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

QTLS, QTS and parity

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

  1. Normal
    0




    false
    false
    false

    EN-GB
    X-NONE
    X-NONE













    MicrosoftInternetExplorer4





























































































































































    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-priority:99;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0cm;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}



    Alexander
    Thanks for your comments on the ILM, it was by invitation
    and am speaking at the annual conference later this year in Manchester. You will know that the ILM is a part of the
    City & Guilds group and I have a long association with the awarding body,
    going back to my own craft training days.
    We are hoping to do a series of ‘dual professional’ case studies,
    working with those professional bodies who support the subject specialist side
    of our members’ professional identity and the ILM will be in the first (pilot)
    phase of these.


    Shirt and Tie
    I don’t think we are championing the interests of those who
    want to leave the sector. Good or bad,
    for many of our members parity of esteem with our school teaching colleagues is
    seen as important, but we have always approached this from the perspective of
    recognising the intrinsic value of the professional identity of FE teachers and
    this is now starting to resonate with policy makers and the media, as evidenced
    in FE Focus on Friday.
    The reality is that FE needs the very best vocationalists
    from business, industry and commerce, from private, public and voluntary
    sectors, in order to offer the range of subjects that UK plc needs to be
    successful and emerge from recession.
    These will be a mix of graduates and non-graduates in terms of the
    qualifications that underpin their subject expertise and we make no distinction
    in terms of value as we recognise that the time and effort taken to achieve
    vocational excellence is comparable to the academic journey.
    This is why we have welcomed the assessment only route to
    QTS, but challenged government to go the extra mile if it is to achieve its
    aspirations for 14 – 19 education and training.
    This does not mean a relaxation of the exacting standards set for school
    teaching, QTLS can be recognised within the schools environment for its true
    value without any dilution – we are not saying that QTLS should lead to the
    conferral of QTS, simply that those holding QTLS are recognised as being on a
    par with the colleagues they often teach alongside in terms of their subject
    expertise and in teaching and learning, whilst accepting that some form of
    orientation is necessary.
     
  2. Note to self: remember that the TES forum technology struggles to cope with pasting text from Word!!
     
  3. I know you dont like me Lee. I know you dont agree with me ( and I know I can be accused of not being part of this debate.
    However it is my understanding from what I read and hear and from everything I have heard and read and been told over the last 10 years or more , FE teachers do NOT want an assessment only route.
    We have that. It isn't what you claim. Its a GTP - often takes longer than a standard GTP and it is effectively re training ( but without a PGCE).
    What I think FE teachers want ( and maybe they will start to say something if I say it first) is an APL route to QTS or an APEL to QTS.
    You know what that means as well as I do! It means Accredited Prior Learning ( or APEL - Accredited Prior Experiential Learning). There is a big difference between that and the assessment only route.
    APL would allow those FE teachers who have qualifications and experience to identify those things, record them and simply obtain QTS via a process of recognition . Its what I did in 2004.
    I filled in a form which asked me for my qualifications. I filled in a column which said what experience I had of teaching and where I had taught. I asked my college principal to sign it to say I was a competent teacher and I presented my bits of paper for verification. I sent the form off and QTS came back in the post!
    Thats what most FE teachers want if I am not mistaken.
    Dont fob them off with assessment only PLEASE LISTEN for once.
     
  4. Hi *******
    I know your background and you make a lot of interesting points in your posts.
    My take on the situation is this: If I hold QTLS (which I do) and I am allowed to teach in schools and be paid the same as school teachers (which I will) why then would I need QTS when my qualification will be accepted as being on a par with QTS. Your argument thus becomes largely redundant as you won't need to APL/APEL unless of course you want QTS or need it in relation to the specialist younger group.

