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.
Discussion in 'Further Education' started by msprism, Mar 8, 2011.
Anyone seen the press release yet?
QTS/QTLS was an attempt by the Labour government to de-skill teaching. It allowed for anyone without a degree (or GCSE'S!) to be promoted within a school from assistant to QTS/LS an take teaching roles instead of degree teacher- on the lower part of the pay scale- or as in FE an 'unqualified' pay rate. PGCE Post Compulsory teachers are now unemployed because curriculum 'managers' select 'unqualified' teachers at interview- then award them QTLS over a couple of years- ie when they pass level 2 numeracy and PTLLS- what a joke!
Where is the evidence for this? What was QTS/QTLS de-skilling from?
In theory I think this might be possible. But very very unlikely. Schools cannot award QTS and I doubt you could find an awarding institution who would award QTS in such circumstances, (and that's not mention the tricky problem of passing the QTS numeracy, literacy and ICT tests without GCSEs)
Why would they do that? Putting unqualified staff into the classroom may save some money in the short term but threatens success rates which are the money earner.
Firstly colleges cannot award QTLS. Secondly you need a L5 teaching qualification as a mimimum.
Does anyone have link to or a copy of this?
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKEDMorning James You will no doubt be aware of the Wolf review recommendation 17 relating to the recognition of those with QTLS being able to gain employment in maintained schools as qualified teachers. The DfE press release Q and A states: Is your intention that QTLS and QTS merge? No. We are clear that we want to retain qualified teacher status as a separate status for a high quality graduate teaching profession in schools. In implementing this recommendation we intend to recognise that schools should have the freedom to be able to employ effective QTLS-holding teachers to teach subjects in which they have professional and vocational expertise." My colleague Julie Hughes has prepared a more detailed briefing note about the review and its recommendations that should be cleared and available to you within the next few days. I’ll be in touch again once we are in a position to share that with you. Best wishes QTS team policy lead
Do you not think there is a clear gulf between the pre-requisities, summative and formative assessments of the two qualifications? QTLS appears to be very much a tick-box exercise at best.
Also, the notion of putting a new teacher in front of a class, with absoutely zero experience and allowing them to teach a full course whilst simultaneously learning how to teach strikes me as a completely perverse and possibly counter-productive method of training.
I can see why there is a sentiment from the school crowd for keeping QTS/QTLS separate.
My PGCE was no different to that of a schools - you have missed my point completely. QTLS is a box ticking exercise just as QTS is an inherent form of safe-guarding jobs by schools. If I was vocationally trained I would agree with the differences but I am not and the standards in Sixth Form are exceptionally high and as pressurised as those is schools. In my work-place differentiation is vast as we are an inclusive Sixth Form so planning each session is so in itself varied (no sets or streams to help). I do not posess QTLS because of the year I completed my PGCE but I had the same day release/placement/mentor experience as those I know who completed a schools PGCE. In my time as an FE lecturer and now 'Sixth Form Teacher' (job title on my contract) I have taught GCSE; AS; A2 and Key Skills so the issue I have is - schools are happy to send the difficult kids into FE and be taught outside of a school environment. Governments are happy for FE lecturers to re-teach students core subjects and/or GCSEs they have to re-take and teach Level 1 courses to students for whom school has not 'worked out for' but they do not want to give us parity. This is inherently wrong. I am trying to assert that I am a grey area that has not been resolved and as I do teach a range of ages 7+ as part of the marketing process at my institution I have found the job skills do not differ, only the level and approach which as a professional I can easily adapt to.
Sorry, but what is it exactly that is not resolved?
Sorry I got a little lost there. When you work in Sixth Form (no school attached) you are a totally grey area in the QTS vs QTLS argument. I feel there is no difference (for someone like me) between the qualifications (bar QTS) and the training other than the qualification's name.. The lack of parity between sectors is a grey area I feel as I am not a vocational teacher I teach Key Stage 5 and have taught Key Stage 4; I have never taught Vocational subjects. Previous posters on other boards have discussed that the 'training and quals' are what distinguishes the sectors. If you are a vocational teacher without GCSE core subjects then there is an argument that there are differences as school teachers need these quals. But, if like me this is not the case it irritates me that I cannot have parity with a Secondary teacher when I have the same skills.
In what way do you not have parity?
Are you sure about that?. I've been told if it is confirmed that QTLS holders can teach in school then a QTLS holders will only be able to teach vocational courses in schools - not GCSEs or A levels, etc.
If that is the case then IfL is lying to us...its not parity at all.
