[Mr M]

Gove has today announced that teachers in Academies no longer need QTS with immediate effect. I can't see much incentive for a prospective Secondary teacher to spend £££ training any more. They might as well just get a job and try to muddle through.

[myrtille]

(Original post by Mr M)
Gove has today announced that teachers in Academies no longer need QTS with immediate effect. I can't see much incentive for a prospective Secondary teacher to spend £££ training any more. They might as well just get a job and try to muddle through.

I just saw that too. Worrying stuff.

Of course, we don't know yet exactly what impact this will have. Independent schools can employ unqualified teachers, yet they still predominantly use staff with QTS, as far as I know.

As for just getting a job and muddling through, the issue is that there aren't all that many jobs around! I know I'm better off doing a PGCE and living off my bursary than I am scraping a living off bits and bobs of agency work as a Cover Supervisor and TA...

We can only hope that whoever we end up with after the next election will reverse this, but I won't get my hopes up.

[Suzanathema]

How sickeningly cowardly to bury this news by waiting until the opening of the Olympics to announce it.


As if people needed even more of a reason to loathe that idiot.

[robo donkey]

I saw it too, I'm currently writing a blog entry regarding my thoughts on it. I think on paper it sounds worse than the reality, full PGCE QTS teachers will still be more highly regarded I think and should still get the lions share of the jobs.

[FrostyLemon]

Got rid of the GTP and now this? Pricks.

[KhubDude]

Muddling through was a possibility I considered as I want to teach ICT and with fifteen years industrial experience and a first class degree Teach First was an option. However, after getting some experience of teaching I realised that there is a massive difference between knowing a subject and teaching it!

Academies that employ professionals may strike lucky and accidentally stumble upon 'born' teachers but that's rather clutching at straws (I fancied I was born a super hero but no matter how hard I believe it I still have no super-powers). There's a good reason that without a PGCE few other countries will employ someone who claims to be a 'teacher'.

Then again the rest of the planet might be wrong and the shambles that's currently passing itself of as the UK government and a guy from the pulsating, white-hot global academic hub (Brighton to you and me) might actually be right...

[Kolya]

(Original post by KhubDude)
Muddling through was a possibility I considered as I want to teach ICT and with fifteen years industrial experience and a first class degree Teach First was an option. However, after getting some experience of teaching I realised that there is a massive difference between knowing a subject and teaching it!

What's Teach First got to do with anything? AFAIK, they get QTS after the first year. And surely one of the best ways to get better at teaching a subject is to actually teach it? I don't see why learning-through-doing is necessarily a 'muddle'.

[Suzanathema]

(Original post by Kolya)
What's Teach First got to do with anything? AFAIK, they get QTS after the first year. And surely one of the best ways to get better at teaching a subject is to actually teach it? I don't see why learning-through-doing is necessarily a 'muddle'.

I assumed he meant that Teach First pay you a living salary from the start, whereas if you do a PGCE you have to do a year without any money.

[Dalek1099]

This is ridiculous QTS allows future teachers to learn about teaching,the degree isn't really much to do with the actual job and without QTS,it will become very hard for teachers to pass the years training you have to do to be a teacher,which will mean they will probably have to lower standards and overall teachers will get worse.Yet more confirmation Michael Gove is an idiot-everything he says is stupid.

[gingerbreadman85]

(Original post by Suzanathema)
I assumed he meant that Teach First pay you a living salary from the start, whereas if you do a PGCE you have to do a year without any money.

PGCEs in most subjects give you a bursary of up to 20k tax free depending upon the course and the classification of your degree. ICT with a first class degree would be 9k.

I would be concerned about the ability of an "instructor" to effectively teach across the ability and behaviour range that is encountered in a normal school. Just because you "know" stuff doesn't make you a good teacher, as anyone who has been to university will have experienced from at least one lecturer on their course!

Now transplant that "highly qualified expert" into a class of bottom set yr8s who can't spell or construct a sentence and will do everything they can to wind you up. Sure, that's a worst case scenario, but illustrates the potential problems.

An additional problem is that there is no stated expectation of any qualifications for these "experts". A QTS course (regardless of the route) requires a suitable degree, comparable experience, or forms part of a degree course (e.g BEd) which means that every person with QTS should have a strong enough background in both the theory of their subject and the practicalities of teaching it.

With the removal of the requirement for QTS, i'm not sure what is to stop schools from accepting pretty much anyone....

Thankfully i believe most schools will still want QTS, they want teachers with demonstrable teaching skills.

I assume these "non QTS" teachers would join the existing unqualified teacher scale as far as pay, which means they start on 15.8k, and top out at 25k after 5 years, in comparison after the extra year of training i started on M2 (23k) and am moving onto M5 (29k) as of september, with 3 years under my belt.


I wonder if the teaching standards (C-standards) applicable to them (if not, why not?)? Will the OFSTED assessment criteria be the same for QTS and non QTS teachers? How will they expect untrained teachers to meet those criteria?

