bornagain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am always surprised by the view that you do not > need teachers to under go specialist training > before they are let loose on their precious > children. It's a view that has been resurrected by > Gove et al with sometimes disasterous results - > see poor BB100's child's predicament, also the > unqualified head that resigned from Pimlico school > recently. > > Just because someone has studied a subject, does > not necessarily mean that they will be able to > teach it. This presumption is arrogant and > dangerous! Teaching is and has always been a > profession. You need specialist teaching skills > and knowledge to be effective. You would not allow > your child to be treated by an unqualified doctor > so why would you be happy for your child to be > taught by an unqualified teacher? Doctor / Teacher hmmm, let me think. It's a hell of a lot easier to become a teacher than a doctor! (not dissing teachers, but wouldn't compare their qualification and study to that of a doctor) I don't think it's right for schools to hire unqualified teachers for subjects like science / English / maths, but I think it's perfectly fine to bring in experienced sports coaches for games / PE, and I can imagine bringing people in for languages, and I see no problem with it so long as it's closely monitored and supervised. Equally with that head in Pimlico, I don't think there is so much a problem for an experienced manager with very good people skills to run a school if they have a good knowledgable team around them. That girl was 27 years old and knew nothing about education. There is unqualified, and unqualified.