None teaching SLT?

[Darklava09]

I’ve seen a few academies with “non-teaching” SLT who are deputies or assistant head teachers.

What are people’s views on this? Do they earn the same as standard AHT/DHT or do they earn less due to not actually having a teaching qualification.

If you have them in your school does it cause an issue or resentment amongst other teaching staff curious to know!?

Btw, I’m not one but I know of a few and it’s interesting as they are actually horrible individuals that seem very insecure in their role!!

Typically when a post says non-teaching, it doesn't mean that person isn't a teacher. It means that the role doesn't have a class allocation (primary) or a teaching load (secondary). The person in the role still have teaching experience and is a qualified teacher.

These roles are fine, depending on the size of the school. However, early in my career, I worked in a school where both the deputy and assistant were non-teaching. This caused issues over time because their expectations and demands became more and more removed from the realities of being in the classroom. One did admit, at one point, that she was asking staff to do things that she wouldn't be capable of doing anymore which, of course, undermined any confidence the staff had in the leadership of the school.

Difficult to keep the respect of the staff. At least by doing some teaching they establish contacts with students.

One head I knew taught every year 7 class maths every week. Another head used to take bottom set year 11 for English and science once a week. Both great heads.

@Iamnotthe1 no I actually mean they do not have a teaching qualification. This is why I’m curious as to how it’s possible to be in that position when they don’t have a QTS for example!?

[quote Darklava09]@Iamnotthe1 no I actually mean they do not have a teaching qualification. This is why I’m curious as to how it’s possible to be in that position when they don’t have a QTS for example!?[/quote]
Within academies, no teacher needs to have QTS.

That being said, I've never seen a deputy nor assistant without it. The only member of SLT without a teaching qualification tends to be the school business manager or burser.

@Iamnotthe1 really!? I didn’t know this. So literally anyone can teach a class of kids in an academy without completing a teaching degree or QTS and it’s ok?

How is that even aloud? It’s quite scary tbh.

I know a few academies that do have them around here hence why I was curious. I’ve heard it’s got a lot of teachers back up though. I’ve often thought it’s the deputy/vice principal who has to step up encase the head ever goes off sick but how could that even be possible If they’ve never taught a class

[quote Darklava09]@Iamnotthe1 really!? I didn’t know this. So literally anyone can teach a class of kids in an academy without completing a teaching degree or QTS and it’s ok?

How is that even aloud? It’s quite scary tbh.

I know a few academies that do have them around here hence why I was curious. I’ve heard it’s got a lot of teachers back up though. I’ve often thought it’s the deputy/vice principal who has to step up encase the head ever goes off sick but how could that even be possible If they’ve never taught a class [/quote]
Mind my poor spelling... hence why I’m
Not a teacher allowed before anyone calls me out

@Darklava09

Yes. This has been the case since 2012. Teachers in academies or free schools do not require QTS or any teaching experience.

Teachers have been reminding parents about this for years but they never seem to care enough. It's one of the reasons why academies can get away with having long-term cover supervisors. I know of one secondary who hasn't had a full Maths department in years. There are some kids in that school who have never been taught Maths by someone with a degree let alone QTS.

@Iamnotthe1 I am utterly shocked. I can now see why teachers who have a full “teaching degree” would be pissed off if there AHT/DHT wasn’t a qualified teacher in that role.

I’ve never known a deputy or AH who wasn’t a qualified teacher (I’ve only taught in LA schools though) but have known loads who are non-teaching, as their SLT role meant they had too much ‘other stuff’ to do.

If I found out that someone who judged my teaching wasn't a qualified teacher, I'd probably leave that job.

If it's just a 'non-teaching' role, then that's different. But if someone doesn't teach for a year, then they start to lose their ability to have a 'current opinion'.

I was a non-teaching SLT bod for a year, it was crap. I went back to 2 days a week. Made it much easier to ask staff to do new initiatives if a) I'd piloted them, b) I had to carry on doing them.

Current SLT all teach on and off. One only does sick cover, but she's good in class. Our SENCO is currently on PPA cover one day a week even.

