The #QTSDebate is paper tiger

What is a ‘teacher’? Are those with a QTS the only people who can help children learn?

Have all the people you have learned from had QTS? Didn’t think so. Which brings me to my motivation for this blog post. I have been hugely disappointed by the level of debate from teachers, about the place of non-QTS ‘teachers’ in schools. It would be great if this was as simple as the binary policy issue that the politicians want it to be – but it ain’t.

I am in favour of people ‘teaching’ in schools who do not have QTS (Qualified Teacher Status). This puts me at odds with many people I’d call my fellow travellers – so let me get a few things clear first.

• I am on the opposite side of the fence to Mr Gove on almost everything
• I believe in a powerful and strong teaching profession.
• I believe that expert pedagogy should inform and shape educational experiences in schools
• I expect and demand that there should be high standards of Teaching and Learning in all classrooms.
• The current administration has taken the attack on teaching and the working conditions of teachers to new levels of antagonism. This is unforgivable, even when it builds on policies started by Labour.

That said, I do not see why teachers have allowed themselves to be pulled into this crazy attack on the paper tigers that are ‘unqualified teachers’. It suits the parties to try to create clear water between their vacuous and too-similar education policies – but do we really need to join in?

Firstly, no one is seriously suggesting unqualified teachers will be in charge of primary classes all day, every day, all term. Most of the suggested uses are in secondary schools, in very specific areas, mostly at KS4. In many ways, this is just organising, encouraging and extending what happens, even in primary schools, where local experts are brought into the learning space we call school: such as piano teachers, or artists/poets in residence.

For example, you might have an engineer working with a physics A’level group in every 3rd session, to build and contextualise understanding of light as a carrier of data in fibre optic cables.

To have a regular and dependable relationship with someone who can enliven learning and engage young people is NOT an attack on the profession! Yes the profession is under attack, and is deeply defensive, but this is the wrong reaction.

Teachers should be confidently welcoming this development, as it strengthens the value of a teacher as a pedagogue – rather than just an instructor or broadcaster of facts. I do NOT agree with Mr Gove about most things, and totally disagree with his views about what constitutes a proper education – and his view about the primacy of (certain) facts. We need teachers who are qualified in schools who are pedagogues – but we should also have room for those who bring other skills.

Yes, there is the issue of what to call a person who teaches, if not a not a teacher with QTS, but I am not going to get into that issue in this post. I have been amazed, however, at how many QTS teachers I know who have become unreasonably vociferous and demeaning about those qualified in other areas who want to help kids learn, just because they ‘dare’ want to ‘teach’ kids – and, therefore, might be referred to as ‘teachers’!

Those arguing in the #QTSdebate use the example of doctors to show how ‘mad’ the use of ‘unqualified teachers’ is. But this shows a simple lack of understanding of the complexity of the health care system we all depend on. A GP is a general practitioner, who depends on a wealth of health care experts to help them shape and deliver the care for a patient. You might need a phlebotomist, occupational therapist, mental health nurse or  prosthetist – none of whom are doctors. The doctor shapes and informs the individual care pathway for each patient.

Teachers should be more confident in embracing the professional role as the expert in pedagogy, creating the learning pathway, and assessing the needs / potential of each pupil.

There is the argument, much discussed today in #QTSDebate, led by the fantastic Laura McInerney , that if someone wants to ‘teach’ in schools they should be prepared to train and qualify as a teacher. Firstly, many do and even more will – through programmes like TeachFirst – and I welcome this, of course.  However, not everyone wants to become an expert in pedagogy.

I was fortunate to have an immunology research scientist in class recently, via Science Oxford and the STEM Ambassador network. She was brilliant – and willing to come in more regularly. Her employer (a hospital trust) would have been open to this, and part of the value she brought to the Yr6 kids was that she was  working on this out of school – it was real and it mattered. She did not want to be a teacher – she wants to study and share her knowledge of immunology to improve public health. We worked together to shape the learning and assessed it together. Science Oxford are one of many organisations I have spoken to who would like to make these sorts of visits built into the timetabled learning in a school year – not just ‘one-off’ special visits.

It seems fair to pay for this, and schools should be able to attract, retain, and manage those experts that they can demonstrate would add value to the learning of their kids.

Laura asked about how we maintain standards with these ‘non-QTS’ people in class – and I think the answer is clear – which is that is what all the quality structures in a school would do, from lesson observations, planning, all the way to Ofsted. These people would have to prove their value – and would be subject to proper assessment, in partnership with the teacher – who would be ultimately responsible.

I know that there is a whole debate about the role of informal learning, and about the wealth of people we can learn from, especially those out in the ‘real world’. I feel that this important debate has been lost in the fight over ‘unqualified teachers’ – and we should more confidently pull the discussion back towards it. Does it really matter to kids and parents who ‘teaches’ their kids?

I think most parents want their kids to be taught by the best possible people, and for them to do it with care, passion, and to enable all children to learn.

Finally, I am not a natural blogger – I do not write well. I prefer face-to-face debate  and Twitter – so apologies for this long, poorly structure and rambling post. I do not post it expecting the arguments not to be ripped into – but please allow me to clarify before asserting what you think I am saying if a point seems a bit vague. Thanks for reading this far.