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 and parity

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by shirtandtie, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. I'd make the following points.
    Why does a professional institute that represents the interests of those of us working in the LLS want to expend so much effort helping its members leave the sector? Surely if there is a need for LLS workers to enter the school sector this should be the concern of the various GTCs?
    Secondly that QTS and QTLS simply do not measure the same thing. It would be useful (for the schools sector) to offer a route for those in the LLS to obtain QTLS in service. But they cannot ever be considered to have parity. Indeed the IfL require that those with QTS entering the LLS obtain QTLS (within two years) and there is no APEL.
    Thirdly I was surprised to learn that so many in the LLS do not have first degrees (wait 'till Dave finds about this) . But it also makes me wonder how many of us working in the LLS are ex-schoolies, (this is in part the TDAs explanation for so many missing teachers). I suspect that the real barrier preventing many in the LLS moving to the school sector is that they lack the basic qualifications to do so.
    I think the IfL's resources would be better spent promoting the interests of those of us who want to stay in the LLS not those that want to leave.
     
  2. I think the parity between QTLS and QTS will be highlighted as the new Diplomas take off.
    Teachers and those in the LLS will be moving between the Secondary Schools and FE organisations delivering to a wide range of 14-19 learners.
    Why should an FE Lecturer be allowed to teach 14-16 learners from a secondary school if they do not have QTS status?
     
  3. Jude Fawley

    Jude Fawley Lead commenter

    What the IfL should be worrying about is getting rid of all non qualified teachers in F E and getting teacher training robust enough so that, like myself, you can walk out of your teacher training college and go to work without all this nonsense.
    Thank god I qualifed in 1995 and have nothing to do with the IfL or QTLS and all that nonsense.

     
  4. I am currently mentoring some Assessors, in work based learning, whilst they do their DETTLs and I am quite frankly shocked at its limited scope. It is nothing like the PGCE that I had to do to become a qualified teacher.
    However, it would be dreadful if talented, skilled Assessors were made to leave work based learning because of their inability to pass these courses. If I visit a hairdresser I would rather they were trained by a talented hairdresser than me.
     
  5. What happens to those of us who do have a degree, Masters etc?
    Why can't I get APL parity?
    I have more subject knowledge than many schoolies and have to go throught the same rigmarole of Ofsted.
    I don't for one moment suggest that all of us in FE should be able to attain QTS, but those of us with an appropriate background are being prevented from doing so for no other reason than that shop is well and truly closed.
    I also think that schoolies need to show their ability to teach in the post compulsory sector. Colleagues from schools have some odd ideas about teaching 16 - 19 year olds! After all they have been trained in pedagogy and FE requires and understanding of androgogy!
    The issues are more complex than some make out. But in some wyas they are much more simple!
    If we treated students as we treat those in both sectors we would all be condemned for lack of differentiation. IMO any system for APLing QTS --> QTLS and vice versa needs to be more flexible and rigorous!
     



  6. Hi Lee. First of all congratulations on achieving FInstLM I received mine in 2005 and have consistently bemoaned the lack of effective management and management education in FE. Indeed, I was a trail blazer and as usually happens was heavily criticised at the time for making suggestions on improvements to the sector. So I hope you will also champion the need for strong leadership and management in the FE sector.

    Returning to your question; for me the issue is of tremendous importance, it is the single biggest factor in how we are perceived as dual professionals. Why should we suffer the indignity and rank unfairness of not having parity of esteem?
    We are in many instances eminently more occupationally qualified than teachers and certainly provide the impetus for many students to go and achieve in the real world of work. Many FE staff have a plethora of skills that school teachers simply do not possess. No doubt the opposing faction will list the argument that FE lecturers either do not possess a degree or a level 6/7 teaching qualification and yet many do; I do. Even if we take this argument at face value, this overlooks the obvious, which is, that if you want school children to understand and be motivated by the world of work, then it makes eminent sense to introduce them to trade skills and other vocational skills. The argument for me is about applied education, not degree education. It is about application and production and further synthesis which may or may not include higher education. For too long this country has looked down its liberal nose at training and the utilitarian outcomes linked to it. The obsession with getting more youngsters into university is deeply flawed and the country cannot afford it. It is not producing effective economic inputs or outputs.

