Unqualified teachers. What next unqualified doctors, vets, lawyers?
27 Jul
"England’s new academy schools can now hire as teachers people who do not hold the formal qualification in teaching, the government has said. Officials say this means they will be free to hire 'great linguists, computer scientists and other specialists who have not worked in state schools before'.
"Until now, most state schools could only employ people with what is known as 'Qualified Teacher Status (QTS)'. Independent schools were exempt. The change brings academies in line with the new free schools, which are already free to employ people without QTS."
"A spokesman for the Department for Education said: ‘This policy will free up academies to employ professionals – like scientists, engineers, musicians, university professors, and experienced teachers and heads from overseas and the independent sector – who may be extremely well-qualified and are excellent teachers, but do not have QTS status’."
This educational doublethink has been challenged by Voice before over free schools and QTS.
If teachers in other publicly-funded schools have Qualified Teacher Status, why not in free schools and academies?
Yes, there are some unqualified teachers in private schools but they are small in number and have a specific and limited role. They should not be used as a benchmark for new types of school.
If QTS is rightly recognised by the Department as a standard of quality and competence for teachers then why not set it as the benchmark?
How do you raise teaching standards while encouraging the employment of unqualified teachers? How does this fit with the Government’s School Direct training for QTS, bursaries scheme and tougher English and maths tests for trainee teachers?
What next unqualified doctors, vets and lawyers as long as they are "great" people "who have not worked in" hospitals/surgeries or courts "before"?
Does the Government see teaching as a profession or a "craft" or simply a job that anybody can do?
Do let us know your thoughts
Loading ...
It’s all a bit disheartening. What’s the point in going through the training? No doubt there are some brilliant, inspiring people out there but that doesn’t mean they can handle a class and interest them. See re-runs of Jamie’s Dream School and look at what happened to Simon Callow …
In the interests of accuracy, I must point out that your statement to the effect that unqualified teachers in private schools “have a specific and limited role” is factually incorrect. Private schools draw no distinction between qualified and unqualified staff, and give them both the same job title, role, responsibilities, workload, etc.
No to the question. Being clever at a subject does not make a teacher – however willing they are. Teaching is more specialised and needs many more attributes.
In my experience alone this is not necessarily the case. Every person willing to teach should be
subject to specific classroom/child management.
I also agree with Fran – what of the students at Uni who undergo one of the most demanding training courses to achieve teacher status, it is disheartening. Teaching is one of the most important careers as it impacts on the future of the whole of our country.
It is time we claimed our rightful place of importance to future generations.
Everyone in every sector is unqualified at the beginning of their careers.Inexperienced people should never work then?
There is a difference between being unqualified and inexperienced. Most graduate professions require a post-training qualification in order to practise and gain further experience.
What about teachers who have the experience as well as the knowledge but have not been certified?They are qualified but they lack the certification.What do you have to say on that?
As you say, they are qualified not unqualified. More on this at http://blog.voicetheunion.org.uk/?tag=qts