Army Of Teaching Assistants Faces The Axe As Education Department Attempts To Save Some Of The £4Billion They Cost Each Year

[Sir Harold m]

The reason they never used to have them is simple . Many of the children that require 1:1 assistance in a classroom setting would have previously been sent to a special needs school which would have been way more expensive as they would have been taught and supervised by over qualified teachers when all they required in reality was someone to supervise them and stop them disrupting the class etc for which a lay person with experience gained in job was more suitable .

Many kids ( think those with autism , aspergers or Tourette's etc ) don't need full time special needs teachers in an expensive special needs school , they can benefit, thrive and eventually learn to work and pay taxes if they join mainstream schools and just have a low ( rekatively) paid assistant to make them focus .

For information , most special schools places cost £55k per annum whereas putting a kid in mainstream with 100% assistance ( ie 32.5 hours) costs society about £25 k .

In nearly all cases only 25-50% of hours are covered so the costs are much lower .

Only those type of otherwise unemployable idiots employed by a think tank could discover a problem with this. They must have excelled themselves with finding methods to exclude certain elements to make this outcome feasible in their 'research'

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Minor point, but in many cases, teaching assistants have replaced proper teachers.

[Timak]

The reason they never used to have them is simple . Many of the children that require 1:1 assistance in a classroom setting would have previously been sent to a special needs school

Exactly this although the article seems to confuse those who assist SEN pupils 1:1, proper classroom assistants who work with the teachers (at Primary level) and volunteers who might help with reading.

[Guest eight]

My daughter's class has one teacher and two teaching assistants for a class of seventeen.

Roll back to my day and we had one teacher for a class of thirty.

In fact our whole school of about ninety kids had three teachers, a head, an office woman, cleaner and two dinner ladies. My Daughter's school of seventy kids has a staff of about twenty.

[blobloblob]

Where the hell does this £17,000 per year figure come from?

[fluffy666]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334853/Army-teaching-assistants-faces-axe-Education-department-attempts-save-4billion-cost-year.html

'The country's 232,000 teaching assistants face the axe after ministers started talks to phase out the so-called 'mums army'.

The Treasury and Department for Education are considering getting rid of the classroom assistants in attempt to save some of the £4billion a year spent on them.

The number of assistants, who are often used to help children with special needs, has nearly tripled since 2000, but research has found they can have a negative impact on pupils' results.

Reducing the number of assistants would enable schools to hire more teachers as well as reduce the Department for Education budget.

However, any plans to scrap the helpers would likely be subject of opposition from some parents and headteachers who value the individual attention they can give to children.

Under the previous Labour government, the assistants were introduced to ease pressure on teachers and allow them more time to prepare for lessons and mark work.

They earn an average of about £17,000 a year and often have few qualifications.

The number of assistants has increased around three-fold from 79,000 in 2000 to around 232,000.

Think-tank Reform found that schools could improve value for money by cutting the number of teaching assistants and increasing class sizes.

In the drive for austerity Education Secretary Michael Gove has been overseeing major teaching reforms

Thomas Cawston, the think-tank's research director, said: 'We cited a swathe of evidence that questioned the value for money of teaching assistants and demonstrated that their impact on educational outcomes for pupils was negligible.

'We found that while they were supposed to help teachers, they were actually being allowed to take classes themselves. Not being prepared or qualified to do those classes, they were not doing a very good job.

'The money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers.''

nvere had em wen i woz a lad.

tories probably think they'll be mostly labour voters anyway

'Think Tank' is one of those Orwellian phrases you find, since by definite these guys do the opposite of thinking - i.e. they start from the conclusion they want and work back to find and/or make up the evidence..

As far as voting goes.. I think that Tory base is basically the elderly plus stockbroker belt.. State schools are basically just a cost as far as they are concerned. Hack away at anything so that the big boys can get their tax breaks and pensioners get their bribes..

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Labour really did do some crazy free money give-aways.

Teaching assistants

Kids at school being paid

Blokes on the motorway that pretend to be coppers.

Blokes in town centers directing toursists

Quango's galore.

The rise of the government funded charity 6 figure execs

Community Officers

Bank staff

[fluffy666]

Labour really did do some crazy free money give-aways.

Teaching assistants

Kids at school being paid

Blokes on the motorway that pretend to be coppers.

Blokes in town centers directing toursists

Quango's galore.

The rise of the government funded charity 6 figure execs

Community Officers

Bank staff

Would you like to put some figures on that?

[reddog]

I have thought for a while that it would be an easy saving to get rid of most teaching assistants. It was classic example of an idea with some merit (i.e. not ever job in a school needs a teacher with a degree, so take on one or two people per school at a cheap price to do this), that has had massive "mission creep".

My ex-girlfriend was a teacher, however she is from Canada so doesn't feel the need to gloss over problems in the British eductuion system (the general view I come across is all teachers are amazing, any problems that are there just need more cash thrown at them).