     
  5. I am quite happy to accept your point - and if QTLS were recognised as being equivalent to QTS for the purposes of teaching in school, that would be equally OK as far as I can see. Its precisely the situation that IfL have with QTS as being equivalent to QTLS at present.
    But that would in effect be what an APL would do.
    The problem is that QTLS is not recognised in school. It needs a mechanism that says directly that if you have this particular status is it accepted as full qualification for working anywhere within either sector ( I would add a proviso - for the 14 - 19 age range although I am not sure its necessary to do that).
    That would make the situation a bit like that of ( I hope you are old enough to remember) the O level and CSE grade 1. Both were accepted as equivalent ( especially for teacher training) although they were different qualifications, courses etc. You didnt have to do another qualification or more training to get the qualification accepted for any job that required an O level.
    A similar analogy is that of a driving licence ( like all analogies they fall down - but this might be closer) In the UK we have two FULL recognised driving licences ( without discussing HGV etc). One is a FULL licence for driving a geared car, the other a FULL licence for driving an automatic car ( a car defined as one not having a foot clutch change - which isnt quite the same thing these days, since my latest car has the paddle semi auto technology which is drivable on a automatics licence but I digress)
    Noth driving licences are vaid. Both are UK. Both are recognized equally . The difference is that if you have an automatic licence you are limited to driving cars with automatic transmission .
    If you have a manual licence you can drive automatic transmissions and manuals but its still the same valid licence.
    I see no reason why QTLS should not have the same recognition in schools as QTS - both valid statuses - the one being for 14 - 19 only ( as in training ) and QTS as is presently, for teaching any age group.
    That would solve the problem to all intents and purposes. All that requires is that some bods at the GTC and the IfL come to an agreement.
    I personally still think that full blown QTS - one status for all - should not be out of the question to be honest. But I can live with the compromise above and it allows FE teachers to work in school without any need for " assessment only routes" or anything else - after all they would still be doing what they do - teaching 14 - 19 year olds, just in a school setting rather than an FE college.
    I think that is really what FE teachers want - recognition as qualified and the ability to move sectors and teach freely without stupid QTS/ QTLS barriers. APL is the best way for that.
     
  6. Perhaps teaching in compulsory and post-compulsory should have just one teaching qualification and then a specialist pathway e.g for skills. That way all could theoretically teach in either sector and be recognised and if either avenue called for additional requirements they could be met by merely completing CPD or on the job training. The issue around graduate only entry completely misses the point in today's climate and so unless the teachers area was academic I can't see why a teacher would need a degree. Indeed, many dual professionals have graduate level qualifications. As Mr Davies himself pointed out he has a long and distinguished association with City and Guilds as do I (I have 2 Graduateship in Management and training and development equal to an honours degree level 6) so for applied learning, FE and skills teachers could be viewed with more flexibility.

    Put me down immediately Mr Davies, as an ifl policy thinker lol.
     
  7. I will put my worth in. I want to be able to work where I like subject to getting a job. I dont see why there has to be a division between FE and school , especially when we are teaching the same age group but just in school and not FE. I want parity. I dont want to be seen as second class. I agree with Alex tg and *******. QTLS should have recognition for working in school.
     
  8. I am currently studying the PGDTLLS course resulting on QTLS. I have been told by my course leader that the qualification will allow me to work with anyone aged 14+; no matter what route that student is taking (GCSE, Diploma etc). My class has been advised to apply for jobs in schools as many headteachers do recognise QTLS and the subject specialism that it often carries. If I get a job in a secondary school then I would be more than happy to produce the necessary paperwork in order to gain QTS but like quite a few people I agree that secondary QTS and FE QTLS should be able to cross over.

    I am now seeking my first teaching role and jobs within FE are very limited for my subject. If I wanted to teach abroad then I'd be laughing but I'm not. Therefore I am now applying to secondary schools with a sixth form to get that lucky break.
     
