and wants to go part time. Family move out of London.

But this isn't about transfer between sectors. It's about getting started. Speaking for example to DS French teacher, she and her husband both ended up in the private sector because their French quals were not accepted in the U.K. state sector. I doubt they were a unique couple there.

Terrific MFL teachers, both.

I would like to highlight another route that I think should be more-widely known and used as a basic starting point before anyone stands in front of a group of people and attempts to teach, train or 'instruct'. I am an ex-teacher (primary SLT) and, for various reasons, took an additional qualification a couple of years ago in order to be able to teach adults.

The FE basic qualification Award in Education and Training (AET), previously known as PTTLS, enables people to teach children aged 14 plus at instructor level. This is a Level 3 qualification.

The course is a few hundred pounds and can be done part-time, over about 10 weeks, at an FE college. It is 'teaching 101' and covers the basics of:

Teaching and learning
Assessment
Inclusion
Differentiation
Equalities
Record keeping
Behaviour management
Planning schemes of work
Planning individual lessons

As an experienced teacher I found it all straightforward, but noted that it is actually quite a good overview of what the role and responsibilities of a teacher involve - yes, you do need to include everyone; yes, it is your responsibility to adapt what you are teaching so that everyone can learn; yes, you do need to assess progress on a regular basis. So many people have misconceptions about what the role of a teacher involves due to the changes since they were at school, or having been educated elsewhere, or simply having different philosophies around what it means to 'teach'.

I would argue that any person, expert in their field or not, should have at least this course before they step into a classroom. I would also recommend it to anyone considering a PGCE or other form of teaching training as a cheap/quick way of finding out if they really want to do the job.

because their French quals were not accepted in the U.K. state sector.

Teaching qualifications or just degree?

I don't believe anyone can be a fabulous teacher the minute they walk into a classroom without any sort of education training.

My understanding is that the concept of the role of a secondary teacher is quite different in France:

No pastoral responsibility
Purely academic delivery
Little differentiation for differing abilities
Limited inclusion of children with SEND

So they would definitely have needed some induction, training and support before working in a comprehensive, but perhaps their skills (which I am not doubting) were valuable within an independent school where the intake and support structures might be different to a state school?

IF unqualified teachers are as good (or sometimes better, according to some posters) as qualified teachers, then they should be paid the same as a qualified teacher.

Otherwise it just exacerbates the constant lowering of pay.

Budgets are tight, but that is because the government won't fund them properly.

There are ways of cutting costs in school, but it shouldn't be by cutting teaching staff and TAs.

Or by lowering pay.

In the private sector teachers were often recruited from University without experience and trained on the job. They were often very good teachers. I have worked in many schools where all the teachers were trained as in PGCE qualified, but their subject knowledge was appalling. One English teacher saying 'never mind about Shakespeare. We all know he's boring but we have to learn about him.' Sometimes PGCE just trains people to jump through hoops and fulfil criteria, but they aren't very inspiring teachers and don't have much enthusiasm or knowledge about their subject.

So pay them the same as a qualified teacher, then.

Stop driving down pay.

(Not aimed at you personally)

maybe you could be right about their experience teaching in France.

I don't know about the other countries they've taught in and the educational cultures there.

I just think that they (and numerous other teachers I know) would be an asset in the state sector as they are in the private sector so I'm glad the option is there.

luxury you're right about pay.

The independent sector tend to pay their staff the same so can recruit people with excellent subject knowledge (not everything but a start). The unqualified teachers in the state sector are paid a lot less. As a result they are not as well qualified.
As for user, the implication that a thread full of state school teachers (from a variety of types of school) don't know how school works is nonsense. Especially coming from a poster whose grasp of exam regulations is almost at the level of gross misconduct.
I've said this on threads before but when you see me agreeing with @noblegiraffe we're usually at some point of consensus within education. We often disagree (quite politely I might add).

Can't remember who made the comments but yes I have been an uqt for 4 years but it was my decision not to go through the assessment only route yet. In that time I have had two children so for the majority of my foirbueaes have either been pregnant of just back from maternity leave. I would have had to have used two years of that time to build up my experience anyway.
I have on no way been duped and I'm also not "crap at my job" i have been observed by ofsted and classes as good.

I don't have a PGCE or a PGCE but have taught in both England and Scotland so obviously my qualification is acceptable.

Private to state system though has different expectations. Different standards expected through inspection, smaller class sizes, less testing and less focus on progress. Certainly the private school I worked to support had classes of 6-8 children, children who behaved and were respectful. The teacher had a degree but no teaching background and was teaching what she thought she should from the memories of her own childhood. Certainly wouldn't be good enough in leading learning for a class of 30 children; differentiation, marking, feedback, next steps in children's learning to enhance progress, interesting lessons to hold attention, behaviour and classroom management.

I used this route to enter teaching and would like to add a few things. Firstly, it's a good way to try out a career change without taking too much of a financial risk. I wasn't keen to borrow a lot of money and retrain before knowing if teaching was for me. Secondly, it's almost impossible to find a PGCE in some subjects (mine is Economics), so training the staff you actually need makes sense. Thirdly, ITT providers don't seem interested in transferable skills. I had set up and managed projects with children and had done training and lecturing for adults.

So I think whether it is a good or bad thing depends on the individual situation, but the Govt must take some blame for the incredible complexity and fragmentation of the training system

I will have my MA in Education soon. I am currently qualified to PGDE level (all done on the job).

I received a few 'oh so you thought you'd skip the training' comments when I started, but mostly found everyone supportive.