In fact it seems to be confirmed in the house of commons
"Barry Sheerman MP (Lab, Huddersfield) asked the Secretary of State for Education if he will assess the merits of convergence for (a) Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills and (b) Qualified Teacher status and if he will bring forward proposals to enable teachers with Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills status to teach vocational subjects in schools at the same salary level as teachers with Qualified Teacher status.
The Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb MP (Con, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) said that Professor Wolf, as part of her review of vocational education, is looking at work force issues including the role of QTLS-holding teachers in schools.
Following her review of vocational education, Professor Wolf recommended that Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills (QTLS) status should be recognised in schools for the delivery of vocational education. The Secretary of State for Education immediately accepted this recommendation.
We will consult fully on any amendments to the existing regulations and give schools adequate notice of any legislative changes. QTLS holders should be able to teach vocational subjects in schools as soon as possible subject to statutory requirements and parliamentary process".
Of course it's parity you thick numpty - at present I cannot teach cheffing in schools, with this I will be able to ..... if you want to teach school subjects, train as a bleedin' school teacher.
It may be parity for you chuffie - but how can it be 'parity' for 'expert teachers' in FE who teach 'A' levels and GCSEs...They teach what you call 'school subjects' day in day out but their qualification may still not be recognised by schools - how is that parity?
The email I got from IfL a few weeks ago claimed IfL's success would 'allow qualified further education lecturers to teach in school classrooms on the same basis as qualified school teachers. Nowhere in the email did IFL specify that teachers of vocational subject <u>only</u> can teach in schools. In fact IfLs triumphant email doesnt even mention the word 'vocational'. What changed?
IfL’s work leading to Wolf recommendation that FE teachers with QTLS should be recognised to teach in schools
I am delighted to be able to share with you that the Wolf Report, published today, shows that IfL has made progress for the further education teaching profession. IfL’s persistent work to influence policy at the highest levels has resulted in a robust recommendation by Professor Alison Wolf that QTLS status must be recognised for teaching in schools as well as in further education. This development will benefit young people wherever they learn.
I am meeting with schools and further education ministers about QTLS and QTS next week, and will urge schools policymakers to accept this recommendation in the Wolf Review, and without extra restrictions and caveats.The views from 5,000 teachers and trainers who contributed to IfL’s evidence to the Wolf Review have made a difference to policy. IfL as your professional body is making progress for you to support career flexibilities and to get increased recognition of your professional status.
IfL has worked with a range of others to create a movement to change an out-of-date and narrow policy that prevented expert teachers in further education with QTLS from teaching in schools.Special thanks to the senior parliamentarians who have worked with IfL and championed QTLS being recognised properly for teaching in schools, in particular Baroness Margaret Sharp; Barry Sheerman MP, former chair of the education select committees; Graham Stuart MP, his successor; and Lord Tim Boswell.
![/i][/URL] As follows:
‘To allow qualified further education lecturers to teach in school classrooms on the same basis as qualified school teachers’
Its very sad that you think this way. I have completed DTTLS course and have a degree in Biochemistry, and more than enough GCSE's. I took this option because I needed to be employed and still work. I welcome the opportunity to be able to teach in schools after taking this course for two years. Thanks to croydon college for giving me the opportunity to do this!
I do not have a problem with schools or FE - I have a problem with Sixth Forms being stuck in this middle-ground. It is really hard to be able to work out how everything will effect the sectors and parity. I have always found this 'situation' confusing - I still do to be honest...
- think what way?
Indeed...have you asked the IFL for clarification? my partner has...but no response so far.
His question was quite simple on parity regarding teaching A levels and GCSEs requiring either 'Yes' or 'No'
I am really frustrated by the whole system - irrespective of your area of teaching it still feels that parity is not there yet. I am not an IFL member so to-date I have avoided all contact with them. I'll get ATL to fight my battles
Words from the Wolf Report itself:
<font size="4" face="Plantin-Bold">'Recommendation 17
</font>At present teachers with QTS can teach in FE colleges; the FE equivalent – QTLS –
should be recognised in schools, which is currently not the case. This will enable schools
to recruit qualified professionals to teach courses at school level (rather than bussing
pupils to colleges) with clear efficiency gains.
<font size="4" face="Plantin-Bold">Recommendation 18
</font>Clarify and evaluate rules relating to the teaching of vocational content by qualified
professionals who are not primarily teachers/do not hold QTLS. Many schools believe
that it is impossible to bring professionals in to demonstrate/teach even part of a course
without requiring the presence of additional, salaried teaching staff. This further reduces
the incidence of high quality vocational teaching, delivered to the standards that
industries actually require.'
Make of all this what you will.