Ex-girfriends views on teaching assitants were:

-Some of them can try to take over, contradict and undermine the actual teacher

-Many have low qualification and are a bit dim (a few GCSE's and some sort of TA NVQ), obviously if there own grammar and arithmetic are poor it is hard for them properly help the children

-Some don't get the idea of confidentiality, quite often they know other mums at the school, so gossip about what has gone on at school, and use their job as a position of power within their circle of "mum friends".

-The "behavior management" skills that they are met to be providing are useless (essentially just telling a disruptive pupil to calm down).

The problem is now that so many have been hired getting rid of them may be quite hard, any chance to highlight the "cuts" (what cuts?) will be jumped on.

[reddog]

I have thought for a while that it would be an easy saving to get rid of most teaching assistants. It was classic example of an idea with some merit (i.e. not ever job in a school needs a teacher with a degree, so take on one or two people per school at a cheap price to do this), that has had massive "mission creep".

My ex-girlfriend was a teacher, however she is from Canada so doesn't feel the need to gloss over problems in the British eductuion system (the general view I come across is all teachers are amazing, any problems that are there just need more cash thrown at them).

Ex-girfriends views on teaching assitants were:

-Some of them can try to take over, contradict and undermine the actual teacher

-Many have low qualification and are a bit dim (a few GCSE's and some sort of TA NVQ), obviously if there own grammar and arithmetic are poor it is hard for them properly help the children

-Some don't get the idea of confidentiality, quite often they know other mums at the school, so gossip about what has gone on at school, and use their job as a position of power within their circle of "mum friends".

-The "behavior management" skills that they are met to be providing are useless (essentially just telling a disruptive pupil to calm down).

The problem is now that so many have been hired getting rid of them may be quite hard, any chance to highlight the "cuts" (what cuts?) will be jumped on.

[reddog]

I have thought for a while that it would be an easy saving to get rid of most teaching assistants. It was classic example of an idea with some merit (i.e. not ever job in a school needs a teacher with a degree, so take on one or two people per school at a cheap price to do this), that has had massive "mission creep".

My ex-girlfriend was a teacher, however she is from Canada so doesn't feel the need to gloss over problems in the British eductuion system (the general view I come across is all teachers are amazing, any problems that are there just need more cash thrown at them).

Ex-girfriends views on teaching assitants were:

-Some of them can try to take over, contradict and undermine the actual teacher

-Many have low qualification and are a bit dim (a few GCSE's and some sort of TA NVQ), obviously if there own grammar and arithmetic are poor it is hard for them properly help the children

-Some don't get the idea of confidentiality, quite often they know other mums at the school, so gossip about what has gone on at school, and use their job as a position of power within their circle of "mum friends".

-The "behavior management" skills that they are met to be providing are useless (essentially just telling a disruptive pupil to calm down).

The problem is now that so many have been hired getting rid of them may be quite hard, any chance to highlight the "cuts" (what cuts?) will be jumped on.

[reddog]

Before anyone points this out I now realise my post is full of grammar and spelling mistakes. Kind of ironic, I am a product of the system!

[Guest eight]

-Some don't get the idea of confidentiality, quite often they know other mums at the school, so gossip about what has gone on at school, and use their job as a position of power within their circle of "mum friends".

I don't involve myself too closely at school but I'm pretty certain this is going on. I'm also staggered at just how pervasive the influence of the PTA is - in many respects they practically run the school!

I should add that the school in question also has a part-time "business manager"

[Oliver Sutton]

Would you like to put some figures on that?

[Edanmount]

My parents are both teachers and a lot of their friends are/were teachers. They started teaching in Northern Ireland around 1960's - 1970's.

I always respected the fact that they were educated, intelligent, open-minded, respectable types.

Salaries were good for NI and with that you could buy a nice house and know that you job was secure.

Nowadays - everything seems worse.

Hiring these teaching assistants is a bizarre way of changing the education system and given the large numbers; the economy too.

I don't think that the numbers of "special needs children is genuine and it makes a mockery of the real special nees case.

Also, £17k is a low (but at least you won't have to repay your student loan).

[RentingForever]

Also, £17k is a low (but at least you won't have to repay your student loan).

Probably closer to £30k once the tax credits kick in.

[StainlessSteelCat]

remember similar numbers in the 80's.

Same here. Still there are more kids going to Uni nowadays so they must be doing something right.

[RichB]

I'm 10,000 psots into my HPC career and I don't think Ive ever spelled one correctly.

You nailed it in that post though. All 3 letters, right order and everything. A*

[spyguy]

-Many have low qualification and are a bit dim (a few GCSE's and some sort of TA NVQ), obviously if there own grammar and arithmetic are poor it is hard for them properly help the children

'Low qualification's' is generous.

My GF is a TA at my kids school.

The majority of her fellow TA's are educational drop-outs- must have 0 GCSE/level 2 qualifications.

