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

QTLS > QTS

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by witchfinder_specific, Oct 11, 2009.

  1. Brilliant piece in this week's FE Focus - and how much discussion has it generated ... none!
    That probably answers the question about how important it is to the majority of FE teachers - it isn't.
     
  2. smartcas

    smartcas New commenter

    I am currently studying for my QTLS but concerned that by not being qualified to teach in schools I limit my employability. So I would definitely like to be able to "convert" my qualification at some stage.

    Surely the principles of a good teacher are applicable to all ages of learners ?
     
  3. Studying for the QTLS?

    I hope not, I've just 'registered my interest' and only expect to fill out the glorious PebblePad that is Reflect!
    Or did I misunderstand and you are PGCE/DTTLing? Sorry, that got me worried [​IMG]

    Witchy, I missed that, mainly cos I don't read FE Focus. What was the general consensus - can we, would we, should we?
     
  4. So those of us who sat back and waited, expecting just a tiny bit of common sense to prevail might have had the right of it!!!
    Us FE specialists can and should be considered the equals of compulsory peers!

    I still wonder if parity of pay will cause an insurmountable problem. Imagine when it is announced that all QTS teachers will take a pay cut, work more hours and even do their own display boards, in order to bring about parity!!!

    I can hear the screams now.... [​IMG]
     
  5. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!! Noooooooooooooo!! Not the display board!!
     
  6. The article is misleading. QTS and QTLS are very different beasts.
    What the article fails to mention, particularly at the end, is that in order to gain QTS a teacher must have two independently assessed pieces of evidence that they have met the 30+ QTS standards. Some of these standards have sub-standards and some can be very onerous and difficult to achieve, e.g. the ones that address classroom management or assessment for learning. QTS is tied to the National Curriculum; school teachers must demonstrate that they can teach to the relevant NC, and this is part of achieving QTS.
    Many trainee school teachers fail to achieve QTS and in particular they fail the obligatory 120 days of observation. And remember school teachers need to achieve a L6 teaching qualification plus QTS.
    QTS is a qualification in its own right (although normally mapped into an academic teaching qualification), QTLS is the professional recognition of other qualifications and experience.
    The article also casts the issue as of one of interoperability between schools and FE and makes some valid points on the current restrictions on the movement of teachers between these two sectors.
    But QTLS is a professional recognition of people working in all aspects of adult education and training. That includes military and prison instructors, commercial IT instructors etc.
    Whilst there are strong arguments that FE teachers should be able to move relatively easily into school teaching (consider those FE colleagues who teach the 14 year olds that schools can't) it would be wrong to achieve this by equating QTLS with QTS.
    Rather it would be more sensible to provide a route whereby those FE colleagues working with 14-18 year olds could demonstrate and achieve QTS in service.
     
  7. But that is already done. Its called the GTP.
    I am all for the idea of QTLS and QTS being equated such that FE teachers who are teaching in sixth form or at KS 4 ( vocational or academic - because a lot of FE teachers are working in exactly the same subjects and on the same NC basis as schools) obtain QTS by a process of parity. ie QTLS = QTS in the same way as QTS is currently equated as QTLS for teachers who come schools to work in FE.
    It should be a two way street with either status recognised in either sector as long as it is relevant to what the teacher is going to teach. ( kids on the 14 - 19 curriculum).
    Of course if they want to work down school ( KS3 or 2, then maybe some training could be required). That said most FE basic skills teachers should be able to hack KS and 3 no trouble.
    I have always argued for a parity. I have done that for the last 15 years or more. Its about time something was done, not just talked about. This move was mooted back in 2002. In fact it was promised that QTS and QTLS ( which at that time was being called QLS) would be equivalent and teachers could move between sectors.
    The introduction of QTLS and the IfL in my view actually made that less likely.
    Its about time the IfL put its foot down and demanded what was was promised. Thats one move I will support wholeheartedly.
    And by the way QTS is not a qualification as such although many like to think it is - like QTLS it is a professional formation Its usually attached to a PGCE which is the qualification, hence those who get QTS but not a PGCE cannot work anywhere other than in England.
     
  8. Not in FE colleges it's not, and not everyone teaching in FE is a graduate.
    I've a certificate on the wall from the GTC that says it is. The name gives it away; the Q stands for Qualification.
     
