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

Unqualified teachers in the classroom, a real worry

Discussion in 'Secondary' started by SarahB101, Jun 9, 2008.

  1. Post39 Christopher Curtis
    I totally agree but we have a big problem with shortage subjects (physics, chemistry and maths) and I know of a Chemistry teacher who recently was fast tracked (6 months) to be trained under the GTP training in school and is now an NQT. She is deemed to have passed her training but has never done a practical with any class or a demo and her subject knowledge is poor. We do not just have the problem of untrained teachers but (in shortage subjects) of poorly trained so called specialists. It is a real mess in some schools. I believe that in some areas there is only one physics teachers for every four schools.
     
  2. Malaguena

    Malaguena New commenter

    Its getting down to a personal level. No-one is suggesting, on an individual teacher level, unqualified = bad teacher, qualified = good teacher.

    However, if we want to keep teaching as a profession which requires professional standards and qualfications to enter it then we as a profession SHOULD be saying that we won't put up with unqualifieds in it to save money.

    This apathy will eventually cost us our jobs. I am a qualified, experienced MFL teacher on M6. Why should a head employ me at 30 grand when he can have some cheap native speaker in to teach and pay them 20?

    It should be illegal to teach in a UK state school without the correct professional qualifications. That is the way it seems to be in other countries - why not here?

    How about an amnesty - all teachers by two thousand and whatever need to hold, or be working towards, an appropriate professional qualification in teaching.

     
  3. Christopher  Curtis

    Christopher Curtis Occasional commenter

    It is illegal to teach in Victoria in any school, whether state or private, unless you are registered with the Victorian Institute of Teaching. There is no justification for private schools having different rules.
     
  4. It seems to me that some of the people in this thread fail to recognise the fact that there are different types of 'unqualified teacher':

    1. Teachers like me who have teaching qualifications that are NOT recognised by schools because we are teaching FE courses in school 6th forms. E.g. I have a PGCE (Post-compulsory) and a degree in Psychology but do not have QTS because until January this year, I taught in colleges NOT school 6th Forms. However, thanks to our wonderful Labour Government which decided to prioritise educational funding to schools and increase the leaving age to 18, we now have move into a sector that we're not 'qualified' to teach, and retrain in this sector, so that we can show that we are in fact qualified to teach the age group that we specialise in, regardlessof what type of building we are teaching them in, in order to earn enough money to live on in the light of the recent credit crunch.

    2. Teachers who are 'qualified' in the sense that they are subject specialists and have some experience of teaching in schools/colleges but haven't got any teaching qualifications per se.

    3. Pseudo teachers, such some unqualified TAs who think that they know how to teach better than teachers do and are employed instead of us, so that the school can save money.

    So to clarify my argument surrounding qualified teachers:

    I believe that type 1 teachers are just as qualified as secondary school teachers when teaching the types of courses and age groups that we specialise in. Thus, I feel angry with both posters on here and other people who fail to recognise this grey area, espcially as we're often the people finally brought in to conceal the ****-ups made by some secondary school teachers who try to teach specialist subjects that they are absolutely clueless about, such as A-Level Psychology, after a school's pointless search for subject specialist with QTS! This is why I began teaching in a school 6th form in January. Until then, I was aware that my PGCE didn't lead to QTS and therefore did not qualify me to teach in a school, which didn't bother me at all because I wanted to be a college teacher!

    Moreover, I admire type 2 teachers who have adapted themselves to an unfamiliar environment for which they've only received on the job training and support their efforts to show that they too are qualified by undergoing recognised teacher training (school based teacher training programmes).

    However, I totally agree that the use of type 3 teachers should be banned! Legally, they're not supposed to be teaching at all, so the schools who use these teachers are playing a dangerous game! If they want to teach, they should do some formal teacher training like other teachers. Moreover, it is scandalous if these teachers are indeed being employed in favour of more highly qualified subject specialists, in order to save money.

    By the way, I have a message for the posters who feel that it's there job to criticise everyone's use of english in this thread:

    I'm not going to apologise for my use of English anymore! The TES forum is supposed to be an informal place where teachers can chat and let off steam, so as long as people on the TES forum can understand my thoughts, feelings and opinions expressed in my posts, my writing style, dialect and use of spelling, grammar and punctuation in my posts is really NONnoen of your business! I therefore respectfully suggest that unless the TES admin team is paying you to check and correct people's writing style and keep a count of SPG errors made in every post, that you keep your critical and unhelpful comments about people's English to yourself, so that the rest of us can talk about more relevant topics, such as this one!

    Thank you

    Lynsita



     
  5. It seems to me that some of the people in this thread fail to recognise the fact that there are different types of 'unqualified teachers':

    Type 1. Teachers like me who have teaching qualifications that are NOT recognised by schools because we are teaching FE courses in school 6th forms. E.g. I have a PGCE (Post-compulsory) and a degree in Psychology but do not have QTS because until January this year, I taught in colleges NOT school 6th Forms. However, thanks to our wonderful Labour Government which decided to prioritise educational funding to schools and increase the leaving age to 18, we now have move into a sector that we're not 'qualified' to teach, and retrain in this sector, so that we can show that we are in fact qualified to teach the age group that we specialise in, regardlessof what type of building we are teaching them in, in order to earn enough money to live on in the light of the recent credit crunch.

