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

How many of you are using unqualified staff to teach?

Discussion in 'Headteachers' started by jmntsp, Jul 24, 2011.

  1. Regulations and guidelines made under S133 of the Education Act 2002.
    Para 6 - all classes and groups timetabled for core and foundation subjects and for RE must be assigned a qualified teacher to teach them subject to the provisions for unqualified teachers.
    This regulation is also repeated in other documents produced by the DfE, trade unions and quangoes such as WAMG
    Compare the wording with guidelines - MUST be assigned a qualified teacher to TEACH as compared with MAY employ support staff to CARRY OUT SPECIFIED WORK
     
  2. jmntsp

    jmntsp New commenter

    So this means that the school in question is acting illegally by timetabling a TA to teach English, History and Maths at least, does it Bronco? And what can I do about it? Quite frankly, they could appoint me. I'm a qualified teacher and would happily do part time at their school teaching all the odd lessons they've put TAs in to do. Doesn't worry me - after years of supply I'll do any subject. They know it, and yet have made no attempt to approach me or any one else. I know they will say, 'oh we couldn't get a qualified teacher just for a couple of periods' but this is not necessarily true. Surely they are not allowed to timetable a TA to teach?
     
  3. Crowbob

    Crowbob Senior commenter

    That is from the GUIDANCE, not the REGULATION.
    You actually have it the wrong way around. The GUIDELINES say that a qualified teacher must be assigned (without even going into what "assigned" means!) and the REGULATIONS say that other people can carry out specified work.




     
  4. So why does the quoted paragraph appear in PART 1 - The Regulations of the named document?
    Or is this another example of incompetent civil servants, trade union leaders or politicians who cannot write clearly or reproduce documents accurately? Why do they have to say that they are trying to clarify previous statements or legislation? Well written statements or legislation should not need clarification.

     
  5. Crowbob

    Crowbob Senior commenter

    Because the document you refer to are the guidance notes. They are not the Regulations.
    Nope, it just seems you didn't distinguish between the Regulations and the Guidance relating to the Regulations.
    That isn't the way the "Law" works.



     
  6. I can't answer your last question, wish I could. But could you find out from the HR people at your Local Authority, and/or the legal bods at the NUT, what teaching 'arrangements' are legal, especially over time (rather than short-term cover)?
     
  7. jmntsp

    jmntsp New commenter

    Good suggestion, kanonka. I shall try. In the past various officials have made vague statements such as 'every class should have a qualified teacher in front of them; but it is up to HT to decide if someone is suitably qualified'. Not very helpful, lol!!
     
  8. That is the point I have been making all the time. The statements from the DfE etc are so vague that they can be interpreted in any way. HTs are being allowed to ignore guidance or regulations or whatever you choose to call the statements. Qualified Teacher Status is meaningless today if HTs can choose other qualifications instead.

     
  9. jmntsp

    jmntsp New commenter

    Thank you Bronco. So basically, you don't need to be a qualified teacher to be appointed to teach and Heads can interpret regulations however they like. That's disgusting, in my opinion. I'm going to contact my LEA and see what they say.
     
  10. davidhamptontrim

    davidhamptontrim New commenter

    This is an area I recently looked into, alongside the use of supply teachers. There is a strong correlation between the use of 'Unqualified teachers'/Cover supervisors/ TA's and the amount of external cover used.
     
  11. hubcap

    hubcap New commenter

    Some supply teachers cant teach.
     
    jellandy likes this.
  12. Caligraphy

    Caligraphy Occasional commenter

    Some head teachers can't either. They can't use apostrophes properly either, which I would imagine should be a basic requirement for someone on a HT salary.
     
    sabrinakat and JessicaRabbit1 like this.
  13. hubcap

    hubcap New commenter

    I am not a head teacher. I knew though, that would be picked up on rather than the importance of a supply teacher being able to teach or not.
     
  14. Caligraphy

    Caligraphy Occasional commenter

    My point is that some Head teachers can't teach either. That was the first point. Interesting that you are happy to criticise supply teachers, some who earn a pittance rather the head teacher who earns rather more.
     
    sabrinakat likes this.
  15. hubcap

    hubcap New commenter

    There are some really good supply teachers, I thought this thread was about supply teachers. My point is that maybe some headteachers use support staff because they teach better than some supply teachers. I would rather have an outstanding TA teaching my child, with no teaching degree, than a supply teacher, with a teaching degree, that cannot teach.
    I am not after an argument, I am just expressing my opinion.
     
  16. Caligraphy

    Caligraphy Occasional commenter

    I wouldn't want an unqualified teacher anywhere near my child. The thread, if you scroll up, is about using unqualified teachers, NOT supply teachers. It certainly shouldn't be seen as an excuse to take a pop at supply teachers, particularly when head teachers COULD take up some slack if teaching is required and go into a classroom and cover a lesson. How radical!
     
    sabrinakat likes this.
  17. PizzoCalabro

    PizzoCalabro Established commenter

    I agree this should be visible, on the website, and if it defensible, the HT can defend it to parents.
    it is massive hidden thing that parents will not be aware of.
    They have a right, when comparing schools, to have this metric as part of their decision process.
     
  18. frustum

    frustum Star commenter

    I think there would be something to be said for that statistic to be published. We can probably all accept that a small proportion of lessons will be covered by cover supervisors. There will be anomalies - but schools can offer explanations (eg n of these hours were taught by overseas trained teachers who have since gained a UK qualification).

    I also think there would be something to be said for statistics on the amount of teaching done by teachers who are not specialists in the subject concerned - but that would be an absolute minefield. As a parent, I would like to know that my child will be taught maths by somebody who has some training in teaching the subject, as well as adequate subject knowledge. Unfortunately we have no means of distinguishing between Mrs A who was originally a science teacher, but has been teaching maths for fifteen years, attending plenty of CPD, and Mr B who was the only applicant for the post, can manage a class but does not actually have a sound grasp of GCSE. We could only have this statistic if subject qualification was recorded, and suitable means of gaining the subject qualification on the job were available. But even given the minefield, I'd rather send my child to a school where two-thirds of the maths department are maths-trained than the one where only the HoD is.
     

Share This Page