  9. It stands for Qualified ( not a qualification but a recognition of one) and its finished with Status - and thats the give away. Status not a qualification. I have one too but I( dont think highly enough of it to shove on my wall. Its burried at the bottom of a pile of old papers.
    Its a load of tosh.
    Not all school teachers are graduates either. A lot still have just a cert ed, not even a B .Ed. Lets not get above ourselves shall we ( and I say we, since I am a schoolie)
    Back in 2002 I got QTS via a simple system which could be applied for crosss sector recognition now. The statutory instrument was used then for both teachers who were qualified or came into teaching before 1989 and for teachers who had not trained and got PGCE as well as some FE teachers who could fulfill those rules and were also pre '89 ers. None of those groups had QTS n or could they obtain it without taking the proper PGCE course - so they took a parity route - their qualifications were APL'd
    You filled in a form with your qualifications. You had to have maths and English GCSE / O level or equivalent in order to get QTS. you had to have a degree ( or if older one of the diplomas listed on the statutory instrument) and you had to have a teaching certificate in the case of FE teachers ( those who had walked into school as graduates pre 1989 didnt have to have this last bit of paper).
    If you had that and you got your college to sign to say you taught A level or KS 4 GCSE you could get QTS.
    It would be much easier now with a proper QTLS at foundation to enable parity because all you would need to say is can this teacher fulfill the rules for being a school teacher ( which by the way only legally obliges teachers to have O level or equivalent maths and English Language! There are some variations in place but they are temporary variations - not a lot of people know that!) and that they have a qualification in their subject which could be seen as of a level appropriate to a degree or professional level and they have experience of teaching at the 14 - 19 age range.
    They should then get QTS recognition for working in the 14 - 19 sector in school.
    Thats effectively the way it works for schoolies going into FE.
    if you want to stick your claws in and make it all graduate - there is no reason why a vocational lecturer who has other qualifications just adding a BA in education to his cert ed via a year in service training . I know a lot of people e who have BA education in FE. who are voc subject teachers.
    Whilst there is a move toward MA in education for schoolies it is not obligatory yet ( although I got mine via working INSET in school - we all got registered if we wanted to be and it was assessed on our PM management criteria)
    FE has a similar programme in most places I have worked in.
    So parity - if you can demonstrate your qualification base is equivalent then you get the status and you can move. Whats so wrong about that?
    Its got to be better for an electrician with all his papers to teach electrical fitting than for an ex woodwork teacher to do it surely?
    Its got to be far better for a nursing or health professional to teach child care GCSE or Diploma than for the bloody cookery teacher to do it! lets have horses on the right courses here - and lets enable it not make some jump the sticks whilst giving others a flat to run.


     
  10. I got my QTS by being independently assessed against the 30+ standards. For me it's a qualification. It was very hard work, and certainly not a case of filling in some forms, I had to prove I could teach to the required standards before I was ever allowed into the class room by myself.
    You got yours a different route, via what might be considered to be the back door.
    My QTS demonstrates that I am a safe and effective teacher of children.
    By equating QTLS with QTS we open the back door to teachers who cannot demonstrate that they are safe and effective teachers of children.
    The problem is that there are collegues in FE who would be able to demonstrate this; but there is no mechanism that allows them to do it.
    And it is this problem that results in the scenarios you descibe; physics teachers who have never left school tyring to teach electircal skills when there are qualified electricians who could do a better job.
    The solution is not to equate QTLS with QTS, but to provide a route within FE to QTS. This is where the lack of parity lies; whereas I can move to FE and be employed as a qualified teacher and subsequently gain QTLS, a colleague from FE cannot do the same in reverse.

     
  11. Would that you did have to " gain" OTLS. But that is not the case. You are given it. In your case you will get given it because you have QTS.
    That should be the same FE teachers in schools.
    You are one of what I call the "protectionists" which is really based on " I had to work hard and so should you " approach
    What you fail to realise is that most FE teachers have worked equally hard as you have to achieve the qualifications upon which their QTLS is based and that they too will have met all the standards ( and probably a few more too).
    To make them demonstrate that again is patently discriminatory and frankly insulting. These people are your professional colleagues. Treat them as such.
    If an FE teacher can meet the basic requirements for school teaching and they are subject qualified and they have QTLS and they, why do they have to demonstrate that twice over?
    No one is asking you to do that. You should not be asking others to do it either. You seem to me to demonstrate a distinct lack of knowledge or respect for FE teachers out of some sense that you are superior ( having met your 30 criteria) . A teacher, is a teacher, is a teacher. Criteria do not make you necessarily good at it. You are as good as the teaching job you do.
    You and I will never see eye to eye over this shirtand tie.
    But I go back again to 2002. Parity by APL was promised then ( so someone believed then that it could be done Indeed the old FENTO standards were QTS standards) . It was said that QTLS and its FE comparator would be equivalent by 2008. QTLS came in roughly then.
    The road should now be open for transfer between sectors and recognition of professional practice in both without one group having to show their worth twice over.
    None of this actually affects me for what it is worth. I work in the one area of education where QTS and QTLS do have parity of recognition. But I still believe passionately in the principle and the right of FE teachers to be seen as qualified when working in schools within the age range and subjects they are trained and qualified for - 14 - 19 sector. In that area they are probaly better trained and better qualified than any school trained teacher.
     
  12. Completely untrue. I am obliged by the regulations, (reg 5), to apply for QTLS as is every other FE teacher with QTS who entered FE after September 2003. The application process is exactly the same for me as it is for everyone else.
    All vocational qualifications are predicated upon the principle that you meet the standards necessary to do the job.
    They may have worked equally hard but they haven't met the same standards. I know because I am also a DTLLS subject mentor.
    That's a big 'if'. And that's the problem. The 'basic requirements' for school teaching is QTS. It is prefectly possible to gain QTLS without ever teaching or comming into contact with a child. It cannot equate to QTS.
    Children have a right to be taught be those who can demonstrate that they are safe and effective teachers.
    Yes they are - I must obtain QTLS to continue teaching in FE, and I must demonstrate that I am a safe and effective teacher of adults in just the same way the same way as any new college lecturer.
    I'm afraid you've lost the plot.
    QTLS and QTS are two very different things.
    The disparity that needs addressing is that whereas I can, and have, moved to FE and can, and will, gain QTLS, this cannot be done in reverse.