@Darklava09

Yes I know a lady who teaches in a primary academy as a class teacher. She does not have a degree. I think it’s so wrong. Not entirely sure if she is paid adequately for the work she is doing.

Non teaching is generally different to unqualified, in my experience.

[quote Shamrocksunshine]@Darklava09

Yes I know a lady who teaches in a primary academy as a class teacher. She does not have a degree. I think it’s so wrong. Not entirely sure if she is paid adequately for the work she is doing.[/quote]
Another little gem about academies is the fact that they can pay people whatever they wish as they don't have to follow the rules set out in the 'School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document'.

This includes qualified and unqualified teachers.

Many academy chains do adjust their terms and conditions to be similar to the STPCD but they don't have to. Yet another reason why teachers get frustrated when the Government announces wage rises but most teachers know they won't actually get them because academies don't have to give them.

@ohthegoats
If I found out that someone who judged my teaching wasn't a qualified teacher, I'd probably leave that job

There used to be a rule which stated that unqualified observers were not allowed to comment on the quality of the teaching and learning if they observed a lesson. We were able to invite our governors into our lessons to see our initiatives in action but they weren't allowed to comment on quality.

I'm not sure if that's still a thing or even if it applies to academies if it is.

@Iamnotthe1

Perhaps said unqualified teacher (with no degree) could rise through the ranks then, in an academy to SLT?

Wow.

@Shamrocksunshine

Yes this is what I’m saying... I know 2 people who are in SLT who are not teachers with no texting qualification.

Hence why I’m wondering how much pay they receive??

[quote Darklava09]@Shamrocksunshine

Yes this is what I’m saying... I know 2 people who are in SLT who are not teachers with no texting qualification.

Hence why I’m wondering how much pay they receive??[/quote]
No way of knowing without having the academy's pay policy and, even then, no way to know exactly unless they tell you.

It depends on the post.

Once school I worked in had a middle leader in charge of safeguarding (in an area with high safeguarding issues and complex social issues). They weren't a teacher but were appropriately qualified in that area so they had the respect of colleagues. If an SLT for pastoral had an appropriate non-teaching background and relevant qualifications then I wouldn't object to that, unless they started telling me how to teach.

It would be harder to justify an AHT for teaching and learning if they weren't a suitably qualified and talented classroom teacher.

@LolaSmiles

Yes I do not see a problem with SLT pastoral roles, which require a different skill set, but nonetheless still respected, and rightly so.

It would be strange for a teaching SLT role to go to an unqualified teacher. I do know an unqualified teacher in primary and I would presume it would be difficult for her to gain a leadership role.

I think there is a real Robles in LA schools employing teaching assistants and calling them teachers. My last post had this and whilst I support children seeing every adult as a teacher, it shouldn’t be stated as so on websites, etc to parents. It is misleading.

Robles? Problem!

@DonnaQuixotedelaManchester

The lady I know was a TA at the primary school she works in. She is now categorically a teacher,
albeit an unqualified one with no degree. She has her own class now with her own TA. She works in an academy.

She may be working as a teacher but she isn’t one. When it come to misconduct issues I wonder where this leaves such staff. Would the unions support them fully or would the responsibility fall on SLT?

She may be working as a teacher but she isn’t one. When it come to misconduct issues I wonder where this leaves such staff. Would the unions support them fully or would the responsibility fall on SLT?
Teacher isn't a protected title.

If she's employed as a teacher then she is a teacher.

I think all children should be taught by suitably qualified staff, but we don't have the luxury of qualified teachers begging for jobs. Quite the opposite.

Misconduct issues would be dealt with in line with their contract. Anything they are personally responsible for will be on them and their union will support accordingly. If there's failure of leadership and management then the union may use that as part of negotiations or disputes.

SLT are responsible for their areas of school leadership so there will be accountability there too, just like middle leaders are accountable for their areas. She would be responsible for the areas outlined in her contact as a classroom teacher.

@DonnaQuixotedelaManchester

I happen to agree with you. It’s a shame the profession is downgraded like this.