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

Petition for stopping supply NQTs 16 month limit rule

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by jubilee, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Is there still a need to sign this petition given that all the news is that the 16 month supply rule in England will be abolished later this year and a new allowance period of 5 years will be brought in, putting England ona par with Wales in this regard?
  2. Sorry if I have missed something obvious, but what is the latest news re abolishing the 16 month limit? It was supposed, at one stage, to be implemented in April 2012 but that date has come and gone without a whisper.....Can someone please enlighten me? Many thanks.
  3. As of September 2012, teachers will have 5 years from the award of QTS to undertake day to day supply.

    it is in the new bumpf and teacher regulations of the department of education website.
  4. Many thanks, sparklelife, that is great news for me!!!
  5. A far more important epetition is that asking for a requirement for anyone taking responsibility for teaching or supervising a class to have a teaching qualification. But the response to this has been pathetic. About 30,000 have signed a petition about pensions but the number asking for only qualified teachers to teach or cover has not even reached 1,000.
    Just another example of full time teachers not being interested in their supply or unemployed colleagues.
  6. Does that just count for people who have just qualified or others you have been in that position for nearly the 16 months already?
  7. historygrump

    historygrump Star commenter Forum guide

    Accordingly to an email from the dept of education, as i have mentioned in other posts, it is from the date of qualifcation, so according the Department, if you qualified in 2009, then you have up to 2014.
    So that I hope that helps.

  8. greenpaddy

    greenpaddy New commenter

  9. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    I have read that the new 5 year allowance is for those who qualify this year aftre the introduction of the new rule .... plus for those who are currently serving their 16 month allowance or an extension to their 16 month allowance. That would make those who qualified back in 2009 and who have already used up their 16 month allowance ( + any extension) ineligible for the 5 year period for taking non-Induction teaching work. It's worth checking it out with the new Teaching agency or an LA though (not that I think thta all LAs will be up to speed on yet another rule change!)
  10. PlymouthMaid

    PlymouthMaid Occasional commenter

    I am very pleased for everybody that this is finally happening but pretty annoyed it has taken so long as I am unlikely now to ever get a job in a school again since I was last able to supply in 2008 when my 16 months ran out. I suspect that after this long out of the system (as i could no longer live on TA pay) I would be unlikely to get an inductable post.
  11. Like Historygrump I have been in regular contact with the DfE on the subject of the use of unqualified support staff instead of teachers for teaching purposes. I have produced evidence about how primary schools have used support staff during PPA time that shows that the number of qualified teachers used for such purposes are out numbered by staff without full teaching qualifications by about 3:1 which also means that about 60% of pupils do not have a teacher to teach them for all the time.
    The response from the DfE? The schools minister stated that my concerns were about "cover for absent teachers" That shows the ignorance even among senior politicians since he demonstrated that he does not understand the meaning of cover or teacher absence. It is this same minister who has stated that HTs can employ staff as they seem fit provided they "take note of all regulations and guidance."
    I have quoted such regulations/guidance/agreements that the DE are signatories to: "All classes and groups timetabled for core and foundation subjects and for RE and in the foundation stage must be assigned a qualified teacher to teach them."
    Their response to this? They quoted the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Documents which almost repeated this except the words "to teach them" were left out (said documents also stated that HTs should be expected to teach but do they all?) So it is clear that HTs are being allowed by the DfE and politicians to ignore all regulations and guidance.
    The latest response from the DfE was to state that the Secretary of State and his ministers are unable to do anything to change the current situation that allows schools to use unqualified staff instead of qualified teachers. The truth is that the S of S and his ministers are not prepared to do anything but will continue to allow schools to flout regulations. Since they can quote STPCD I can do the same; the SofS has the authority to change such conditions so all he has to do is to add the extra 3 words to the ducuments and then enforce such conditions and regulations.
    Does anybody think that Gove will do such a thing? I certainly do not. All he can do is to propose changes to the primary school curriculum without thinking through all the difficulties in implementing such changes within a period of about 15 months.
  12. I signed the epetition. I have had quite a few days that have been booked in which have been cancelled due to covering internally. I was speaking to a TA in a FS class I do a lot of work for who have said that when class teacher has been absent they have covered by bringing an extra level 2 TA into classroom (so 1 level 3 and 2 level 2's).
  13. So instead of getting in a suppy teacher the school deploys an extra TA into the classroom to help. So another class loses the needed support that this TA would have provided and so more children from that class lose out.


Share This Page