Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

another great slogan- it's better than nothing

this is doing a huge disservice to kids and teachers, we could be doing better

"what makes an english/drama graduate an appropriate candidate for a maths teaching post?"

They're clearly not appropriate at all. However, if they're the only member of staff with a maths A Level then they're the best of a bad lot. If the only way a school can manage to attract staff members with a Maths A Level is via Teach First then that's desperately sad, but it's better than nothing.

i was outraged, not 'outraged'. are you trying to belittle my posts, or are you unclear what these punctuation marks are for?

what makes an english/drama graduate an appropriate candidate for a maths teaching post?

do we really want the rationale for teacher recruitment to be 'ehhh we couldn't find anyone else'?

though as a slogan, it's certainly up there with 'qualifications aren't everything'

the inadequacy of a pgce training doesn't justify an equally crappy training replacement

there is actually research and established good practice about how to train teachers effectively.

"what does that have to do with what we are talking about?"

Because you were "outraged" that non-maths-specialists are teaching maths. They're doing that because there aren't enough maths specialists. Perhaps the school in question didn't need an English/Drama teacher. Perhaps they already had an outstanding one, and a queue at the door a mile long whenever they advertised for one.

It's quite simple. The country doesn't have enough Maths graduates, and those that do graduate in Maths have a wide range of career choices. If they do choose teaching then they are snapped up quickly, because they are highly sought after.

In contrast, the country has many more English graduates than it probably needs, and a large number of them go into teaching.

That is why your friend with the Maths/English degree ended up teaching maths.

My PGCE meant jack and didn't prepare me for a room full of very difficult teenagers.
Yes, I was nearly eaten alive but lived to tell the tale.
It's sink or swim and best they find out straight away imo.
My first group consisted of young adults who just didn't want to be there. There was no respect for anyone in the room. Regular fights breaking out, throwing chairs, tipping up tables, swearing, blatantly calling friends on their mobiles. It was just like a zoo.

or maybe that is what teach first is meant to address retroactively-you got the wrong degree, so teach in something we need?

what better way to encourage future maths and physics graduates than to have them taught by someone who is only a month ahead of them in terms of subject knowledge

what does that have to do with what we are talking about? surely that is a separate issue?

"indeed, those english/drama graduates could easily be teaching maths or physics"

No. We should have fewer english/drama graduates, and more maths/physics graduates.

Higher education should be funded on the basis of what the country needs.

sorry, i can just move my chldren elsewhere. why is that then? what make me different from everyone else who can't, then?

they aren't highly qualified. they may not have post secondary qualifications in what they will teach. they get brief training, then sole responsibility for classes. what's not to love?

"i am bemused by your conviction that people can just move their children elsewhere if they don't like it"

I am bemused by your misinterpretation. I said the exact opposite.

"clearly my distrust of teach first unhinges you, you seem to almost be taking it personally"

Er, no. You're making it personal. I'm sticking to the point.

indeed, those english/drama graduates could easily be teaching maths or physics

you are parodying yourself, surely

i don't think this is good enough. i think it gives children who are already getting a raw deal.from their education even more of a raw deal. i find it problematic on many levels.

i am bemused by your conviction that people can just move their children elsewhere if they don't like it. indeed, perhaps i could have them tutored at home by a governess.

clearly my distrust of teach first unhinges you, you seem to almost be taking it personally. odd.

Having looked at the TF website, the entry requirements are as follows:

2:1 degree
300 UCAS points at A Level (that's 3 Bs, if taken from 3 A Levels, though it doesn't specify the number of A levels)
A C grade in GCSE English & Maths

So any smuggery about "top" graduates is misplaced IMO.

"what is the point of having highly qualified graduates who then are not teaching in that subject? i.e. the teach first teacher i know who has a first in english/drama who is teaching maths? what is the point of that?"

What is the point of churning out thousands of english/drama graduates when the country needs more maths specialists?

"Pragmatism is very easy when you are being realistic about things which will never affect you, or your children"

And its very easy to be outraged at the decisions other people make in adverse situations, when you've never had to experience them yourself, and probably never will experience them.

If your child's school couldn't employ a specialist maths teacher, you'd presumably move your daughter to another school. Not everyone can do that.

lol at qualifications aren't everything

if that isnt a fitting motto for the education system in this country i don't know what is

HomeHelp - define "top graduate" My babysitter is a fabulous young woman, but is on for a 2:1 from an ex-poly. She got thought the first part of the application process and is waiting to hear how she got on at interview.

Define "top graduate"

i am not arguing that the de facto method of training is the best. i am arguing that teach first is inadequate. a subtle difference, i guess.

what is the point of having highly qualified graduates who then are not teaching in that subject? i.e. the teach first teacher i know who has a first in english/drama who is teaching maths? what is the point of that?

"if employing underqualified people with very brief training was the optimum way to staff schools, they'd all do it."

But they're not just "employing" them, they're training them. It's just another model for teacher training. The trainees still end up with a PGCE and QTS at the end of it.

At first it was presumably an experiment, probably done on a trial basis in a small number of schools. I imagine it was judged to be working, so they continued it.

It's popular with schools. It (reportedly) produces some great teachers. If it didn't it would be scrapped.

"I'm guessing you're all for Teach First"
Not really. I just think chibi is slagging it off without knowing much about it. Nothing wrong with having opinions, but if they're not based on solid grounds then you have to expect them to be undermined.

"Can I ask why you think that it's only schools in deprived areas that are given Teach First trainees?"
Schools apply to be part of Teach First. They participate in it because they expect benefit from it. None of them are "given" trainees unless they ask for them.

I have no idea whether "most of them are in deprived areas" or not, and didn't say that. I was giving a possible explanation for why some schools might ask a Teach First trainee with Maths A Level to teach maths rather than their specialist degree subject. I assume they wouldn't do that unless they desperately needed maths teachers. That might be because their school has a poor reputation, or it might be because they're out in the sticks. Doesn't really matter why. There aren't enough specialist maths teachers to go around, so some schools are desparate.

Chibi, this statement is just silly: "if employing underqualified people with very brief training was the optimum way to staff schools, they'd all do it. funnily enough, they don't"

1. The people who go through TF are not defined only by not having a pgce. They are top graduates and have a host of other skills and capabilities. Qualifications aren't everything, and pedagogic quals in particular are not the be all and end all.
2. You are arguing that the dominant method of teacher training is de facto the best because it is dominant. That is circular reasoning. TF is very successful, despite not being the dominant method. By definition it can't be, because it starts with taking top graduates, and the pool for the dominant method is a lot less selective

TF is excellent and gets very good results for both pupils and teachers. It is more systematically successful than the dominant method of teacher training in the UK, without a doubt...

a lot is made of private schools hiring unqualified teachers. however a private school would be very unlikely to employ someone with only an a level in a subject. increasingly more teachers also have qts.

Saturday just looking through your conversation with chibi, I'm guessing you're all for Teach First. Can I ask why you think that it's only schools in deprived areas that are given Teach First trainees? Surely there must be schools in more privileged areas that are also desperate for teachers. Especially as your reasoning for having unqualified teachers seems to follow the same path, even though it's mostly private schools that employ unqualified teachers. So surely desperation can't be the only reason for using Teach First trainees?