I'd make the following points.

Why does a professional institute that represents the interests of those of us working in the LLS want to expend so much effort helping its members leave the sector? Surely if there is a need for LLS workers to enter the school sector this should be the concern of the various GTCs?

Secondly that QTS and QTLS simply do not measure the same thing. It would be useful (for the schools sector) to offer a route for those in the LLS to obtain QTLS in service. But they cannot ever be considered to have parity. Indeed the IfL require that those with QTS entering the LLS obtain QTLS (within two years) and there is no APEL.

Thirdly I was surprised to learn that so many in the LLS do not have first degrees (wait 'till Dave finds about this) . But it also makes me wonder how many of us working in the LLS are ex-schoolies, (this is in part the TDAs explanation for so many missing teachers). I suspect that the real barrier preventing many in the LLS moving to the school sector is that they lack the basic qualifications to do so.

I think the IfL's resources would be better spent promoting the interests of those of us who want to stay in the LLS not those that want to leave.

What the IfL should be worrying about is getting rid of all non qualified teachers in F E and getting teacher training robust enough so that, like myself, you can walk out of your teacher training college and go to work without all this nonsense.

Thank god I qualifed in 1995 and have nothing to do with the IfL or QTLS and all that nonsense.

What happens to those of us who do have a degree, Masters etc?

Why can't I get APL parity?

I have more subject knowledge than many schoolies and have to go throught the same rigmarole of Ofsted.

I don't for one moment suggest that all of us in FE should be able to attain QTS, but those of us with an appropriate background are being prevented from doing so for no other reason than that shop is well and truly closed.

I also think that schoolies need to show their ability to teach in the post compulsory sector. Colleagues from schools have some odd ideas about teaching 16 - 19 year olds! After all they have been trained in pedagogy and FE requires and understanding of androgogy!

The issues are more complex than some make out. But in some wyas they are much more simple!

If we treated students as we treat those in both sectors we would all be condemned for lack of differentiation. IMO any system for APLing QTS --> QTLS and vice versa needs to be more flexible and rigorous!

alexander tg:

Why should we suffer the indignity and rank unfairness of not having parity of esteem?

What indignity?

I don't want parity of esteem with school teachers thanks very much.

I do not measure myself by their standards, and do not want to be measured by them.

We should be singing our own song.

Let's knock the chips of our shoulders and walk tall.

alexander tg:

The indignity and injustice I refer to are obvious.  We are not regarded with the same respect and do not receive the same conditions or monetary reward. 

I thought you would say this. But this is a political/industrial issue not a professional one. If by some magic QTLS was given parity with QTS nothing would change because the UCU cannot even enforce the rubbish pay deal it has already agreed with the employer.

alexander tg:

I want my strand of the profession of teaching to be accorded the same respect as that bestowed by government om schoolteachers.

You will not find a school teacher that will agree that the government respects them, and they will site the imposition of the National Curriculum, league tables and much more as proof. Labour has not been willing to directly confront them on pay and conditions but they have already introduced the 'stalking horse' that the next government will use to break their national agreement (academies).

Which brings me to my final point.

It will prove a costly mistake to nail our colours to school teachers' ('cause they are goin' down bro).

And why school teachers anyway? Why not parity with university lecturers? But that would be equally mistaken.

We need to promote the one unique feature we have over the two sectors between which we are sandwiched; dual professionalism.

That's our unique selling point. And that's what the IfL needs to be promoting, not whinging on about QTS parity. That's a dangerously distracting sideshow.