    Type 2. Teachers who are 'qualified' in the sense that they are subject specialists and have some experience of teaching in schools/colleges but haven't got any teaching qualifications per se.

    Type 3. 'Pseudo teachers', such some unqualified TAs who think that they know how to teach better than teachers do, and are employed instead of us, so that the school can save money.

    So, to clarify my argument surrounding qualified teachers:

    I believe that type 1 teachers are just as qualified as secondary school teachers when teaching the types of courses and age groups that they specialise in. Thus, I feel angry with both posters on here and other people who fail to recognise this grey area, espcially as they're often the people finally brought in to conceal the ****-ups made by some secondary school teachers who try to teach specialist subjects that they are absolutely clueless about, such as A-Level Psychology, after a school's pointless search for subject specialist with QTS ends in defeat! This is why I began teaching in a school 6th form in January. Until then, I was aware that my PGCE didn't lead to QTS and therefore did not qualify me to teach in a school, which didn't bother me at all because I wanted to be a college teacher!

    Moreover, I admire type 2 teachers who have adapted themselves to an unfamiliar environment for which they've only received on the job training and support their efforts to show that they too are qualified by undergoing recognised teacher training (school based teacher training programmes).

    However, I totally agree that the use of type 3 teachers should be banned! Legally, they're not supposed to be teaching at all, so the schools who use these teachers are playing a dangerous game! If they want to teach, they should do some formal teacher training like other teachers. Moreover, it is scandalous if these teachers are indeed being employed in favour of more highly qualified subject specialists, in order to save money.

    By the way, I have a message for the posters who feel that it's their job to criticise everyone's use of English in this thread and others:

    I'm not going to apologise for my use of English anymore! The TES forum is supposed to be an informal place where teachers can chat and let off steam. Hence, my view is that as long as people on the TES forum can understand my thoughts, feelings and opinions expressed in my posts, my writing style, dialect and use of spelling, grammar and punctuation in my posts is really none of your business! I therefore respectfully suggest that unless the TES admin team is paying you to check and correct people's writing styles and keep a count of the numer of SPG errors made in every post, that you keep your critical and unhelpful comments about people's English to yourself, so that the rest of us can talk about more relevant topics, such as this one!

    Thank you

    Lynsita

    PS. I also suggest that other people on here adopt the same attitude as me when submitting their posts. You don't have to be perfect to be professional and life's too short to be perfect!



     
  6. Malaguena

    Malaguena New commenter

    Lynsita - if you have a PGCE, even if it is in post-compulsory, I would consider that you are a qualified teacher and eligible to teach anyway. I consider it a complete anomoly (and a complete farce) that someone who completes a certificate with the word Education in it is not eligible for QTS.

     
  7. Fully agree with you both. I have a post 16 cert Ed but have just failed the second placement of my PGCE for teaching secondary. The course I took was not about learning to teach, but surviving the bullying and fuelling Qualified teachers egos as they tell you how hard their job is.
     
  8. Thank you both very much for your support and recognition of my situation. It makes a pleasant change from the reaction of some of my new colleagues during the induction day at my new school! I.e. They didn't have a clue as to:

    1. Why I had a PGCE but not QTS.

    2. What the term post-compulsory meant.

    Ok, the PGCE (post-compulsory) was only introduced a few years before I obtained mine (1/8/05) and when I was looking for my PGCE course, only 2 Unis in London offered post-compulsory courses, but it's been around for a few years now, so why these people hadn't heard of it or similar teacher training courses for FE, I do not know!

    Btw, I've applied to do the University of Gloucestershire's distance learning Assessment Based Option Route to QTS course, so I can get QTS without having to retrain.

     
  9. Malaguena

    Malaguena New commenter

    As I said, I am completely confused at why a person who has completed a Post Graduate Certificate in EDUCATION is not allowed to have Qualified Teacher Status.

    Did you have to go to university to learn about pedagogy? Complete teaching placements? Meet standards? Because this is what I had to do as a PGCE Secondary student. Is there something fundamentally different about the post-compulsory PGCE that I don't know?

    My view is that anyone who wishes to teach should complete some kind of professional training. This training should include pedagogical theory (current and past), practice of the theory in a classroom situation, reflection of that practice and a recap of the subject content to be taught, ensuring that those who wish to teach have a thorough knowledge of that subject content.

    Whatever the failings of PGCE, it at least attempts to do all of the above and only those who have completed it (or GTP or equivalent) should be allowed to teach in schools.
     
  10. Having taken both, I can compare the 2.
    post compulsory has teaching practice, all the theory studied on the secondary course (better in my opinon although maybe because it was a better university).
    Subject knowledge re-cap is not included nor is curriculum knowledge, however with the secondary where I trained it was touched on but not in enough detail, you needed to know your suject before starting the course.
    The post compulsory is a generic qualification so does not relate to a subject area, the content relating to pedagogy is far superior to secondary and you are trained to treat your pupils like people. Secondary PGCE is a lesson in crowd control and pupil control.
    do you have a link for the distance learning assessment based QTS?
     