  9. Deborandum, I am a full member of the Institute for Learning (MiFL) and in addition PGCE (Post-16) and also QTS (11-18). I think the main problem with the IFL is thefact that they should have tried to set a very high standard to equate FE QTLS to that of the school's QTS. In thsi regard, IFL should require all teachers wishing to pursue QTLS to possess a minimum of A-C GCSE grades in English and Maths. In addition, the process of the QTLS should make it a must that everyone should take Skills Test in English, Maths and ICT comparable to that of the the School's QTS. Once this is done, then I see no reason why parity cannot be challenged. In most cases, a good percentage of the FE staff do not even have the equivalent of a good pass grade in English and Maths at GCSE. In addition, if you are to consider a degree as a minimum, then it makes it even harder to consider parity as these are the basic requirements to become a school teacher (Secondary and Primary with Science counted as well).
    As things are at the moment, IFL are just fighting a loosing battle and whatever lecturers delivering PGDTLLS courses at universities are saying, the situation is quite different in practice / reality. If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications
     
  10. Deborandum, I am a full member of the Institute for Learning (MiFL) and in addition PGCE (Post-16) and also QTS (11-18). I think the main problem with the IFL is thefact that they should have tried to set a very high standard to equate FE QTLS to that of the school's QTS. In thsi regard, IFL should require all teachers wishing to pursue QTLS to possess a minimum of A-C GCSE grades in English and Maths. In addition, the process of the QTLS should make it a must that everyone should take Skills Test in English, Maths and ICT comparable to that of the the School's QTS. Once this is done, then I see no reason why parity cannot be challenged. In most cases, a good percentage of the FE staff do not even have the equivalent of a good pass grade in English and Maths at GCSE. In addition, if you are to consider a degree as a minimum, then it makes it even harder to consider parity as these are the basic requirements to become a school teacher (Secondary and Primary with Science counted as well).
    As things are at the moment, IFL are just fighting a loosing battle and whatever lecturers delivering PGDTLLS courses at universities are saying, the situation is quite different in practice / reality. If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications
    ad
     
  11. Deborandum, I am a full member of the Institute for Learning (MiFL) and in addition PGCE (Post-16) and also QTS (11-18). I think the main problem with the IFL is thefact that they should have tried to set a very high standard to equate FE QTLS to that of the school's QTS. In thsi regard, IFL should require all teachers wishing to pursue QTLS to possess a minimum of A-C GCSE grades in English and Maths. In addition, the process of the QTLS should make it a must that everyone should take Skills Test in English, Maths and ICT comparable to that of the the School's QTS. Once this is done, then I see no reason why parity cannot be challenged. In most cases, a good percentage of the FE staff do not even have the equivalent of a good pass grade in English and Maths at GCSE. In addition, if you are to consider a degree as a minimum, then it makes it even harder to consider parity as these are the basic requirements to become a school teacher (Secondary and Primary with Science counted as well).
    As things are at the moment, IFL are just fighting a loosing battle and whatever lecturers delivering PGDTLLS courses at universities are saying, the situation is quite different in practice / reality. If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications and
     
  12. Deborandum, I am a full member of the Institute for Learning (MiFL) and in addition PGCE (Post-16) and also QTS (11-18). I think the main problem with the IFL is thefact that they should have tried to set a very high standard to equate FE QTLS to that of the school's QTS. In thsi regard, IFL should require all teachers wishing to pursue QTLS to possess a minimum of A-C GCSE grades in English and Maths. In addition, the process of the QTLS should make it a must that everyone should take Skills Test in English, Maths and ICT comparable to that of the the School's QTS. Once this is done, then I see no reason why parity cannot be challenged. In most cases, a good percentage of the FE staff do not even have the equivalent of a good pass grade in English and Maths at GCSE. In addition, if you are to consider a degree as a minimum, then it makes it even harder to consider parity as these are the basic requirements to become a school teacher (Secondary and Primary with Science counted as well).
    As things are at the moment, IFL are just fighting a loosing battle and whatever lecturers delivering PGDTLLS courses at universities are saying, the situation is quite different in practice / reality. If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications and
    te
     