[Suzanathema]

(Original post by gingerbreadman85)
PGCEs in most subjects give you a bursary of up to 20k tax free depending upon the course and the classification of your degree. ICT with a first class degree would be 9k.

I would be concerned about the ability of an "instructor" to effectively teach across the ability and behaviour range that is encountered in a normal school. Just because you "know" stuff doesn't make you a good teacher, as anyone who has been to university will have experienced from at least one lecturer on their course!

Now transplant that "highly qualified expert" into a class of bottom set yr8s who can't spell or construct a sentence and will do everything they can to wind you up. Sure, that's a worst case scenario, but illustrates the potential problems.

An additional problem is that there is no stated expectation of any qualifications for these "experts". A QTS course (regardless of the route) requires a suitable degree, comparable experience, or forms part of a degree course (e.g BEd) which means that every person with QTS should have a strong enough background in both the theory of their subject and the practicalities of teaching it.

With the removal of the requirement for QTS, i'm not sure what is to stop schools from accepting pretty much anyone....

Thankfully i believe most schools will still want QTS, they want teachers with demonstrable teaching skills.

I assume these "non QTS" teachers would join the existing unqualified teacher scale as far as pay, which means they start on 15.8k, and top out at 25k after 5 years, in comparison after the extra year of training i started on M2 (23k) and am moving onto M5 (29k) as of september, with 3 years under my belt.


I wonder if the teaching standards (C-standards) applicable to them (if not, why not?)? Will the OFSTED assessment criteria be the same for QTS and non QTS teachers? How will they expect untrained teachers to meet those criteria?

There's clearly some kind of Ofsted agenda. I trained in an academy with several unqualified teachers and some words to Ofsted made it so they didn't go into any unqualified teacher's lessons. Disgustingly unfair.


I am also fairly bitter about your 'most subjects' assertion about funding. Is that true? My subject, English, got £0 funding, as did all humanities subjects. That funding's now returned?

[evantej]

(Original post by gingerbreadman85)
[...] I assume these "non QTS" teachers would join the existing unqualified teacher scale as far as pay, which means they start on 15.8k, and top out at 25k after 5 years, in comparison after the extra year of training i started on M2 (23k) and am moving onto M5 (29k) as of september, with 3 years under my belt. [...]

They will not receive the unqualified teacher scale because academies do not use this scale in the first place (as far as I am aware). That is the whole point. The government want to be able to get people into classrooms as soon as possible.

[myrtille]

(Original post by Suzanathema)
There's clearly some kind of Ofsted agenda. I trained in an academy with several unqualified teachers and some words to Ofsted made it so they didn't go into any unqualified teacher's lessons. Disgustingly unfair.

I am also fairly bitter about your 'most subjects' assertion about funding. Is that true? My subject, English, got £0 funding, as did all humanities subjects. That funding's now returned?

That's shocking that the unqualified teachers at your school didn't get inspected. I hope they sort that out if there are going to be a lot more unqualified teachers.

I think funding changes every year. A friend of mine finished her English PGCE a year ago, and she got £6,000 funding. This year it's dependent on degree classification as well as on subject, so for most subjects (including English, the Humanities and ICT) you get £9,000 with a 1st, £5,000 with a 2:1, and nothing with a 2:2. For Maths, Physics, Chemistry and MFL it's £20,000 for a 1st, £15,000 for a 2:1, and £12,000 for a 2:2. There are a few subjects that get no funding - Social Sciences I think, but not many others.

[gingerbreadman85]

(Original post by Suzanathema)
There's clearly some kind of Ofsted agenda. I trained in an academy with several unqualified teachers and some words to Ofsted made it so they didn't go into any unqualified teacher's lessons. Disgustingly unfair.

I am also fairly bitter about your 'most subjects' assertion about funding. Is that true? My subject, English, got £0 funding, as did all humanities subjects. That funding's now returned?

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. It's fair enough not OFSTEDing a trainee teacher's lessons, which is fairly normal (they aren't a paid up member of the school), but any person who is undertaking full responsibility for a class should be accountable for meeting the standards of teaching ability that OFSTED deem appropriate.

As for funding:
http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into...aduate-funding
I think there was a 1yr "blip" where the old funding structure had gone, but the new one not implemented. Naughty.

(Original post by evantej)
They will not receive the unqualified teacher scale because academies do not use this scale in the first place (as far as I am aware). That is the whole point. The government want to be able to get people into classrooms as soon as possible.

Just because they can be hired, doesn't mean they are going on the same scale as qualified teacher.

Letting them teach the kids is bad enough in my opinion. Putting them onto the same pay structure be insane.

[evantej]

(Original post by gingerbreadman85)
[...] Just because they can be hired, doesn't mean they are going on the same scale as qualified teacher. [...]

You missed the point. With these changes, there is no such thing as a qualified teacher in academies now. And that is the purpose of these changes: the erosion of professional status of the teachers. Government funding is also forcing more schools to become academies; this is especially the case in counties which still have a three-tier system.

