1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Education Committee H of C

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by historygrump, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. historygrump

    historygrump Lead commenter Forum guide

    Bronco and myself are hoping to compile a file of data and other information for the House of Commons Education Committee, who are looking at the new Education Bill. The committee is requesting that groups submit written information before April 5th 2011. The fact Bronco and myself are members of Supply Teachers UK campaign group, we feel that we submit our views on the Education Bill.
    For example asking, why are there no restrictions on the use of support teaching lessons like they have in Scotland. Why is the no reform of the NQT period, which the Dept of Education promised to review in September 2010.
    So if you have any information or experiences that may be useful in persuading the committee to recommend changes to the Bill and get teachers back in the front of the classes, please help. We need to highlight the mess that education is in and the need to improve standards through the rules stopping schools from abusing the support staff by getting them to teach.
    Please email me or Bronco.
  2. All power to your elbow.
    I think the main thrust of the argument should be set in a vision of how to provide the best possible education for the country in the future. If decisions are persuing the cheapest way of doing things, then the longer term consequences will probably compromise the country's ambition to raise its world ranking, which not surprisingly has been falling.
    I think there needs to be a broad picture rather than the conflict of individual interests. The bigger picture of supply involves provision for "spare parts" in the system. ie not losing NQTs who haven't found immediate employment, not losing teachers who have moved to accompany spouses or taken maternity breaks etc. Day-to-day supply keeps a pool of qualified teachers active in teaching and available for long term contracts or return to full time. Loosing day-to-day will inevitably reduce the pool available for contract, increase the pressure to appoint non-qualified teachers to formerly contracted posts, and create a slippery slope of downward qualification in schools.
    When the NC curriculum was introduced, there was a fanfare of "childrens entitlements" to the curriculum. Every child should have a right to quality lessons, even in the absence of the regular teacher. Lessons are downgraded to worksheet type busy time when non-qualified cover is provided. Schools should leave lessons which aspire to be as outstanding as the permanent staff would provide, qualified teachers are best equipped to maintain this standard.
    There are problems regarding supply cover in some schools, but a blame game approach is part of that problem. Some schools just have not addressed the reasons why discipline can be a problem in their schools, they just hope that poor plans and minimal support will produce successful outcomes.
    My personal view, bigger picture considered, the original LEA system was the best for all parties, in most areas. The privatisation approach has been about driving down costs, only it has increased costs, it has failed in CP. The LEA register approach was not just beneficial to supply because of payment to scale and inclusion in TP, it was beneficial to schools because they could create their own mini-pools and develop their supply as their own staff, inviting them to staff meetings or inset from time to time, and creating continuity and potential well-known staff for future contract or permanent appointments Some primaries did this, it was a good example to follow. These schools were not complaining about the quality of supply, they made sure that teacher absence was not a problem. There would still be a role for agencies, but more for real emergencies or for schools which have problems creating their own supply list, eg challenging catchments or rural areas.
    I think the pitch should emphasise a vision of how using qualified teachers creates the best prospect for the country's education, which it does. The recent publicity over costs has not been put in perspective, I think the cost of supply was around 0.18% of staffing costs, very small cheese in terms of the overall budget.
    Good luck!

  3. Meant to write failed in CPD.
  4. historygrump

    historygrump Lead commenter Forum guide

    Shalteir. You have given us some very good ideas on how to focus the information, if we don't make the effort to influence changes, that we all might as well give in, I accept that the members of the committee may not accept the information or use it (that saves Stuart from saying so), but this possibly gives us the last chance to get amendments in that protects the teaching profession and the education system in England. That is why I am seeking to look at the data for Scotland to see if their educational results is better then in England for example.
    So thanks again Shalteir for the imput, after allwe have only a few weeks to do it in.
  5. darkness

    darkness New commenter

    Stricter guidelines and controls on cover supervisor use and the other terminology used. Best associate the stricter controls to levels where no matter the job title used all will fall under the levelling system currently in place.

    Forget reform of the NQT period. Why is it not mandatory that all state schools offer induction if it is mandatory all NQTs complete induction. A main reason many leave teaching after only a few years based on GTC records is due to people unable to complete induction due to lack of places and provision. My suggestion is a scrapping of induction altogether and enhance CPD and monitoring in the early stages of career.

    Why have a system where you can fail induction and yet they cannot take away QTS, but you are barred from teaching?

Share This Page