Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but I saw an AMAZING facebook conversation at the weekend. This absolute pleb is doing a PGCE, got a decent mark from Trent for something but has been told she isnt up to a PGCE by the mentor at the school and she fucking LOST IT. Started calling everyone cunts willy nilly. Point is I dont know anyone whos become a teacher who should really be one. Even people I like.
Not really sure what the link is supposed to be between being good at a subject at an undergraduate/postgraduate level and actually being able to teach it.
I'll leave that discussion to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
unless the teachers are hindering the performance of those in their classes i'm not sure i'd have an issue with a teacher being 'unqualified' though.
need to look into it more but the whole idea sounds fecking shambolic. Doesn't seem like there are any limits on who can be a teacher?! Apart from on certain subjects or something, idk.
Also, it will know doubt lead to people debating this and starting sentences with things like 'speaking as a parent/scientist/LMEist
There's at least three teaching unions, for starters
so I can ignore it.
But I think it's quite a basic thing that someone who has learned about theories of teaching, how to manage classrooms, how to motivate people, how learning actually works and gets regular monitoring and feedback of their performance and suggestions of what works will be better than somebody who does not.
Obviously there will be people who can do this naturally better than others - and there's people who have PGCEs but still can't do it - but it's still clearly better to train people on these things than not do so. People who already have the skills could sail through but they'll probably learn something.
The thing is though it's such as a flimsy, non-existent debate. Surely anyone who is seriously committing to teaching wouldn't mind doing a few exams? I've no problem with the idea that a system could exist for free schools to fast-track people to assessment of their skills without a year's training if they think they're suitable but there's absolutely no plausible reason why it's not a good idea to check someone has the skills before letting them loose in a classroom.
You can watch last night's Newsnight interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M0xZSsxU5k
According to Hunt's approach, a 22 year old grad student with a degree and a recent teaching 'qualification' is more suited to teaching, say, politics, than David Miliband who taught in his local school for a while after losing the Labour leadership election. Despite the fact of course that Miliband has been an MP, Secretary of State for the Environment and finally reaching one of the highest political offices available as Foreign Secretary.
It's just utter madness. If unqualified teachers are so bad, why are so many of the independent schools that employ them churning out the next generation of business leaders and prime ministers time and time again?
I just don't understand Labour's thinking on this.
Did Farage go to an independent school?
doesn't equate to an ability to impart that experience and the knowledge you gained to others.
That said, there's clearly a middle ground to be struck - there should be some sort of short course/qualification that someone like that can go through to prove that they already have the necessary skills without having to go through a full blown PGCE year. Obviously being politicians, neither Gove nor Hunt will admit that there's a more sensible way forward until the next parliament at the earliest.
Of course, it is hard to disagree with that. But also, look at it another way, to have a piece of paper to say you are 'qualified' and can structure a lesson and handle a classroom of 16 year olds, doesn't mean for second that you have even the slightest idea about the subject matter you're actually teaching. In ^that interview, Paxman talks about loads of physics teachers not having physics degrees for example.
you don't need a physics degree - A Level will almost certainly be enough if you've come from a maths or chemistry background. Or are you expecting all science teachers to hold three degrees?
most science teachers (certainly to GCSE level) will teach physics, biology and chemistry together, with a degree in one of those but not all 3.
and ties in with the academic year cycle. It doesn't really make sense to reduce it down further than that.
Most local authorities will (or did) cover the costs of this PGCE training anyway, so if someone has the 'real world' experience and really wants to teach children, and teach them well, I don't really see the necessity of the PGCE as a barrier to that career path, to be honest.
It's a wilfully stupid non-argument.
Not that knowledgeable about the intricacies. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with a qualification being required to teach though - the point I think I was trying to make was that the discussion should be about whether the qualification that's currently required in most schools is the most appropriate or not. Obviously, it's not something the government want to get into anyway, so a bit pointless really.
I did it 7 years ago. First example the PGCE year contained 6 hours of PE training. What the PGCE does do is whittle out the people who are unsuitable for teaching either though the course application or through the the teaching placements themselves.
I'm all for getting in experts in for a day to inspire chn in physics/athletics/engineering but teachers should. Go throughvsome kind of 'PGCE' process.
the next generation of business leaders and prime ministers is definitely only because they employ unqualified teachers.
how come none of yours ever taught you not to be a jerk?
*stands with hands on hips*
I think there's a definite argument for encouraging more experts in fields to come do a few days teaching specialist lessons at schools- in the same way the David Miliband or Tristram Hunt did, but that's not what is being argued here.
Similarly, I think more should be done to encourage people to come into teaching a bit later in life when they have life experience under their belt- but to suggest they shouldn't be qualified seems utterly odd. I'm a scout leader and I still need to do training and officially "qualify".
Also, you can't equate success of Unqualified teachers at Private schools because essentially, they are market based. People in state education can't stop paying if the teaching isn't up to scratch.
Sometimes I worry you're a bit wishy washy, it is good to see you're sound in this case.