    Can FE teachers/lecturers teach 14 year olds absolutely we do it already in many colleges why then should we endure the affected snobbery of those who claim they are better because they have managed to navigate their way around a set of competencies that if they thought about it are more akin to NVQ's than traditional/historical referencing.


    I want no I demand that my Institute protect and further my interests and those of my colleagues to secure true parity or recognition of esteem. Lee I want my QTLS to mean something to be proud of it. I didn't have to do it I did it because I wanted to prove and be seen to be a true teacher.
     
  7. What indignity?
    I don't want parity of esteem with school teachers thanks very much.
    I do not measure myself by their standards, and do not want to be measured by them.
    We should be singing our own song.
    Let's knock the chips of our shoulders and walk tall.

     
  8. Hi shirtandtie. The indignity and injustice I refer to are obvious. We are not regarded with the same respect and do not receive the same conditions or monetary reward. The parity of esteem issue is simply one of equality; that is being seen and accepted as a teacher. I think if you read my post carefully the message is clear I do not and am not arguing to be seen as a school teacher nor do I want QTS. I want my strand of the profession of teaching to be accorded the same respect as that bestowed by government om schoolteachers.

    I agree absolutely with you and have said it many times we as FE practitioners offer a unique service. All we need to do is to band together and make our position clear.
     
  9. I thought you would say this. But this is a political/industrial issue not a professional one. If by some magic QTLS was given parity with QTS nothing would change because the UCU cannot even enforce the rubbish pay deal it has already agreed with the employer.
    You will not find a school teacher that will agree that the government respects them, and they will site the imposition of the National Curriculum, league tables and much more as proof. Labour has not been willing to directly confront them on pay and conditions but they have already introduced the 'stalking horse' that the next government will use to break their national agreement (academies).
    Which brings me to my final point.
    It will prove a costly mistake to nail our colours to school teachers' ('cause they are goin' down bro).
    And why school teachers anyway? Why not parity with university lecturers? But that would be equally mistaken.
    We need to promote the one unique feature we have over the two sectors between which we are sandwiched; dual professionalism.
    That's our unique selling point. And that's what the IfL needs to be promoting, not whinging on about QTS parity. That's a dangerously distracting sideshow.
     
  10. I don't agree: If we are not at least as seen as possessing equal importance/relevance then on what foundation will you pursue your case S&T? Dual professionalism? yes this would be the most obvious but that would bring your argument back to what constitutes an appropriate level of evidenced professionalism/teaching qualification and that is the point you seem to be confused on. The way forward I think and it is not an unreasonable one is to argue that our unique strand of teaching is worthy of equal consideration/merit. Once we have this accepted then we can move on to the other aspects to do with true equality like pay and conditions.

    Whatever, job or career you are in there are always negatives. If the school teachers don't think that they are respected, then that it a separate argument for a different time, one which the conservatives at least, seem willing to debate.


    t
     
  11. Not confused at all.
    This is exactly what QTLS is designed to assess.
     


  12. With respect I know what the QTLS is designed to assess, after all I have it, thanks. You and I seem to disagree on how to get to where FE needs to get to. I just happen to believe that the IfL are going about it in a coherent fashion and I support their stance in attempting to improve the standing of all FE and skills teachers.
     
