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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Graduate Cover Supervisors v HLTAs

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by Pennyforyourthoughts, Jun 15, 2011.

  1. Pennyforyourthoughts

    Pennyforyourthoughts Occasional commenter

    Recently heard in one school that they will only be employing graduate cover supervisors and using non graduate HLTAs less and less to cover classes. Reason/s for this ........... Plenty of graduates available as they cannot get jobs and the positions are marketed as a good position to start their teaching career so 'try before you start your PGCE or equivalent' OR for NQTs.... if you cannot get a job then NQTs 'Get on the career rung become a cover supervisor'. This way schools can off load some of the teaching to them (sometimes with extra pay sometimes not) thus avoiding getting in a supply teacher.

    Is this a good thing or not?

    Not good for supply teachers that's for sure BUT I have to say with the money NQTs get from Agencies £75 to £85 in my area for supply .......... its not far off what is being paid for an NQT Cover Supervisor.

    Of course schools can pay what they like according to your qualifications and I suspect you will see more being paid for their qualifications rather than on a general Cover Supervisor rate.

    Anyone already being paid different to a Cover Supervisor's rate because you have graduate, NQT or QTS status?
     
  2. The big difference between cover supervisors and HLTAs is that CSs job descriptions expect them to just supervise whereas HLTAs are expected to carry out specified work (i.e teach.)
    But the real problem with so much in education a the moment is that the meanings of such words are so variable. For instance CS are expected to supervise which means that they have to be in the presence of the students. But when teachers supervise students they also have to be in the same room as the students; when they supervise support staff, however, they do not have to be physically present with that support staff member.
    Also what is the difference in meaning between teaching and carrying out specified work which both involve planning and delivering schemes of work and individual lessons etc.
    Another major issue is that the qualifications neded for CSs are so variable. Some are expected to have degrees but for others no qualifications at all are needed
     
  3. The other point that I neglected to mention was that there are many fully qualified teachers available to carry out such work.
     
  4. Pennyforyourthoughts

    Pennyforyourthoughts Occasional commenter

    I think the role of Cover Supervisor has evolved to be something that it originally was not. Management has seen opportunities to utilise them in many ways and work the loopholes in the Government guidelines for Cover Supervisors.
    Generally now they need to have degrees, have been HLTAs, Instructors or have NQT OR even be ex teacher with QTstatus. All of these are legally able to take PPA lessons which are timetabled and for which they do the preparataion and planning for also. Some do dual roles, cover supervision with timetabled teaching outside of PPA.

    Yes there are lots of qualified teachers out there ready, willing and able but schools seem to like to work with who they have employed LOOKS like we should all be trying to find that all elusive permanent floating cover teacher post ... fine for a regular income but little work within our own subjects.

    Choices we all have to start making I fear.
     
  5. I agree that the role of CS has evolved but have the legalities changed? Can a CS be legally employed to carry out specified work i.e. teach? I think not. Are these CSs with any sort of teaching qualification paying their registration fee to the GTC? If not they are possibly acting illegally by taking on a teaching role and so is the school.
    I also agree that school management has manipulated the guidelines in such ways to allow unqualified staff to carry out teaching duties. But this shows up the incompetence of politicians, senior civil servants and trade union leaders who compose regulations and National Agreements but also write guidelines that make a mockery of such regulations and agreements by contradicting them.
    What should take precedence; a regulation or a guideline? A regulation states that all children should be taught by a qualified teacher but then a guideline says that a member of support staff may carry out specified work (sometimes even in the same paragraph) Which should be considered more important?
     

Share This Page