Qualifications

I spent an hour or so reading a thread on the Times Educational Supplement website today concerning the use of Cover Supervisors (CS) to teach students in the absence of their usual teachers. http://www.tes.co.uk/blogs/blog.aspx?path=/Speakers'%20Corner/&post=2576905
It seems - and I have seen it in every school I have so far worked in - that schools are now widely using unqualified teachers to accomodate staff absences in preference to qualified Supply Teachers. The principle seems to be that not only does this reduce the cost to schools but it is also argued that because such CS staff are resident within a school this provides a better relationship between them and students who understand they are not simply passing through and, it is therefore adduced, better at behaviour management.

The discussion however revolved around whether such an expedient harmed not only the profession but the students' education, and given that there is a tacit acceptance of this within the profession, what need of qualified teachers is there? There was some pretty substantial dispute between CS staff and qualified teachers defending both of their positions with many questions asked about the quality of both factions and little understanding of the others perspective but one thing which struck me was that qualified teachers in full-time posts are expected to set cover lessons in their own absence whether through duty or illness. This particular issue is somewhat topical given the imminent day of action by the NUT when members who intend to take part in the planned day of action were immediately confronted with the question 'will you be setting cover lessons if you intend to be absent whilst on strike?'.

A hurried consultation with the Union's HQ revealed the answer 'It would rather defeat the object if we did.' and so it now remains to be seen who will. Members of the staff who do not belong to the NUT, Heads of Departments, or, the cover supervisors themselves? It may well be that there are many capable and experienced unqualified practitioners in schools across the land but given the number of new Academies springing up across the country without union representation how long will it be before a teaching qualification becomes a disadvantage in terms of job applications? And what precisely do Ofsted have to say on this practice?

I include here a link to a story of a CS's own experience with an introduction to how this phenomenon began:-

http://teachinengland.blogspot.com/2007/12/cover-supervisors-teach-with-no.html

In their report Remodelling the Workforce (December 2005) which can be obtained from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/4115.pdf Ofsted state the following:

'Three schools in the sample inspected have employed cover
supervisors. Other schools are considering their use but most have doubts
about funding or their effect on the quality of learning. Where supervisors
are selected carefully, trained effectively and managed well pupils and
teachers have benefited from better quality cover supervision.
Case study 4: creative use of support staff in a secondary school
One secondary school has imaginatively addressed the issue of providing
cover in a manner that has had a positive impact upon morale without
reducing standards and at minimal cost. Previously, in the school.s view,
poor-quality and expensive supply teachers had been employed,
producing a negative impact upon standards and behaviour. Two new
posts of cover supervisor are held by learning support assistants known
to the pupils. They have received effective school-based and external
training in behaviour management. They have observed teaching in all
subjects as part of their induction. Each supervisor has a clear job
description and operates within well designed guidelines. Planning sheets
for cover are completed by subject teachers when there is a planned
absence and these are monitored by a senior teacher. For emergency
cover the head of the curriculum department completes a lesson plan for
the cover supervisor. There are clear expectations about what cover
supervisors can and cannot do during lessons; for example, they are not
permitted to cover practical lessons in science or DT, or PE lessons. The
cover supervisors are available to give feedback to teachers to allow
more effective follow up from teacher absence. Resources have been
identified from the supply budget to ensure the sustainability of these
posts.'

Small wonder about the ambivalence of SLTs with financial savings to be made when the government's own watchdog advocate employing Cover Supervisors with, in some cases, fewer qualifications than the pupils they are teaching! And we wonder why the standards of educational qualifications are mocked and derided in the media!

If every child matters then why don't they matter enough to employ people with the correct subject knowledge, training and experience, who are paid in accordance with nationally agreed professional rates? Or better still, train and pay cover supervisors so that they can set and deliver lessons according to departmental schemes of work so that they too feel valued and not exploited by this Remodelling of the workforce.