INTO Directive to teachers-don't work with unqualified subs...

noodler

Now I know for a fact that during the better times people with degrees (but without HDips) would regularly sub or supervise when they were needed so are we not all being a little dishonest in the motives here?

It is completely understandable that qualfiied teachers should get jobs first (if they are up to it by the way - nobody here is guaranteed a job just by completing a HDip I hope) but isn't that the main reason for this directive? Rather than the scaremongering going on that unqualified subs are somehow a sign of disrespect on the profession?

dambarude

It's a sign of disrespect at any time because it's basically saying that you don't need a teaching qualification to teach. In other times when qualified teachers weren't available it wasn't any different, it's just the situation is being brought to a head now because of the scarcity of jobs.

If there's ever a shortage of teachers again (unlikely anytime soon:rolleyes:) I'd hope this directive would continue.

noodler

dambarude wrote: »

It's a sign of disrespect at any time because it's basically saying that you don't need a teaching qualification to teach. In other times when qualified teachers weren't available it wasn't any different, it's just the situation is being brought to a head now because of the scarcity of jobs.

If there's ever a shortage of teachers again (unlikely anytime soon:rolleyes:) I'd hope this directive would continue.

Well I certainly don't recall the levels of outrage at the unqualified subs during the boom time - needs must and all but I wish people would be honest and say that the simple logical choice is to hire those with Dips (who are suitable) rather than there being something disgracefully wrong with the unqualified.

What does a principal do if the applicant teacher has a HDip but has been found to be sorely lacking in the classroom?

MilkTheGroup

uriah wrote: »

You are not a qualified teacher. Children have a right to be taught by fully qualified teachers.
If you can do the job now, why bother to qualify as a teacher?

I never said I can do the job of a qualified teacher that would be a ludicrous and illogical statement. I am NOT even attempting to perform the same function of a qualified teacher. I don't teach when I've been in a school I supervise a class for one day because unfortunately they couldn't get a qualified teacher in that day. I am not ignorant. I realise there is a universe in difference between 'teaching' and 'supervising'.

And on a side-note if you were in my position and were unemployed for a year after spending 5 years in college to come out to nothing but the dole queue I'm sure you would not refuse subbing if it was offered to you so spare your indignation and count yourself lucky.

Julieho

dambarude wrote: »

Thanks for that insight Julieho. Principals like yourself who go to extreme lengths to get qualified subs are to be praised. The ones I was complaining about are those who don't try at all to get qualified subs in.

Only just this evening I have heard of two recently retired principals who have been subbing very frequently at a local school, despite the fact that there are plenty of NQTs about. The school principal doesn't appear to be contacting these NQTs at all. Unfortunately everybody isn't as conscientious as you.

Thank you for your kind words dambarude. There will always be those, in every walk of life, who make poor choices. Having said that, I am one of the heretofore, silent majority. All the principals I know would share my experiences. Sometimes, it is easy to look in from the outside and make assumptions about decisions a principal may have made and the reasons behind them. All principals I know go to the longest lengths to do the best they can for everybody, including newly qualified teachers. The people who are most important of all, however, are the pupils.

Ideally, all pupils would always be taught by qualified teachers only. This is my wish and will continue to be. I would have to say however that there are 'qualified' teachers and then there are 'qualified' teachers. (Not all qualified teachers are the same, by a very long stretch, believe me). Not all courses through which teachers qualify are equally stringent in vetting their teachers. I have seen wonderful teachers qualifying through various routes but if you are faced with no option but to employ a 'qualified' teacher who simply cannot control a class, who will leave more problems behind them than they can solve, who doesn't seem to be able to think on her/his feet (even though she or he may have a qualification), then that must also be considered. While there may sometimes be a 'qualified' teacher available, the teacher in question may not be somebody the principal in question can stand over.

Once again, I stress that the vast majority of principals are like me in the lengths they go to to employ qualified substitute teachers but in cases where it might seem that a qualified teacher is available, the teacher is not always available exactly when the principal needs them. Also, not all 'qualified' teachers are the same. The vast majority of qualified teachers are very good, many are excellent but unfortunately a small minority are poor. This may not always be apparent to those looking in from the outside. (Please don't think that by highlighting this, that I am automatically saying that those qualified teachers who are overlooked are poor teachers. Not at all but there can be occasions when this is so).

I say this just to highlight another aspect which may not be considered or apparent when making assumptions about decisions that are sometimes made.

winterlight

I'm in favour of this new directive on only employing qualified teachers to sub. I think employing unqualified people is like saying to the world "anyone can teach." It totally undermines their skills and professionalism.

It can be difficult for principals though. Most out-of-work primary school teachers are either on the dole, or doing a different job while they wait for a full-time position.

A friend of mine (a primary school teacher) secured a full-time permanent position a few years ago. In the few months running up to the start date of her job, she was on the dole, but available for work. Principals were phoning her asking her to sub in local schools. She phoned her local dole office and asked them could she do a day here and a day there subbing. They said it would be too much hassle for them to work it out, and to not take any subbing work, just draw the dole until her full-time job started. That was in 2007, maybe things are different now.

afkasurfjunkie

MilkTheGroup wrote: »

I never said I can do the job of a qualified teacher that would be a ludicrous and illogical statement. I am NOT even attempting to perform the same function of a qualified teacher. I don't teach when I've been in a school I supervise a class for one day because unfortunately they couldn't get a qualified teacher in that day. I am not ignorant. I realise there is a universe in difference between 'teaching' and 'supervising'.

And on a side-note if you were in my position and were unemployed for a year after spending 5 years in college to come out to nothing but the dole queue I'm sure you would not refuse subbing if it was offered to you so spare your indignation and count yourself lucky.

if i was not a teacher and was asked to sub for a day i would turn it down because i cant imagine walking into a room and not having a CLUE what to do for the day.
do you think that you are entitled to a days' wages from the des because you 'supervised' for the day?

if the principal asked you to come in and supervise for the day on a voluntary basis would you be so inclined to do it?
the sooner the dept only pay people who have a teaching council number the better.

star-bright

Just wanting something clarified...MilkTheGroup did someone in the school you subbed in contact you through someone you know or did you go to the school and offer your services to do a job that you are totally unqualified to do?