  13. Those of us who have been around and teaching long enough - getting on 20 years for me now, can recall when in about 1999 it was promised that before 2008 there would be equal recognition and parity between FE teaching staff and those in school and that this would be a two way street allowing FE teachers to work in schools for the 14 - 19 age range and that there would be no question of requiring said FE teachers to gain any further assessment.
    It would be a straight swap - just like QTS from school to FE has been.
    Now it seems an MP is demanding this with immediate effect because they now admit and recognise there was a mistake in the original legislation that stopped FE teachers getting the appropriate status and some people here still want to fight over it?
    I have been working for the best part of twenty years as a school teacher. I have taught mostly sixth form and GCSE ( although I did get QTS through an anomaly in about 2004) . I have taught vocational courses and straight academic courses in that time, all off the back of a PGCE in FE ( and of course a degree!)
    If there is any proof at all that a teacher is a teacher is a teacher, then I must be it.
    For Gods sakes stop squabbling with one poster ( who by the way has QTS - dont you shirt and tie?) and lets get on board and push it forward once and for all. People like Pobble and Mortymoo ( who isnt posting here right now) deserve this recognition - there were others who havent managed t9o stay the course - Bazza and Petekeefe - and they deserve to have their achievements recognised without having to be re assessed or taking a further course.
    It was pot in the first place. Its still pot. QTS and QTLS should have equal recognition in BOTH sectors. END OF - no arguments and no questions and no iffs and butts.
    Some of those who campaigned for that in 2000 are no longer here to see the day arrive - let alone this point on the way and we have Even had to fight one other poster here, who I see is now claiming he was in agreement all along - some of us have long memories Lee. We can remember how we had to argue and battle with you first!!!! Its overdue. Too long overdue. Get one with it ( even though it doesn't affect me at all!)
    It was promised.
     
  14. Whilst on the subject - for those who want to fight over how one can recognize QTLS and QTS as being the same - it just requires the same kind of statutory instrument as was used to recognise ALL school teachers who didnt have degrees and had trained to teach before 1989 ( or 1974 in some cases).
    Its the same as the statutory instrument that allowed a few FE teachers who had been working in FE before 1989 to get QTS using a cert ed in FE teaching.
    All it requires is a piece of paper from parliament which lays down who and what gets recognised and what for - and you have it - QTS and QTLS are the same and teachers transfer from one sector to the other via an APL ( for Pobble) . Its simpler than rocket science, been done before and isnt a problem.
     
  15. Indeed I do have QTS but it is not recognised by the IfL and I must apply for QTLS in exactly the same way as everyone else, something I am in the process of doing.
    The inequity is; that whereas I can move from secondary and gain QTLS in the LLS whilst employed as a qualified teacher/lecturer, the reverse cannot be done, and I've always said this is wrong and not ultimately in the interests of school children.
    But what is also wrong is the proposal to give parity between QTS and QTLS because they measure two different things in two very different ways. It would also create a back-door way into compulsory education to adults who should not be given the opportunity to teach children and who may put them at risk.
    Further I have questioned why my professional institution expends so much effort on this sideshow issue, and why they think it so important that we measure ourselves against the standards of others instead of developing our own standards based upon our USP of dual professionalism.
    Finally I do not suffer from any esteem issues, but what I do suffer from is relatively less pay compared to both my school and universty colleagues. But this is a political and industrial issue that will not be solved by QTS/QTLS parity, and IfL members should be wary that we are not being used as another stalking horse to attack school teachers' national pay and conditions with a view to bringing them down to our level, (this is overt Tory policy and barely hidden by Labour).
    And if anyone believes that QTS/QTLS parity would result in higher pay for us then they are very naive because the 'marketisation' genie is out of the bottle and will not go back in. The trick is to embrace it and turn it our own advantage. This is what the IfL should be concentrating on.
    I don't know who promised 'who' 'what' ten years ago. But what I suggest is that these promises and the agenda that went with them are out of date and it is time to move on. It's time for realpolitik and the recent dialogue between the IfL and the TDA couldn't be anything more opposite.
     
