How do you feel about HLTA's as a qualified teacher?

[Imsosorryalan75]

It seems to be happening everywhere, due to budget cuts. Instead of having a qualified teacher covering lessons, now its HLTA'S or cover supervisors.

As a qualified teacher, working as a TA, I've been asked to cover lessons and get paid as a HLTA. I feel offended that I will still get pittance for essentially planning, resourcing, teaching and assessing a mornings work. Also it seems that SLT think so little of children's learning, and the teaching profession that are willing to gave anyone in the class, as long as the lesson is covered.

My dc school were forever using the ta as cover. When I complained they said they were Hltas.

I think schools should publish figures for staff turnover and per cent age of lessons not taught by qualified teachers and that this should be an important factor in their ofsted ratings. Also parents should be told who is teaching their dc on a certain day and their qualifications

Our HLTAs are much better placed to cover our classes than a random supply teacher. These HLTAs know the children well, know the behaviour policy, know how we teach things and the routines of the day.
When we have to use supply teachers the children get a much worse deal.

I think the issue the Op is highlighting is the pay? The 2 HLTAs in our primary school work very, very hard & plan then teach lots of lessons. They are both excellent at their jobs but don't earn that much. They both feel "used" a lot of the time. As a TA, I've had to step in and cover lessons with very little notice and I'm often given little or no plan to work from. It makes me feel very resentful that I'm still paid my normal TA wage for this.

If you’re a qualified teacher tell them to pay you as one, if they want you to work as one. Just because they would employ a HLTA to teach doesn’t make you one. You’re a teacher.

It’s not about covering classes, it’s about teaching them. There have been threads on here where HLTAs have been expected to work as class teachers for HLTA pay.

It’s unacceptable, watering down the profession, and although I am sure there are wonderful HLTAs out there, if schools want teachers, they should pay teachers, and at a teacher rate.

I always find this weird! At Dd’s School, they’re split into 4 groups across 1 teacher and 3 TA’s (40 kids) they do all their learning in these groups (phonics, english, maths) so 4 hours a day every day my child is being taught by a TA, with the qualified teacher leading art, science and PE as a whole class in the afternoon.

So why would the TAs be making half that of the teacher?

Or am I missing something? The TA’s are absolutely lovely and DD loves them but They’re not teachers. Is this normal?

This is the consequence of funding cuts though. I wouldn’t blame individual schools as they cannot really find any more money without cutting staff.

So sadly they’re relying on goodwill.

The only thing that will help is lobbying at a regional or national level by unions....

I work in several schools that have qualified teachers working as TAs. When they are used as supply teachers, they are paid as teachers. They are paid as TAs if they cover without having to plan or resource.

I am also a qualified teacher working as a TA. I did the role of HLTA for a while but had to tell my Head it wasn't working. I was feeling under so much pressure and was becoming anxious, all for £1.90 an hour more pay. It simply wasn't worth the stress.

Yes it's the pay, essentially working as a teacher but being paid just over minimum wage for it. It is, more importantly that teachers are also shooting themselves in the foot by accepting hlta's as substitutes. If they're so successful at stepping in, what's stopping the ht as employing hlta's to take classes longer term or permanently. It seems the next logical step in money saving for them. I'm surprised how quickly and quietly this new role has been brought in.

So say no.

It's not new. It's been happening in schools for a decade at least.
I would often cover lessons and I negotiated with the school I would get paid more for when I was covering. At first, they said no and said they would use an agency, citing costs. I asked how it would save money, the impact on learning as agency staff didn't know students, and would often show films. I wanted to be paid the same as the hltas when I covered, who was paid more than a nqt.
Until they agreed to an increase I refused to cover lessons.
It helped that the majority of staff members also agreed that when covering there should have been an increase and also refused to cover.

We had one and it wasn't great.

In my previous school, one of the Y2 teachers and one of the Y6 teachers were SLT. They spent so much time out of class that the children were taught by either TA or HLTA at least 50% of the time. Now, whatever you think about those 2 year groups being SATs years, the parents had absolutely no idea this was happening. I'd be furious if my child had been taught for 50% of the time by unqualified staff. I'm not in any way denegrating TAs, they are fab and invaluable - but children should be taught be a qualified teacher the majority of the time.

In the 4 infant/junior schools near me heads of year have a whole day ppa a week, the class is taught by a hlta a day a week. So at least 1/5 ot that year is taught by a hlta. Add on all the maths/Enlish/interventions taught be a TA
...