  13. Deborandum, I am a full member of the Institute for Learning (MiFL) and in addition PGCE (Post-16) and also QTS (11-18). I think the main problem with the IFL is thefact that they should have tried to set a very high standard to equate FE QTLS to that of the school's QTS. In thsi regard, IFL should require all teachers wishing to pursue QTLS to possess a minimum of A-C GCSE grades in English and Maths. In addition, the process of the QTLS should make it a must that everyone should take Skills Test in English, Maths and ICT comparable to that of the the School's QTS. Once this is done, then I see no reason why parity cannot be challenged. In most cases, a good percentage of the FE staff do not even have the equivalent of a good pass grade in English and Maths at GCSE. In addition, if you are to consider a degree as a minimum, then it makes it even harder to consider parity as these are the basic requirements to become a school teacher (Secondary and Primary with Science counted as well).
    As things are at the moment, IFL are just fighting a loosing battle and whatever lecturers delivering PGDTLLS courses at universities are saying, the situation is quite different in practice / reality. If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications and the s
     
  14. Continuation from previous:
    If conditions are relaxed just because people think they want to become a school teacher, possibly to be at parity in pay, then they must seek to work towards the same minimum qualifications and if Conservative happen to win the next election it will be a no go area for some of these un-qualified FE staff to even entering classrooms in schools.
    I am not being too critical or nasty, but this is the reality and you must remember that I also come the same FE sector (Sixth Form College as part of the wider FE legislation).

     
  15. Emerson

    Thanks for the several replies!!
    Im ok then because I have all the correct GCSE's and completed my degree last year so have a level 6 qualification. [​IMG]

     
  16. serendippy

    serendippy New commenter

    I am a trainee lecturer in FE currently and it seems to me that parity is going to become essential in raising standards accross the board in education. The lack of morale from the pay scale differences between QTS schoolies and QTLS lecturers ultimately impacts negatively on the students. A school teacher with a good degree (2:1 or 1st) and basic GCSE grades with NO little or no work experience outside of teaching can achieve QTS, then why not a lecturer with a good degree (2:1 or 1st) and 5,10, 20 years of relevant work/industry experience?
    The knowledge gained from actually 'doing' a job that feeds into the subject being taught must have a value at least equivalent with a couple of GCSEs gained at school. Are we really expected to believe that parity in esteem and pay is based on this type of tenuous nonsense.
    The only issue with QTLS/QTS is whether FE lecturers have a first degree and a PGCE/teaching qualification. Those working in FE without these qualifications are obviously not at the same academic level as those working in schools with QTS. The IFL should continue to work toward making this the standard minimum for entry into the profession, which then leaves no argument against parity between the two sectors. The rest is just prejudice and snobbery.
    SMF
     
  17. Isheo1308, I can understand where you are coming from, but that does not mean that what is consider as a minimum for entry into a profession should be made flexible just because you happen to gain a top grade in one of your unit assignment.

    As mentioned previously, my background is also from the FE sector (Sixth Form College) and I am very happy for proving myself as being capable to gain the QTS award within the shortest possible time of 3 months after my PGCE post-16 qualification.
    Then if you consider yourself to be a better teacher, I will then advice you to make the necessary step forward to gain the QTS so as to enable you to be considered as a fully qualified teacher in the mainstream sector.
    There is no way in which I will want the criteria to be relaxed. As I always say to my eldest daughter, the core of your success in life is Engish and Maths regardless her aspirations. As someone said earlier, Level 4 NVQ in ICT is not the same as going through the rigor of passing the skills test.
     
  18. They do! L2 numeracy and literacy has equivalence!
    Really? Given that L2 numeracy and literacy are now needed what use is the ICT when most people use computers every day? VLE, PP and Word skills etc are simply taught in twilight INSET - I know as I run them!
    Where is your proof for that astonishing statement?
    Many FE lecturers have degrees or industry equivalence. Are you really going to argue that a lecturer in construction has to have an English degree or that a GCSE English teacher can teach bricklaying? I hope not.
    Also the DTLLS also have equivalence to a PGCE! Previous experience APLd.....
    .....Now consider the other vocational courses in industries that have their own qualification standards.... do you discount them all? There are many industries in which there is no degree to be taken!
    That would be dangerous if we were teaching automechanics, I assume you meant 'losing'.
    No, some want to teach in FE not in schools. I have absolutely no desire to teach in a school!
    Good job I won't be voting Tory and that I don't want to step foot inside a school!