  11. body not boy.
     
  12. What are the rules for TAs and HTAs taking a class? I've been trying to find some guidance on the web, but can't find any. I'm a part-time teacher. Some of my hours are to cover PPA for the full-time teachers. I have had these hours cut due to the cheaper TAs and HTAs taking these classes from September. Is this right? Mandy
     
  13. I'm an unqualified teacher myself (a 'type 2' teacher - re post 44). I got offered a job, as an instructor, at the school I went to as a child.

    I'd always enjoyed teaching as I'd done it as part of my A Level (drama). I have plenty of experience and excellent subject knowledge from this and other shows, etc, since. I left my job straight away and started at the school.

    I don't see the problem with somebody in my position teaching KS3 drama and supporting KS4, WITH THE RIGHT SUPPORT.

    On the last OFSTED visit (earlier this month - 7 months into me teaching) I was observed and my lesson was graded as 'good', with a mixed ability year 8 group.

    I've been offered a job to stay next year with basically the same role. I'll probably take it and will do all I can to become 'qualified'. If I didn't have the support from my department that I've had this year, then I wouldn't be staying.
     
  14. Having just read the many post on this subject I find all the opinions very interesting. I'm a deputy head teacher who is married to someone who next year will be an unqualified teacher! Not a decision that he took lightly. He is in this position because his school in a tough area is unable to appoint a resistant materials teacher after advertising for 18 months! He was observed teaching a lesson by the head and the deputy before being offered the post and he will initially teach year 7 with the view to training fully the following year. He has 18 years experience in the wood craft and has a degree in cabinet making, giving him better subject knowledge than any other DT teacher in his department and as a technician he current provides most of the ideas and materials for the course. He is currently being given a full induction programme where he can observe high quality teaching and will have a mentor. Not just being dumped in it. If he hadn't taken the post the children may have spent a year with cover teacher and not being able to do any practical. I think that it is slightly short sighted to view that schools do it because it is a cheap and easy option most heads and deputies I know would rather appoint a qualified teacher but often find that this is not an option!
     
  15. To add to the last post from sbest, the position I had this year was to cover a music teachers' position, teaching drama, until a teacher was found, who is starting this September. If I hadn't have been there, some of the kids would have sat through their 3rd year of cover lessons completing worksheets in music. Not ideal.
     
  16. It gets worse. My school has three senior tutors (Heads of Year) who aren't teachers at all. They don't teach but they do tell qualified teachers what they should be doing about disciplining pupils. One used to be a mentor, one was a failed pro footballer and the other one use to work in the front office and got the job over those who have worked with pupils. Hence I'm off to do supply this September. One other who does teach, dropped out of the GTTP programme because she didn't have the time to complete it. Her results for her GCSE history class last year were appalling!
     
  17. Hello, I worked as a cover supervisor for a short while and feel that this debate is missing the most glaringly obvious point. Surely schools are simply saving money!!! I was being paid around £700 per month in this role, which involved taking classes of course, not only that though, the work set was frequently unexplained, the classes unprepared,the pupils uninspired. As it happens I am a qualified teacher and have worked as a supply teacher (a truly tough job), I wonder if perhaps all of the staff in schools should be considering their roles now. We are all after the same results.
     
  18. It looks like the support from the school is the key issue here. This applies to all staff qualified or not and may explain why some PGCE students drop out/fail or pass regardless of how good tey are in the classroom!
     
  19. I am an NQT and admittedly, quite new to this post so I have only read the first few pages of discussion.
    I don't really agree with your comment 'polly.glot' about the 'poor English'! I think maybe perhaps you just forgot that your name at the end should begin with a capital and that 'and' is not preceded by a comma!!!
    Anyway, I agree with some of the posts on here about the worry of unqualified teachers teaching in schools today.
    Like a few of you, I have just completed the PGCE and it was harder than my 4 year degree, not to mention obtaining QTS standards and going through the skills tests.
    I agree, teaching is a profession and if you wish to be classed as such and carry out the role then you should have the appropriate qualifications and standards.
    It makes a mockery of QTS is anyone is allowed in to teach my subject or any other subject for that matter.
    I have seen TAs trying to teach my subject before (MFL) and it makes me cringe!!!
    This lady was 'teaching' Spanish to some Year 9s on my placement (I was observing) and I was horrified at what I saw (and heard)! She claimed she had 'holiday spanish'. I mean, for heaven's sake!
    I don't think you're doing the kids (or the world) justice if you teach any subject without a degree in it!
    It was just awful.
     
  20. Personally I think you are mad if you accept job as an unqualified teacher, put up with the same (possibly worse depending on who you are) behaviour issues, do planning, marking, parents' evenings etc etc and do it for significantly LESS pay!

    Mad mad MAD!! Spend a year getting a qualification and be PAID for the amount of work you do!
     

Share This Page