What will mandatory registration for TC mean for those without qualificatios?

Einhard

I've just received correspondence from the Teaching Council and a bit about regulating entry to the profession caught my eye. From "April 2013, all teachers wishing to be registered must have a recognised teacher education qualification". If this means what I think it means, then those who have been teaching, often for long periods, without such qualifications will no longer be able to find employment? Is this the case? And what do people think of it?

For my part, I'm of two minds. I think that the same standards should apply to all teachers. It's blatantly unfair that new teachers should be required to have relevant degrees and teaching qualifications, while there are others who don;t even hold the former. I know of a teacher in one school whose primary degree has absolutely nothing to do with the subjects she is teaching. She has no form of teaching qualification either. I think such situations damage the teaching profession as a whole, ad undermines public confidence.

On the other hand, I know this teacher. I don't know whether she's considered a good teacher or not, but I do know that it would be terrible for her to have to quit a career of ten years in this environment. And I'd feel terrible for her. But then, teaching is supposed to be about the best outcomes for students, not those of teachers themselves, so should such considerations have anything to do with the matter? It's a quandary.

What say you all?

rainbowtrout

Einhard wrote: »

For my part, I'm of two minds. I think that the same standards should apply to all teachers. It's blatantly unfair that new teachers should be required to have relevant degrees and teaching qualifications, while there are others who don;t even hold the former. I know of a teacher in one school whose primary degree has absolutely nothing to do with the subjects she is teaching. She has no form of teaching qualification either. I think such situations damage the teaching profession as a whole, ad undermines public confidence.

I agree with your sentiments but I don't think teachers like her should be let go. Presumably she's working in the VEC sector where a teaching qualification was not necessary when she got the job. Also presumably she is a capable teacher as they would have probably got rid of her if she wasn't. Also applying restrictions retrospectively is a little unfair, and I would say that of any job not just teaching.

The fact that she is not teaching her own subjects is neither here nor there, it's not her fault, it's the job of management to timetable her for suitable subjects where possible.

I discovered on my return to school today that I will be teaching LCVP for the first time. I have a vague notion of what it's about, and do a lot of work in PLC so there is some sense of overlap, but my main area is Agriculture. Not my fault it's on my timetable though.

Einhard

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I agree with your sentiments but I don't think teachers like her should be let go. Presumably she's working in the VEC sector where a teaching qualification was not necessary when she got the job. Also presumably she is a capable teacher as they would have probably got rid of her if she wasn't.

No, she works in a secondary school, and has only been doing so for the past ten years. I have no idea how she got the position in the first place.

The fact that she is not teaching her own subjects is neither here nor there,
it's not her fault, it's the job of management to timetable her for suitable
subjects where possible.

I agree with that to an extent, but it's not so much that she's not teaching her own subjects, it's that her degree has no bearing on any subjects on the curriculum.

I discovered on my return to school today that I will be teaching LCVP for the
first time. I have a vague notion of what it's about, and do a lot of work in
PLC so there is some sense of overlap, but my main area is Agriculture. Not my
fault it's on my timetable though.

Oh completely agree there. But in the case I'm referencing, it's more along the lines of having a degree in retail studies (not the degree of this individual, just using it as an analogy) and teaching.

doc_17

I told the principal to never, ever put LCVP on my timetable! So far it hasn't appeared!

Got the timetable today. No SPHE. That's a result!

rainbowtrout

Einhard wrote: »

No, she works in a secondary school, and has only been doing so for the past ten years. I have no idea how she got the position in the first place.

I agree with that to an extent, but it's not so much that she's not teaching her own subjects, it's that her degree has no bearing on any subjects on the curriculum.



Oh completely agree there. But in the case I'm referencing, it's more along the lines of having a degree in retail studies (not the degree of this individual, just using it as an analogy) and teaching.

Well that is a bit strange. There should be no reason for her to be employed in a secondary school without a dip. Have no idea how she got around that, particularly in the scenario you describe.

rainbowtrout

doc_17 wrote: »

I told the principal to never, ever put LCVP on my timetable! So far it hasn't appeared!

Got the timetable today. No SPHE. That's a result!

LCVP > Religion so I'm not going to complain too much

looksee

When the TC first started there was an opportunity for teachers without a teaching qualification to join, also a few areas in PLCs there was either not a degree available, or people with a lot of actual experience who had qualifications that fell short of degrees.

In all cases it was anticipated that teachers would work for a teaching qualification on a part time basis and this is ongoing.

If you do not have the appropriate level of formal qualification you would only be registered to work in the PLC area.

Pebble on the Beach

I hope that the mandatory registration for the TC will mean that those people teaching in schools who are not qualified to teach (e.g. without HDip/PGDE etc) will no longer be able to teach - unless they are prepared to gain the necesarry qualifications.

I do however have some sympathy for those who have been teaching for years and are competent in doing so - it's unfortunate that the situation was allowed to occur in the first place. In the past 'teachers' were employed without teaching qualifications for a variety of reasons - there may have been a shortage of qualified teachers for a particular subject. A family member taught in a VEC school (before leaving to set up his own Engineering Company in the 80s) and he did not even have a degree, never mind a teaching qualification - he had completed an apprenticeship with Bord na Mona and had a few years' industrial experience and this was deemed good enough at the time to give him a job as a teacher.

There are also people currently employed as 'teachers' without the necessary qualifications who got their position simply due to the fact that they were a personal friend or relative of the principal or other staff member (this is a particular bugbear of mine!) and it's completely unfair. I'm also aware of cases of where county GAA players have been given teaching jobs without having their HDips. If they are allowed to continue teaching without the necessary qualifications then it is completely unfair on those who take the time and effort (not to mention expense) to gain the correct qualifications and upon doing so are unable to find a teaching post.

seavill

As far as I am aware the new regulations do not apply to people already in the system teaching. Onelce they keep up their reg they will still be paid.

My understanding is this will apply for new staff from a certain date like most things

Those without a dip or whatever will be allowed continue teaching.

Someone can correct me if I have got that completely wrong

gaeilgegrinds1

Why should they not have been encouraged to do the Dip years ago?