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.