     
  13. Actually 2007
     
  14. Well to be honest shirtandtie - is there something wrong with your qualifications then?
    I applied to the IfL and got my qualifications accepted without any trouble at all. I registered. I havent been asked to do anything. They accepted my GTC registration and QTS automatically. I have a letter to that effect. I am also FE trained originally. I am one of those you would seek to protect against, yet I have worked in schools since 1992. Before that I was in FE. I went back to FE for a short stint and then back to school at the time of the great qualified/ unqualified debacle.
    So I know a lot more about this than you might think.
    Not as it matters now because I recently moved to work in an independent school anyway. I moved this year.
    Currently I am registered with the GTC and the IfL and recognised by both - and I need neither. [​IMG]
    Unfortunately, it seems you have to be teaching FE teachers to teach? Yet you do not consider them good enough? What gives you that right?
    What do you know about FE teaching then if they are such different animals?
    Sorry shirtandtie, you are precisely the kind of teacher I dont need to see in FE. I dont want to see t raining teachers either - and certainly not doing so in FE whilst lording it over them saying how much better you are than them and how they cannot have parity with you.
    Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
    If I were in your job I would be moving heaven and earth to support this latest move by the IfL .
    The last thing FE needs are people who cannot support and champion its own professional qualifications.
    Sorry but I have no time for your position at all.
    I would say, why dont you stick to schoolie work if thats how you feel about FE? FE not good enough to teach in school - so why should you be in FE?
    I have to go now because I have to teach. I have to get to work first ( I am at home).
    I teach. I dont teach teachers. ( as the old saying went - those who can, do, those who cant teach, and those who cant teach, teach teachers - maybe its true) .
    I can do and I can teach.
     
  15. As they did for me. But this is not QTLS. It is MIfL - not the same thing.
    I don't set the standards. The GTC and TDA set the standards for school teachers. The IfL and DIUS/LLUK set them for FE. The standards are not the same.
    I am a subject mentor because I am also a qualified engineer. I teach engineering and mentor other colleagues who are learning to teach engineering.
    QTS and QTLS are different animals. I agree with you - teaching is teaching, and there is much in common between FE and school teaching.
    Whereas you work beyond the influence of professional qualifications and do not hold QTLS I am actually in the process of submitting my application.
    So who is the champion here?
     
  16. Woah!

    QTS = QTLS automatically! IfL just don't dish out the certs as QTS is currently sufficient for both sectors!

    That means a schoolie who has completed all certs, NQT year etc etc and is GTC registered does not need to do anythng other than register with IfL!
    Or that is my understanding of all the bumf and it is the experience of all my colleagues, schoolies one and al!
    But as a subject specialist, Masters degree, industry experience, FENTO standards (that were touted as APLable) and 10 years experience etc etc I cannot teach my subject in a school with parity!
    Even with QTLS - paperwork shuffling to check and get all certs and experience accredited - I could not get parity in a school.
    But a schoolie with a degree in summat can teach anything in a school or FE college! How is that right?

    As an FE specialist I, like many of my colleagies in A Levels and Vocationals have much more experience and higher quals than some schoolies. I am aggrieved! Almost permanently!

    Oh, like *******, it is not deemed necessary for me to apply for QTLS, I have been in service for longer than the minimum requirement. I am applying, out of curiosity, and am 100% certain that I will attain it with only a couple of hours playing with PebblePad!
    Simples!
     
  17. I have QTLS . Like Pobble I dont need to apply but did anyway. I didnt even need to play with a pebble pad for a couple of hours. QTS was sufficient it seems. [​IMG]
    I still believe that FE teachers should get an APL to QTS to work in schools. Thats all that needs to be said really isn't it?
    If you work in FE and you cant champion that, you will aggrieve not only the pobbles of this world but a good many others shirtandtie. You need to support your colleagues not undermine them. You need to see them as the professionals they are, not as an inferior teacher to you as a schoolie.
    Maybe its time for you to go back to school?
     
  18. Only half true. True if they had QTS and moved to FE before Sept 2007, otherwise they must obtain QTLS within two years of beginning to teach in FE. Don't take my word for it; check it out witht the IfL and/or read the regulations yourself.
    And this is a potential problem; but the solution cannot be to equate QTLS to QTS.
    I don't know how it is in your college, but there are two schoolies in my staff room, we both have engineering degrees and many years of industry experience and that's why we are employed to teach engineering.
     
  19. Sorry, but I don't believe you do.
    Which is why I'm a DTLLS subject mentor.
    I'm always interested in other people's opinions.
    But given that you work in the never-never land of an independent school whereas I'm actully doing the job in FE, day in and day out, pro-actively supporting my colleagues who are doing the same thing, I'm afraid I must treat your opinions with some circumspect.
    Regards
     

Share This Page