  16. Then there is something badly aims with your qualifications and experience shirt and tie.
    I have QTS ( which I didnt have to train for as it happens[​IMG] I got it through the statutory instrument because I was in teaching in FE before 1989) My QTS is recognised by the Ifl and I have QTLS as a result of applying for that from my QTS .....
    All swings on that QTS recognition.
    That said, I do not need QTLS to work in FE because again, I was qualified before the all important dates.
    The promises and the agenda were all part of the package that came in in 1999 and effectively cut many FE teachers off from recognised qualified status even though they had been teaching and were qualified appropriately ( or as the MP has said - it was an unintended consequence of the legislation).
    The "promise" resulted from the campaign which has been ongoing ever since to get QTS recognition for FE teachers who teach in the 14- 19 year olds. I was there at the beginning ( you were not otherwise you wouldnt need to ask or be so poncy about things here!).
    First there would be QTS. Then there would be qualification for all FE teachers and a QLS ( now QTLS) and then QTLS and QTS would have equal recognition from 2008 - allowing all FE teachers to work in schools without further need for training and vice versa. QTS has always been recognised in FE but QTLS ( FE trained teachers) became second class teachers with a next to useless qualification .
    But I am not appealing to you shirt and tie. I know your views. Everyone does.
    I am saying to others, pull your fingers out and get on board and get that recognition. You deserve it. But if you dont fight for it now, you wont have it. Tell Lee Davis what you want and make sure he does as he is told - and dont let the shirt and ties of this world put you down!!!!!!!
    Its your futures and your professional status. You should have the right to work in any sector of education with qualified recognition - there should not be a two tier system. Get one with it and stop squabbling!
    Us oldsters did out bit - now you need to push it forward. If you dont, dont belly ache asking about how you can get QTS afterwards! Too many threads in FE and in job clinic and career advice are full of FE teachers who want to move sectors or are teaching in SFC or sixth form and cannot get their qualifications recognised. NOW is the time to act!


     
  17. No it isn't. The IfL do not recognise QTS.
    But don't take my word for it, Lee will be happy to confirm this.
    If you entered the LLS before September 2007 with QTS you are exempt from the obligation of obtaining QTLS (as is everyone else in who were teaching in FE before September 2007). If you entered later than that, as I did, you must apply for QTLS within two years.
    I don't believe you. Not least because you do not teach in the LLS, you teach in an independent school.
    You have made this suspicious claim before.
    I do not believe you would qualifiy for QTLS, and it is a very dangerous, if not illegal claim to make if you don't actually have it.
    Yet again you are confusing membership of the IfL with QTLS - two very different things.
    This is a forum for those of us who work and teach in the LLS, not school teachers.
    Ill-informed contributions are not helpful to the debate.

     
  18. I do indeed work in an independent school. There is no requirement for me to apply for QTLS, however I can do so voluntarily regardless of where I work - and I did. I asked the IfL about it first. They told me to fill in a form which was on line ( and I did ) and in due course I got recognition and QTLS. I didnt do anything more to get it other than record my usual CPD ( that which I did at school for normal school teachers in a normal independent school).
    I have a habit of doing things and being first in line to do them - partly because I have learned from 20 years that it is often more muddled but less rigorous if you go in first . Many of the rules now in place to check and double check weren't existing when I did mine. I know IfL would be red faced over that but its true!
    But there is nothing stopping a school teacher or an unemployed teacher or one like me in an independent from applying for QTLS. I have the right background, I have the right qualifications, I have the right teaching experience and I work with the right group of students. I have engaged in a CPD process and I have recorded that appropriately and had it recognised as suitable for QTLS recognition. That I do not need it ( other than it makes my CV look good!) is irrelevant.
    I have been a member of the IfL since almost the beginning - Lee Davis knows that. We had a big row over it at the time because back then there was a lot of two and froing from him here! My membership number carries a lot of zeros and then two digits! Among the first 100 to be signed up I was shirt and tie!
    I believe this is a public forum and as such can be posted to by anyone who has an interest in FE matters. I may teach in an independent school but I work in the FE sector because I teach sixth form ( and only sixth form right now )
    I agree with you that ill informed contributions are not welcome in a debate like this. Its very important for many FE teachers - and for their future careers as well as for the students they teach, that they do get the recognition they need and deserve and that they fight for that now whilst the issue is on the debating floor. Its you shirt and tie , who needs to take a back seat right now.
     
  19. <h2>
    <h2>
    </h2>
    From the IfL website:
    "Holders of QTS who have started teaching in the sector since 1 September 2007 will continue to be recognised as being qualified to teach in further education"
    The IfL do recognise QTS.
    </h2>
     
  20. Sorry about the font changes on that - thats what you get with a cut and paste from one site to another.
     

Share This Page