    But you are making assumptions.
    No, Sixth Forms are not part of the wider FE legislation. The curricula are the same but the funding streams, regulations, etc are entirely different. You are teaching within the Secondary sector, I teach in FE!

    As for your last post, it is littered with typos and nonsensical utterances, e.g.

    Are you really trying to be insulting and condescending there?

    I teach in the mainstream sector - FE is mainstream! And it does not require QTS - that is for teachers within Primary/Secondary sectors!
    I teach with colleagues with a great breadth and variety of experience and extant education levels. None of them are stupid, ineffective or in anyway deficient within their subject areas. Some of them don't have a single GCSE (O level, CSE) to their name but have attained all of the necessary teaching certification to be allowed to teach their specialisms and a number of them are deemed to be outstanding teachers (Ofsted last November).
    I REALLY don't see what your point actually is, except for deliberately insulting FE lecturers, and using inaccurate information in order to do so!

    By the way, I will quite happily play a 100% honest game of Education Top Trumps with any QTS teacher as I am sure my education levels are absolutely fine for the subjects I teach at A Level and BTEC.
     
  19. The Pobble I can understand the reason for being angry, but it is exactly the truth.

    In the first place, you need to read through the law as to what constitute the 'wider FE' charter. I spent 5 good years as a Sixth Form teacher and them moved into the school sector and now back in the Sixth Form sector. So you cannot challenge me on this. To confirm it, Sixth Form colleges are part of the wider FE sector. You may not agree on this, but I will require you to do mor eof your reading rather than chatting RUBBISH.

    You made a statement about the fact that people someone who is an Engineer (from the construction industry) would not necessarily need to take a skills test in Maths, but there are people with PhD (English, Maths and ICT) in the school sector who had to take the skills test as it is the minimum requirements to become a fully qualified teacher with "Qualfied Teacher Status". The law cannot be relaxed just because some peopleare looking forward to an easy passage.

    To correct you once more again, FE is not a mainstream school sector. I cannot feel insulted by what you have replied to as you are just a complete idiot who possibly is looking for an easy route to becoming a qualified teacher in school without satisfying the minimum criteria. I feel sorry for qualified people in the FE sector (that is, a degree plus minimum of a C grade in English and Maths) who seemed to be part of a bunches of your type.

    I initially did my teacher training in the post-16 sector (PGCE), but on taking up a job in the school sector I had no option other than going through a 3 months employment-based route to QTS (Goldsmiths College) and with all GCSE requirements of C grade in English and Maths satisfied. To be honest with you, I would ever continue to oppose the idea of people gaining parity through an easy means.

    To warp it all, I am a full member of the IfL and if given the opportunity to become a council member, I will always continue to oppose the easy option to gaining parity. I am not a conservative, but I whole heartedly support them about ensuring that quality is maintained and for them to relax the condition of a Minimum of a C grade in English and Maths and also a minimum of a 2ii degree will be a no go area for some people in the FE sector.


     
  20. The Pobble, as an addition the reason for the pay differential between Sixth Form and the bigger FE colleges is due to the structure of the two areas. Sixth Form colleges were originally designed to offer academic courses and therefore all teachers working in it are degree holders (with over 90% satisfying the GCSE requirements of C grade in English and Maths) and are capable of teaching academic courses. Due to the expansion of equal opportunities for the not-so academic students there was an onus on Sixth Form colleges to open uptheir curriculum offer into vocational subjects. Therefore because of ths Sixth Form colleges are now in the position of employing non-degree teachers.
    So you can now see why even in the wider FE sector there is a big pay differential. So The Pobble, please read up on these things and particularly what constitute the 'WIDER FE SECTOR". I am very sorry for your ignorance and stupidity.
     

Share This Page