Usual nonsense from someone inside the cartel about relaxing the entrance rules to the cartel:
The news today that the education secretary is to remove the requirement for academies to employ qualified teachers sent a shudder down my spine. For a teacher like me, who has taught for more than 20 years in various comprehensives and has spent a great deal of time, quite a bit of it my own time, being \”trained\”, I know that pupils get a raw deal if they are taught by an untrained teacher.
Firstly, a properly trained teacher is fully conversant with the various theories about how children learn; he or she understands that you can\’t just stand at the front and bark orders, that you need to engage children in \”active\” learning where they are doing things that assist with their learning. A well-trained teacher knows how to assess their pupils lesson by lesson, and use their assessments to shape further lessons, building upon a child\’s strengths and tackling their weaknesses.
I know I wouldn\’t be nearly as effective as a teacher had I not been trained.
No one at all is suggesting that teachers should not be trained.
The argument is over whether a teacher needs to have a post-graduate course (even a degree at all) in trendy arguments about \”how children learn\” or they need 6 weeks of standing in front of a class and being told what they\’re doing wrong.
I can quite easily find you a current teacher who would say that the 6 weeks or so of classroom practice helped a great deal more than the year of academia (Hallo Shuggy!).
It probably would be a good idea if someone teaching Further Maths A Level had a Maths Degree….or something close to that level of education in the subject. The idea that someone needs a post-graduate degree in order to oversee the finger painting in Year One is rather harder to support.