Its painful watching them attempt year 2 maths - They get dividing by 10 wrong FFS!

GF did her TA NVQ - 'Its equivalent to an A level'.

Is it f.

Think an easy O level.

I concur with the gossiping/moronic attitude to perceived power.

They could fix it by insisting on TA have a C+ passes at GCSE Maths + English + NVQ3 TA.

Ideally, AS Maths + English should be mandated for both TAs and teachers.

[Guest eight]

'Low qualification's' is generous.

My GF is a TA at my kids school.

The majority of her fellow TA's are educational drop-outs- must have 0 GCSE/level 2 qualifications.

Its painful watching them attempt year 2 maths - They get dividing by 10 wrong FFS!

GF did her TA NVQ - 'Its equivalent to an A level'.

Is it f.

Think an easy O level.

I concur with the gossiping/moronic attitude to perceived power.

They could fix it by insisting on TA have a C+ passes at GCSE Maths + English + NVQ3 TA.

Ideally, AS Maths + English should be mandated for both TAs and teachers.

I do have fun spotting the spelling mistakes in my daughter's weekend diary. Haven't had the heart to start correcting them yet though.

[interestrateripoff]

Where the hell does this £17,000 per year figure come from?

Tombola?

[reddog]

Putting the cash cost aside, my ex-GF thought one of the main problems with teach assistants was the fact that they either had kids at the school or had recently had kids at the school. Because of this, they struggled with the idea of separating the being a mum and being a school employee. (I am sure this is not the case with you GF spyguy!)

To be fair I don't think you actually need a degree to be a primary school teacher (you didn't in the past). What I would do is:

-Scrap the need for a degree for primary school teachers

-Scrap teaching assistants

-Implement a program where you could be a primary school teacher if you had a solid set of A-levels (including AS Maths and English), the course would be for 1 year, then you would have a bit of training in your holidays for the first few years of your first job

This would produce teachers that are just as good as the existing ones but at a cheaper price.

Obviously I realise with the vested interests of the teaching unions my ideas will go nowhere!

[CynicAl]

Putting the cash cost aside, my ex-GF thought one of the main problems with teach assistants was the fact that they either had kids at the school or had recently had kids at the school. Because of this, they struggled with the idea of separating the being a mum and being a school employee. (I am sure this is not the case with you GF spyguy!)

To be fair I don't think you actually need a degree to be a primary school teacher (you didn't in the past). What I would do is:

-Scrap the need for a degree for primary school teachers

-Scrap teaching assistants

-Implement a program where you could be a primary school teacher if you had a solid set of A-levels (including AS Maths and English), the course would be for 1 year, then you would have a bit of training in your holidays for the first few years of your first job

This would produce teachers that are just as good as the existing ones but at a cheaper price.

Obviously I realise with the vested interests of the teaching unions my ideas will go nowhere!

Just as good an now? No. You would get teachers with no idea of how to teach. Young kids don't get taught anything that the average adult doesn't know, but getting the kids to learn is the hard bit. Step inside a classroom before you make such ill-informed statements.

Half the reason for the need for extra staff in classrooms has been the reduction in the amount of time that parents spend with their children developing their basic skills. Many parents cannot be trusted to complete the guided reading that young children are assigned. Hence there was a reduction in reading ability and the introduction of so many assistants so the 1:1 tuition can be done. Every child has must be listened to reading every week. If you assume 15 minutes per child, then in a class of 30 (the maximum allowable) the equates to 7.5 hours, a bit more than 1 academic day. So >20% of a teacher's week spent listening to reading. That's just one example, there are lots of others. Maybe if parents spent more time with their kids rather than expecting school to provide 100% of their education we'd not need to spend so much money on them.

[Killer Bunny]

nvere had em wen i woz a lad.

tories probably think they'll be mostly labour voters anyway

At £4Bns pa they are great value for money. They could be cheaper rather than eliminated. Perish the thought politicians would do anything sensible.

[RichB]

Just as good an now? No. You would get teachers with no idea of how to teach. Young kids don't get taught anything that the average adult doesn't know, but getting the kids to learn is the hard bit. Step inside a classroom before you make such ill-informed statements.

Half the reason for the need for extra staff in classrooms has been the reduction in the amount of time that parents spend with their children developing their basic skills. Many parents cannot be trusted to complete the guided reading that young children are assigned. Hence there was a reduction in reading ability and the introduction of so many assistants so the 1:1 tuition can be done. Every child has must be listened to reading every week. If you assume 15 minutes per child, then in a class of 30 (the maximum allowable) the equates to 7.5 hours, a bit more than 1 academic day. So >20% of a teacher's week spent listening to reading. That's just one example, there are lots of others. Maybe if parents spent more time with their kids rather than expecting school to provide 100% of their education we'd not need to spend so much money on them.

But parents are supposed to be out at work from well before school till after bedtime earning money to pay taxes to hand to the TA's and Teachers to do a job. When are they supposed to do it themsevles?