JAJ

Clearly the UK has the right to set its own standards and ought not to be slavishly beholden to what goes on in other jurisdictions.

Especially if those other jurisdictions have an inappropriate education model (such as requiring nurses to have degrees).

That said, I wonder if they have talked to NOOSR about the GTC training model.

Assuming that's the case, UK tuition providers for GTC and other qualifications that are not recognised in many countries elsewhere have a moral obligation to at least let students know that so they can consider other options.

On another thread I've observed that many people in the UK have engineering qualifications that are not accredited by the *UK* Engineering Council. I wonder how the universities and tuition providers of such courses get away with it?


Jeremy

Swerv-o

It's pretty scandalous in my opinion, and I try to inform as many people as I can about it. A GTP teacher at my last school was distaught that she wouldn't be able to go elswehere and teach.

GTP trained teachers are actually only qualified to teach in England and Wales - they are not eligible to teach in Scotland or Ireland, yet nowhere do the Teacher Training Agency choose to mention this fact - they are just trying to get as many people into a profession with extremely low morale.

If you think about it logically, then there is no reason for the UK authorities to get their courses recognised overseas - It's hard enough to get trained teachers in the UK as it is, without making it easy for them to qualify and then up sticks and take off to somewhere better.

Conversely, I do think that Australia could make the process a little more flexible for overseas teachers though - There are now many high quality routes into teaching in the UK that arn't just University based, and are flexible, high quality teacher training courses that allow people who wouldn't normally be able to get into the profession an entry point. A friend of mine is a single mother, who would never be able to juggle a university course and childcare issues, but has nearly finished a part time GTP course, and is a damn good teacher as a result.

One idea would be for Australia to simply to recognise the GTC Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) that is granted to teachers in England and Wales - It is the de-facto standard in England and Wales, regardless of which route you take to get it. The standards that you have to address and evidence are exactly the same irrespective of course, so you know that all teachers start at the same baseline.

S

NKSK version 2

This is an interesting point. I think that you may be correct if the providers are actively recruiting from abroad and those prospective students have a desire to return to their country of origin after qualification. However, if the college provides training for UK prospective teachers then I'm not so sure of their obligations.

In a similar vein, doesn't this also put a moral obligation on UK trades accreditation bodies to state explicitly that any qualification they award may not enable them to work in states such as Queensland without undergoing further training?

Anecdotally, given all of the paperwork necessary to obtain a skilled job in Australia, I was expecting the standards of craftsmanship to be at least equal to and possibly far beyond that of the UK.

Unfortunately I haven't found that to be the case at all. I haven't noticed teaching to be any better (and in many instances significantly worse) than the UK and the quality of house building - as one indicator - is questionable.

If the competence level of skilled trades in Australia was higher than the UK, then I think that the onus would lie with the 'providing' countries somewhat but as things stand - anecdotally and from reading many of the threads on BE - I think it's the Australian authorities who need to examine their skills recognition procedures.

NKSK version 2

Absolutely. Even though I have a PGCE, I have little respect for the course.
I agree fully in school based training and teaching practice but the university course itself - certainly for me - was a waste of time. So for me it seems even more ironic that the Australians seem to value a bit of paper with PGCE typed on it far more, for example, your single mother friend.
Again, it seems as though the Australian skills recognition system is a blinkered, lumbering beast which just cannot change direction and certainly can't keep up with the times.

OzTennis

Just looking at the 'bigger picture', the UK government has a target to see 50% of children go on to tertiary education (currently 33%'ish). Given that a population isn't going to get more intelligent to this extent, the only way this can be achieved is if for a higher % of children to pass A levels/Highers and for tertiary institutions to drop their entrance requirements.

Politicians and some educators can dress it up which ever way they want but over 93% pass rates at A levels (and almost this at Scottish Highers) can only be the result of lowering the bar at the high jump. We are seeing the results of this spreading everywhere with masses of people with degrees in dubious subject areas and professional standards in professions such as teaching being lowered.

I think it only right that the Australian system should insist on a minimum of 4 years University training. Please note that I'm not saying there aren't good teachers who don't meet this requirement or that there aren't bad teachers who do meet this requirement, there just has to be a minimum standard which you should resist reducing.

OzTennis

NKSK version 2

First of all, sorry for being so vocal on this subject - you can see that it's something I'm quite passionate about!!!

I agree fully with your sentiments about the lowering of UK academic standards. However, I'm not sure that 4 years of university training necessarily improves the situation.

e.g. B.Eds traditionally have one of the lowest entrance requirements. So, theoretically you could have a student teacher who scrapes two Es at A level (at the new lowered standard!) gets in to Noname College for a 4 year B.Ed and ends up fully qualified as a teacher.

Now the above person might well end up being one of the most brilliant teachers in the world, but equally, so could a person who did a non-traditional teaching courses (of the kind not recognised by the Australians).

In other words, the 4 year course gives absolutely no guarantee that the teacher a) likes kids b)knows their subject c) has good classroom management and d) has good communication skills.

I do recognise that you said that this doesn't mean 'that there aren't good teachers who don't meet this requirement or that there aren't bad teachers who do meet this requirement' but this is surely why the skills recognition system is out of date? Any tool which is so blunt that it allows bad teachers in and keeps good teachers out surely has to be sharpened?

