Tag Archives: instructors

Labour’s style over substance

Posted on by
6

I woke up this morning to news that the Labour Party had some new proposals to end the teacher supply crisis. Strangely, the press release section of their national website hasn’t posted anything, so I am reliant on what the BBC has said for the following thoughts. Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting – BBC News

In passing, the Labour Party website generally doesn’t seem to be up with events, something that surprised me for a national Party aiming for government. But there are some issues, such their relationship with other political parties, and stories of suspensions and expulsions of members that I am sure they would want to bury. Still, that is all for another day and another place.

What are Labour suggesting and why do I say that it is style over substance? Firstly, there is nothing to ease the pain of training. No fee payments, as agreed when Tuition Fees were introduced by Tony Blair’s government. This would have been an excellent opportunity for a headline along the lines -well it’s not up to me to do Labour’s work for them.

Instead of targeting trainees and entrants, we get a survivor bonus according to the BBC story

The plans to improve retention rates, announced by Labour’s shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson on Sunday, would see new incentive payments awarded once teachers had completed a training programme known as the Early Career Framework, which covers their first two years in the classroom.

Apparently, the payment would be £2,400 or only between a gross one-off five to ten per cent payment of what a teacher would be earning at that point in time, before tax, national insurance and pension deductions. Less, with a £30,000 starting salary. Paying this to all survivors, regardless of the help or salary they received during training would according to Labour cost £50 million. I wonder what paying fees and a training salary to make all trainees equal, and it easier for career changers to become a teacher, would cost?

Labour’s other key promise is welcome, but even more hollow when you burrow down into what it means in reality.

The [Labour} party says it would also make it compulsory for new teachers to have a formal teaching qualification or be working towards one – a requirement scrapped by the coalition in 2012.

Sure, Gove made a headline announcement that academies did not need to employ qualified teachers: and most academies ignored this freedom, as they often did with the freedom to pay classroom teachers different salaries. However, it hasn’t stopped all schools employing unqualified teachers when they cannot find a qualified one to fill a post. After all, it was the Labour government that changed the name of these staff from ‘instructors’ that clearly demonstrated that they were not qualified teachers, to the more positive term ‘unqualified teachers’, and also created a pay scale for them.

Curiously, there were fewer unqualified teachers by headcount working in schools last Novermber (2022) than in November 2010, the first census after the end of the last Labour government – 14,389 in 2022 compared with 15,892 in November 2010 according to the DfE’s Workforce Census.

Ensuring all teachers are qualified, and qualified in teaching their subject or phase, something the Labour announcement doesn’t offer, must be a requirement. However, Labour doesn’t say what schools, faced with a vacancy, should do if a qualified teacher isn’t available: send children home? The lack of a credible answer to this question makes the policy no more than idle rhetoric about trainee teachers not about solving the teacher supply crisis.

I would offer emergency certification with a required training programme from day one for unqualified teachers, including those not qualified in the subject that they are teaching.

Labour final policy on staff development is again good in principle; this area has been neglected by the present government, despite the limited experience of much of the teaching force. However, the policy lacks detail, and detailing who will be responsible for implementing and paying for it?

Taking tax breaks away from private schools would probably affect the special school sector, where local authorities mostly pay the fees, more than schools where parents are responsible for the fees. Such saving would also probably be stretched thinly to pay for all the mooted changes.

Retention can be cheaper than recruitment, but by making training more attractive for all, there is more chance that schools currently unable to recruit teachers would fill their vacancies. All too often these schools are situated in the more deprived areas. These are the schools any policy should be tested against: does it improve the education of children in these schools?

For those that don’t know, I am a Liberal Democrat County Councillor in Oxfordshire

Government action on teacher supply crisis

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the government made two important announcements. Firstly, they capped the rate of interest on student loans at 7.3%, instead of the projected rate of more than 12% from September. The latter rate was based upon current rates of inflation. As the government press notice helpfully explains:

‘This is the largest scale reduction of student loan interest rates on record and will mean, for example, a borrower with a student loan balance of £45,000 would reduce their accumulating interest by around £180 per month compared to 12% interest rates. This is on the total value of the loan, as monthly repayments do not change.’ Student loan interest rates capped – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

So, the balance doesn’t change and could still be increasing if a graduate’s earnings are not enough to match repayment rates. However, the move must be regarded as at least a step in the right direction. Regular readers know that I don’t think that graduates should need to take out loans to train to teach in state schools.

The other piece of news way a widening of the welcome to teachers trained anywhere in the world by the DfE, and thus no longer limiting QTS to just EU/EEA and Gove approved countries. England opens doors to world’s best teachers – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) There is a section on the Teach in England pages on the DfE website dedicated to helping teachers from overseas teach in England Teach in England if you trained overseas | Get Into Teaching (education.gov.uk)

The site helpfully reminds teachers about the 4-year rule that doesn’t require QTS

Employing overseas teachers without QTS (the 4-year rule)

Overseas teachers can teach in maintained schools and non-maintained special schools in England without qualified teacher status (QTS) for up to 4 years. This is called the 4-year rule.

It is illegal for overseas teachers to continue working as a teacher in a maintained school or non-maintained special school in England for longer than 4 years without QTS unless there is another legal basis to teach.

The 4-year rule applies to overseas teachers who meet all of the following conditions:

  • they have qualified as a teacher in a country outside of the UK
  • they have completed a course of teacher training that is recognised by the competent authority of that country
  • they are employed in maintained schools and non-maintained special schools, but not a pupil referral unit

Bizarrely, the DfE then reintroduce the term ‘instructor’ that disappeared in favour of ‘unqualified teacher’ more than a decade ago. It would, of course, be insulting to call these teachers ‘unqualified’. Here’s what the DfE says

 ‘There is no definition of special qualifications and experience. These are matters that the local authority or governing body need to be satisfied with. An overseas teacher can only be employed as an instructor if they have the special qualifications or experience needed for the instructor post.’

Overseas teachers can also work as teaching assistants (without QTS) for any period of time.’

Make of that what you will. However, I take it to mean that the four-year time limit can be disregarded on the basis of experience alone due to the judicious use of the word ‘or’.

Of course, all overseas teachers without ‘leave to remain’ will need to meet the demands of the points-based immigration system introduced by the present government. The scheme may limit the numbers actually recruited.

The government as also been putting flesh on the bones of its iQTS scheme for teachers to train overseas.

How all these measures dovetail into the re-accreditation of teacher education to produce a holistic strategy for staffing state schools across England remains a bit of a mystery to me. But no doubt Ministers have a cunning plan to ensure no pupil is taught by a teacher lacking the appropriate skills and qualifications