Roger Hayter wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 16/08/2019 08:16, charles wrote:
In article , Stephen Cole
wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
Stephen Cole wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 17:15:52 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

If you were limited to a B you did the one of the lower papers. No
sure what is was called when you did your exams- probably the
Intermediate. The papers have some common questions but, the middle
one you probably did, doesn't have the harder questions which carry
the marks for the A and A* grades. From memory, the lower paper
(below the one you probably did) you can only get a C.

So, if you've don't do the Higher paper, answered the same
questions, but struggled with the more complex ones, you'd not have
got a A* or even an A, as some of the easy (available) questions you
picked up marks on would have been removed to keep the overall
number questions etc the same.

Certainly correct in recent years.

Like I said, it sounds sensible so I can easily believe that it's how
things are done now. Brian's problem is that he played at being a
teacher for a couple of years when he couldn't get another job after
being forced to abruptly end his engineering career, so he pretends he
knows all there is to know about education, to make up for his
unqualified status I guess. It's best just to nod and smile at him in
these circumstances, with luck he won't make too bad a fool of himself.

Repeating lies made up by the usual rejects may make you feel better
but it doesn't change the facts.

The facts are, Brian, that you were an unqualified teacher. You've
admitted so yourself here several times in the past. It's all in the
archives.

I suspect that Brian is about my age. Having a degree qualified you as a
teacher in those days. SWMBO was a teacher for 40 years on that basis.

a fiddle then no longer accepted? ...

It wasn't a fiddle; before the rise of education as an academic
discipline it was considered that the only qualification for teaching
was to know something about the subject you were teaching. Teacher
training (note use of the word training) was considered a lower
qualification than a degree, so obviously if you had a degree you didn't
need teacher training because you already knew your subject. It as only
later that education about educational methods was considered important.
Now, even in professional fields such as medicine, the education mafia
will try to stop you teaching anyone until you have some sort of
primarily educational qualification. I am not saying it is a bad thing,
but it is a real change.



Indeed.

Just around the time I qualified, it was announced that only qualified
teachers would be allowed in state schools.

The rule was applied for a few years. I cant recall the exact dates- it
must have been mid 2000s

Then it was removed, by the Tories, removal was a stupid idea in my view.


Private schools could always use unqualified teachers.

It wasnt uncommon for those who, having achieved QTS ( the actual teaching
qualification- not a PGCE as many think, a PGCE is just one route to QTS,
there are / were others, including BEd, GTP, for example) failed to
complete their NQT year successfully. They wouldnt be allowed to teach in
a state school, even as unqualified teachers, but they could still teach in
a private school. AFAIK, this is still the case.

You still have to achieve QTS by a recognised route and your NQT year for
be fully qualified. One of my son in laws is just starting his NQT year.

You cant even start training without a good degree. Im not sure when that
requirement came in, before I qualified certainly.


There are various schemes to, for example, €˜convert overseas trained
teachers. We had a very good Australian teacher who had to go through a
process, even though they had many years of experience etc. All a bit €˜box
ticking in their case. I expect it is similar in medicine.