OzTennis

Yes, I would agree with and sympathise with most of what you say and I can see 'where you are coming from'. To act as devils advocate for the registering authorities I guess they would say that a minimum subject knowledge (not ability to deal with youngsters, personality, reliability etc and all the other qualities required) is essential before you can teach a subject and the minimum requirement is the 4 years university education with at least 2 or 3 years of study in that subject.

To use an analogy there is nothing to say that I couldn't do a wonderful job coaching Andy Murray (the up and coming Scottish tennis star who got to the final against Federer in Bangkok yesterday). However, because I didn't play the tour and because I don't have the highest coaching qualification (just the 3rd of 4), I won't get the job and I wouldn't regard myself qualified to do it.

Over to you, I'm just keeping the thread going.

OzTennis

NKSK version 2

Wow, I didn't know that he got to the final!

The subject knowledge bit doesn't really stack up in support of current regulations. You'd get your subject knowledge after your first degree - 3 years. So following this logic, if all that the Australians needed was proof of subject knowledge then anyone with a standard degree would get in as a teacher. I'm all in favour of secondary teachers needing a degree (not so convinced about primary education though) so yes certainly for secondary a minimum should perhaps be a first degree. It's the vocational training component after the degree which is a mess.

BTW an interesting addition to this debate is the UK independent schools' view - they don't require their teachers to have a PGCE - so basically if you have a degree you can teach. So, theoretically you can have a teacher who teaches at St Paul's in London (one of the highest performing schools in the UK - notwithstanding all the debate on intake, lack of social deprivation etc etc) with 20 years experience who will not be able to teach in Australia. Now to me this agains shows how ludicrous the system is - imagine one of the top schools in Australia - Scotch College for example - they cannot employ the St Pauls teacher because s/he isn't skilled enough (according to NOOSR).

Swerv-o

Here I too agree with NKSK. I did a 4 year degree, a 4 year PhD then an additional year of teacher training at an FE college, so 9 years in all. I don't think that there are any problems with my subject knowledge, but NOOSR certainly have problems with my teacher training, because it wasn't done at a Uni. The course is the same structure as a uni course, has the same components and modules, works towards the same (national) standards and leads to the same awards, so how come a PGCE from XYZ College isn't recognised when the PGCE from XYZ University is?

I'm inclined to think that is simply cutting off ones nose to spite ones face?
Strangely however, The NSW Institute of Teachers don't have any problems with my qualifications, and I have been granted accreditation as a teacher to teach in NSW, but I can't teach anywhere else, including SA, where they (apparently) are desperate for any teachers.

You also make a good point about private teachers in the UK. They don't need to have a PGCE, or even QTS, but they can work in a private school, and also in a new City Academy (Failed and rebadged inner city school). I think that a vocational approach to teacher training is probably a good thing, as you can know everything about your given subject, but be rubbish in the classroom, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, teaching (certainly in the UK) seems to be much more about classroom management/crowd control than it is about teaching and delivering your subject. In my last school, I felt more like a very well paid baby sitter than a teacher, and if I managed to survive a lesson without having been punched/stabbed/spat or sworn at, I thought it was a pretty good lesson!



S

Sarrob

Blimey !! I am really surprised that they don't recognise the GTP and SCITT ! I have been teaching for six years now in secondary.

I completed my PGCE in Modern Languages, at St Martins in Lancaster ( accredited by Lancaster University). I had my skills assessed in June 2004 and there was no problem, no questions asked ! I did put everything in with my application to NOOSR - induction year stuff, some lesson obs etc.

Someone may have answered this above but yes, teachers are a 60 point job. We submitted our 47sk in April(ack in May) and meds and xrays were requested on the 10th sept.

Maybe Aus/NOOSR isn't up to date on the other avenues into teaching over here - and how the financial implications affect how people choose to do this.

Good luck with it !!

Australia_bound?

Sorry now I get you have got English degree and working on PGCE this year phew!

CadburysFingers

Thanks for all the replys. I have passed on the info supplied to my s-i-l.

OzTennis

Ah, but one point about St Paul's is that the calibre of pupils is so high that the pupils will usually achieve fantastic results no matter who teaches them (just like Roger Federer would still be #1 if I coached him). If 'one' teaches at St Paul's which gets fantastic results this does not make 'one' a good teacher. Indeed I would like to see how 'one' might perform in a tough inner city school after 'one's' St Paul's experience.

I do take your point about Scotch and St Paul's having different requirements though as well as the subject knowledge point.

Yeah on the tennis, Murray was given a wildcard into the tournament because Henman withdrew with a back injury. He proceeded to beat the #101 (Bastl) in the world in the 1st round, #41 (Soderling) in 2nd round, US Open semi-finalist Robbie Ginepri in the quarter final, local hero Schricaphan in the semi final and was beaten 6-3, 7-5 by Federer in the final, better than most do, Federer winning his 24th straight final which I don't think can be equalled in any sport. Murray was about #400 in January and has already risen to #72 and will go a lot higher, top 10 at least. He hasn't looked back since he used to ask me to hit with him when he was younger.

OzTennis

NKSK version 2

I agree which I suppose only serves to underline the fact that teaching and being a 'good teacher' has so many variables within that you can't just say that if you have done a traditional course you're in (i.e. you are good enough for Australia) but if you've done training which our computer or 16 year old YTS trainee can't understand, you're out.

OzTennis

Yeah, we keep agreeing with each other!

OzTennis