Debating
the issue of the necessity for teaching qualifications for individuals employed
by schools as ‘teachers’, the government views are divided, with Mr Gove
advocating that academies and free
schools (semi-independent schools funded by the central government) may draw on
the subject knowledge and passion of people without formal teaching
qualifications, while Mr Clegg is of the opinion that schools should employ
only qualified teachers to ensure “basic quality standard”. Educationalists, including heads of the
Institute of Education, college principals and Dr Bousted, general secretary of
the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, believe that “standards in further
education as well as in schools are threatened by the absence of a national
policy for trained and qualified teachers and trainers”. However, Mr Gove’s department disagrees,
stating that state maintained schools and colleges should be able to “hire
brilliant teachers who have not got qualified teacher status – and have the
same advantage that private schools have to bring in great linguists, computer
scientists, engineers and other specialists to inspire their pupils”, as
reported by The Telegraph on 30 October 2013.
Dr
Seldon, Headmaster of Wellington College, compares teaching to parenting, where
qualifications are not needed, and believes that Mr Clegg and others, who argue
for teachers to be qualified, are misguided regarding the teacher’s role who,
he says, is “much more akin to that of a parent (...) yet no one is suggesting
parents go off for a university course to qualify as a parent”. Although in his conference speech he makes
references to teaching as a profession (strange analogy to parenting here) and
acknowledges it as a reflective practice highlighting passion, intellect, love
of subject and children as required qualities, his focus on teaching also fails
to recognize that the aim of teaching is to enable learning, hence, I
assume no references to pedagogy or necessity for teacher training.
Arguably,
subject expertise and passion are teachers’ great qualities, however, for
effective, by which I mean active, self-regulated and autonomous learning to
occur, the focus of this debate needs to shift from the teacher to the learner.
In this whole debate on qualified/unqualified teachers, we seem to have lost sight
of what teaching and learning are all about.
Learning is complex and, although some students can be naturally attuned
to meta-cognition, this is not the case with the majority of learners who need
to be taught how to engage actively with the learning material, where knowledge
acquisition is right at the bottom of the learning taxonomy. Therefore ‘good teachers’, to be effective in
class, need much more than subject expertise and intellect. Great teachers are
able to facilitate learning through the use of formative strategies in class
and know when to step back, to allow for pupils’ reasoning, application and
self-discovered, independent learning to occur.
In
order to have a better understanding of principles which encourage children to
learn and why some children are more successful than others, extensive studies
into the psychology of learning focused on motivation and, in particular, on
the association between motivation and learning outcomes have come to the fore
(Boekaerts, 2002; Dweck, 1986), and it is relevant, when discussing classroom
learning, to explore some theoretical aspects of learning which scaffold
classroom interaction. Learning is one of those terms about which many
assumptions are made, but around which there is a silence in terms of
assertions because it is complex and specific to different learners, and no
single strategy works for all (Schunk et al. 1998). According to Hirst and Peters (1989),
“Educating people is not done by instant fiat. It takes time, and a variety of
different processes of learning and teaching are involved”. Drawing on a range
of European studies, including her own research in Holland over the last twenty
years, Boekaerts (1995) concluded that motivation, an essential element of
successful learning, conceptualized in her research as specific self-regulatory
skill, was necessary for learners to experience success in educational
outcomes.
Since
learning is not just limited to knowledge acquisition, for effective learning
to occur, learners need to be equipped with appropriate
skills, which means they need to know how to learn in order to be fully successful.
These skills are developed through classroom interactions and classroom
dialogue by trained professionals whose aim is not just to impart or introduce
knowledge, or new material, but to ensure that learning at a deeper level takes
place and progress is made by individual students. To assert, that this can be done by any
unqualified individual with subject expertise, or indeed to liken it to
parenting, is, frankly, both insulting and ridiculous. Although I agree that not all qualified
teachers are excellent and some industry experts can make excellent teachers,
the training, including newly qualified teachers’ induction process, provide
common ground for development and reflection, giving teaching a professional
framework.
Likewise,
references to independent schools having the opportunities to employ
unqualified teachers are hardly appropriate. Firstly, the vast majority of
independent school teachers have QTS (qualified teacher status). I have been recruiting teachers to
independent schools for many years and it has never been a consideration to
recruit an unqualified teacher. Secondly, even if the private sector has the
ability to employ unqualified academic staff, independent schools, and not all
of them are beacons of excellence, work under different conditions to
maintained schools, and what may be appropriate in some independent schools,
would not necessarily be appropriate in state-funded schools where about 93% of
pupils are being educated.
In
my view, the debate should focus more on learning, rather than on
teaching. It is more about developing pupils as independent, sustainable
learners – skills which are key to future success in the digital age, where
students need to be prepared for life-long learning and multiple career
changes. To assert, that this job can be
done by unqualified individuals, however charismatic and knowledgeable, is to
deny students opportunities that they deserve.
Teacher effect on learning, including feedback, is huge (J. Hattie’s
table of effect sizes below). Students
have only one chance of every year in education and their learning should be
guided by qualified teachers who are committed to life-long learning
themselves.
Hattie's table of
effect sizes.
|
Influence
|
Effect Size
|
Source of Influence
|
|
1.13
|
Teacher
|
|
|
1.04
|
Student
|
|
|
1.00
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.82
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.72
|
Student
|
|
|
.65
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.61
|
Student
|
|
|
Class environment
|
.56
|
Teacher
|
|
.52
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.50
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.50
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Homework
|
.43
|
Teacher
|
|
Teacher Style
|
.42
|
Teacher
|
|
.41
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Peer effects
|
.38
|
Peers
|
|
.37
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Simulation & games
|
.34
|
Teacher
|
|
.31
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.30
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.30
|
Teacher
|
|
|
.24
|
Student
|
|
|
Physical attributes of students
|
.21
|
Student
|
|
.18
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Audio-visual aids
|
.16
|
Teacher
|
|
.14
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Finances/money
|
.12
|
School
|
|
.12
|
Teacher
|
|
|
Team teaching
|
.06
|
Teacher
|
|
Physical attributes (e.g., class
size)
|
-.05
|
School
|
Terms used in the table (Interpreted by Geoff
Petty)
• An effect size of 0.5 is equivalent to a one
grade leap at GCSE
• An effect size of 1.0 is equivalent to a two
grade leap at GCSE
Hattie says ‘effect sizes' are the best way of
answering the question ‘what has the greatest influence on student learning?'.
An effect-size of 1.0 is typically associated with:
• advancing learners' achievement by one year, or
improving the rate of learning by 50%
• a correlation between some variable (e.g., amount
of homework) and achievement of approximately .50
• A two grade leap in GCSE, e.g. from a C to an A
grade
Dr Joanna Goodman