[gingerbreadman85]

(Original post by evantej)
You missed the point. With these changes, there is no such thing as a qualified teacher in academies now. And that is the purpose of these changes: the erosion of professional status of the teachers. Government funding is also forcing more schools to become academies; this is especially the case in counties which still have a three-tier system.

Not necessarily. Just because schools are allowed to hire people without QTS doesn't mean they will be given the same pay and conditions of QTS teachers, or that there won't be a distinction between the two.

The government are still paying for people to train for PGCEs, so QTS isn't dead. Yet.

It is however erosion of professional status of teachers. That it will eventually remove the existence QTS altogether is i think a stretch based on the current information, but it is a step down that road.

The real route to combatting this won't be through the unions, though i hope they play their pard, it'll be through parent power, allowing parents to see the importance of their children having qualified teachers rather than unqualified "experts"

[balloon_parade]

This is pretty bad news. I don't understand why these unqualified 'experts' can't just get their QTS over their first year, if Gove is so desperate to have them in why not get them to work towards the QTS at the same time, at least it shows a little commitment on their part and also development of CPD.

Is this just a way of academies making more money? What is the pay scale for an unqualified teacher? Surely not the same as an actual teacher. But then, if someone is successful then are they going to want to leave a great career for 15k? Probably not. Do they get any training? I can't imagine just waltzing into the classroom knowing nothing except subject knowledge! I had friends on my PGCE who had PHDs and 15+years of industry experience...it did nothing for their teaching ability and they were on an even keel to us when we started.

It's ridiculous, one minute it looks like teaching is going to a be a masters level profession and now it's anyone's for the taking.

RE: Funding...Primary PGCE's got none last year, squat.

[gingerbreadman85]

(Original post by balloon_parade)
This is pretty bad news. I don't understand why these unqualified 'experts' can't just get their QTS over their first year, if Gove is so desperate to have them in why not get them to work towards the QTS at the same time, at least it shows a little commitment on their part and also development of CPD.

Is this just a way of academies making more money? What is the pay scale for an unqualified teacher? Surely not the same as an actual teacher. But then, if someone is successful then are they going to want to leave a great career for 15k? Probably not. Do they get any training? I can't imagine just waltzing into the classroom knowing nothing except subject knowledge! I had friends on my PGCE who had PHDs and 15+years of industry experience...it did nothing for their teaching ability and they were on an even keel to us when we started.

It's ridiculous, one minute it looks like teaching is going to a be a masters level profession and now it's anyone's for the taking.

RE: Funding...Primary PGCE's got none last year, squat.

"Academies making more money"? State schools, even Academies, don't "make" money, they do however have to manage their income vs outgoings, and the squeeze that's effecting a lot of schools at the moment might lead to some wanting to cut staffing costs.

I know of a number of schools in my area that have had to cut staff. My school has reduced numbers through the natural wastage process and not recruiting to fill all the lost posts.

With regards to the funding, there was a funding gap last year between the 2 funding models. Primary PGCEs next year should get 9/5k depending on if they got a first or a 2.1 in their degree.

Agreed though with the inconsistency, the government say things like "we want teachers to be free to teach" and "teachers should be treated as professionals" then apply another set of changes and devalue the professional status of teachers as a whole. Crazy.

[Suzanathema]

(Original post by gingerbreadman85)
"Academies making more money"? State schools, even Academies, don't "make" money, they do however have to manage their income vs outgoings, and the squeeze that's effecting a lot of schools at the moment might lead to some wanting to cut staffing costs.

I know of a number of schools in my area that have had to cut staff. My school has reduced numbers through the natural wastage process and not recruiting to fill all the lost posts.

With regards to the funding, there was a funding gap last year between the 2 funding models. Primary PGCEs next year should get 9/5k depending on if they got a first or a 2.1 in their degree.

Agreed though with the inconsistency, the government say things like "we want teachers to be free to teach" and "teachers should be treated as professionals" then apply another set of changes and devalue the professional status of teachers as a whole. Crazy.

Well they do get more money. Gove's bribe to converters was to give them more than LA schools - for now, anyway. They get the "extra" tiny percent that would have gone to the LA on admin and whatnot.


There was a pretty big campaign to get bursaries to that missing year, since it was very unfair on us. The government of course don't care, and ATL was the only union who gave any kind of **** about the financial struggle trainees from 2011/12 were enduring. I have a massive hole in my savings to make up in the next few years, something everyone else gets for free! Very unfair.

And yeah, my placement school had to make redundancies too, it was a really negative atmosphere. It sucks

[gingerbreadman85]

It wil be interesting long term to see whether academies are better off. As a result of them "opting out" of LA control, and gaining that slice of funding, they have to buy back anything they want from central LA, or source them themselves. If the costs of these spiral due to lack of economies of scale, then it could end up costing academies more to do the same stuff they would have under LA control!

Yeah, it was a shame about the 11/12 year. Not sure how much of that was deliberate and how much a consequence of circumstances, but it was bad form. Teaching isn't a massively well paid job, at 27 with 5 years experience i'd be expecting to earn substantially more in graduate employment than i currently do, so forcing people to dig heavily into their own pockets to train is a bit harsh.