Sunday 29 July 2012

An Unqualified Teacher

On Friday, it was announced that academies would be allowed to employ unqualified teachers, that is, teachers without Qualified Teacher Status. This is not a post on whether I think this is a good idea or not. This is a post about how appalled I am by some of the vitriol directed towards unqualified teachers.

I got my PGCE (also known as DTLLS) in 2011. Under Institute for Learning regulations, I have five years from when I first began teaching (September 2009) to gain QTLS. However, perhaps influenced by a campaign by my union, UCU, it is no longer compulsory to be a member of the IfL. Which means it is no longer compulsory to have QTLS to teach in FE.

As a result, I have not yet applied for QTLS. And the advice from the head of teacher training at the College is basically "Don't bother, it'll be gone in a year". So, according to the DfE, I'm an unqualified teacher.

A horrible hashtag has sprouted up on Twitter: #noQTSnoTeacher. The suggestion that a lack of QTS makes someone not a teacher has been made. The kneejerk response from the qualified teachers online has been to go all-out to insult those of us who teach without QTS - namely the FE and independent sectors (though I accept that many independent schools will have their own requirements).

I'm used to being looked down upon by friends who lecture in universities - though my title is "lecturer", they think that I and my colleagues are just jealous of the prestige of a university teaching job. What I'm not used to, is being looked down upon by friends in the secondary sector. We both teach GCSE and A-level. We both have to teach BTEC L2 and L3 to students who The Powers That Be have deemed non-academic. We both have surly teenagers to cope with. We both have pastoral roles to fulfil too. Where my role is different is that I have Access and HND students where secondary teachers have KS3, but is there any reason why I couldn't teach upper school science?

One year after completing my PGCE I have taught for three years - double the length of time that a teacher completing their NQT year has. I have been rated good or outstanding in every single observation I have ever had. The suggestion that I'm not a real teacher is deeply upsetting. I am a real teacher, damnit. My husband is a real teacher too, and he hasn't even started his PGCE. But he got 18 of the worst-behaved students in the borough to show up to their GCSE English exam. He made a difference.

Michael Gove is doing his best to dismantle the teaching profession, and if segments of the profession start attacking each other, then the policies don't need to do very much at all for him to be successful. If we want to stop Gove, then we need to figure out how to ask for what we want without slagging off our allies and fellow teachers. Teachers - qualified and unqualified, state and independent, secondary and FE - need to value what we all bring to the classroom.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

11 comments:

  1. I have an inspirational colleague with the opposite problem which demonstrates the absurdity of the situation. She has 20 years teaching experience in state secondary schools, a PGCE for 11-19 teaching and holds QTS however on starting at an FE college she was told she needed to get QTLS. She was quite put out that her qualifications and experience appeared to count for nothing. Conversely I have colleagues with QTS who realy aren't good teachers. Letters on a piece of paper don't make good teachers but you can't expect outstanding scientists and experts in their field to turn up and be good teachers either. Experience is hard won and needs to be respected however it is gained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another example of the ridiculous state of affairs! I have a colleague with QTS who is a lousy teacher, and plenty of colleagues who've been in long enough to not need QTLS who are fantastic. The more interesting question (which should be what we're asking, rather than sniping at other members of the profession) is what standards do we expect teachers to have?

      Delete
  2. When discussing your predicament (anonymously) with another twitterer, a he deputy head, he said that he would consider you a qualified teacher, even though it wasn't official. I'm still gathering my thoughts on this after our discussion this morning, but my immediate reaction is agreement with the sentiment that this latest announcement, once again cynically announced on twitter (and a few hours before the biggest show on earth), has brought out an ugly reaction in a tired and brow beaten teaching profession that could do with being left alone for a few weeks (to enjoy the Olympics at least). More to follow I'm sure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's interesting - and yet on paper, and according to the DfE, I am not qualified. I'd wonder whether, if I went to a school, I would have any expectation of being able to be paid on the qualified teacher pay scale - my guess is not.

      Delete
  3. I agree the hype being whipped up on twitter is unhelpful to a proper debate about what the changes mean for teaching.

    Any head who employs a teacher straight from the street is being foolish and/or taking a huge risk. But they don't always make good appointment with teachers who do have QTS, it is no guarantee of quality.

    I think that my concerns come from reports that the idea behind this change come from allowing experts to teach. Jamie Oliver's experiment showed that only a few of his experts could do this with a whole group. I have seen sports coaches come to teach who weren't able to prepare the students for exams - they needed support. But I don't think this change is about picking people from the street, it is about allowing academies to recruit people to teach plumbing or hair dressing (I don't think you can do pgces in these subjects) or allowing schools to recruit from abroad. At least I hope this is the case.

    The motivation does worry me though. Why is it that only academies can employ people without QTS? Is this about giving people more opportunity and flexibility? Or is it about saying "teaching is a job anyone can do"? Why can't all schools employ people without QTS? A couple of academy chains have been mentioned, they want this change: is it because they can pay unqualified people less for the same job. This is not fair, and shouldn't be encouraged.

    We must trust head teachers to stand up for the quality of the teaching profession. I don't have great faith though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Jamie's Dream School was a textbook example of how not to come in and teach. Plenty of the experts were great as one-to-one mentors, which may be a more worthwhile use of their talents.

      FE lecturers teaching plumbing or hairdressing often have the DTLLS (either PGCE or Cert Ed), in which case this would mean more opportunity for parity with secondary teachers.

      I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect Gove's idea as is will not be it.

      Delete
  4. I don't think a lot of the doubts expressed are aimed at people like yourself. The concerns centre more around the use of those with little or frankly no experience to cover long term or in fact fill roles in the profession. And in the primary sector that teachers in fact teach all subjects not a 'specialism'

    ReplyDelete
  5. Speaking as a teachee, what I want most of all in a teacher are knowledge, skills, and an aptitude for teaching. If you've got that and can do the work then sod the paperwork. Same for anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, met a guy who wanted to teach RE and was doing in a state secondary as an unqualified teacher. Couldn't do a pgce and get QTS as he didn't have an o-level/gcse in maths. Brilliant teacher and the kids loved him. (I know they go on about basic numeracy and literacy)

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...