Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

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

how on earth is having an opinion a waste of time? if only i could agree with you that teach first is awesome, i would have more time to do what, exactly?

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.

whether this is the best of a bad situation or not does not negate the fact that it is poor practice all around.

i have not seen the tv program you refer to, and i would be skeptical of any claims that a reality tv show would show an accurate portrayal of what teach first is like

"bright motivated people who get minimal training and variable levels of support don't thrive, generally"

Bright, motivated people who get 6 weeks of intensive training before they start teaching, and ongoing intensive support, can certainly thrive, and clearly many do or the Teach First programme wouldn't be considered successful.

"out of curiosity, are you involved in teaching at all?"
I'm involved in governance. I don't have direct experience of Teach First because we don't have any trouple employing good teachers. Other schools aren't so fortunate

I did watch the TV series about Teach First, and could see they were getting lots of support.

I'm also a pragmatist. I think you can waste a lot of energy being outraged on principle, and miss opportunities to recognise when people are making the best of a bad situation.

bright motivated people who get minimal training and variable levels of support don't thrive, generally.

this programme does a huge disservice to those it purports to train, and those it pretends to serve

if great teachers come out of it, it is in spite of rather than because of.

out of curiosity, are you involved in teaching at all?

"why not just hire any unqualified person with an a level then?"

Some schools do! Some schools are clearly more desperate than others.

Presumably the schools must get some benefit from the Teach First programme, or they wouldn't use it.

Anything that encourages bright, motivated people into teaching can't be a bad thing. Many of the Teach First grads probably wouldn't have considered teaching if the programme wasn't seen as having a high bar for entry. In many cases that's what motivates them. You're right that many will go off and do something else after their 2 years, but I bet many of them come back to it in later life.

If the PGCE had a higher bar for entry, maybe Teach First wouldn't be necessary.

why not just hire any unqualified person with an a level then?

how does a person having a great degree in a completely unrelated area, coupled with zero teaching experience make for a potentially great teacher?

the fact that heads are having to choose between inadequately qualified candidates and no one at all isn't exactly great

the fact that the alternative to teach first may be even worse doesn't make teach first better. it just makes the whole charade more depressing.

"if the priority is 'get anyone in tbe post' why not just pop down to town centre, and just grab the first random person you meet and offer them the job?"

It's not. The priority is to get the best person you can into the post. I'm pretty sure those Heads who decide the best candidate for maths teaching is a Teach First candidate with an 'A' Level aren't turning away queues of maths specialists in the process.

As I said before, the problem is that there aren't enough specialist maths teachers.

the only thing more cynical than teach first is the schools direct salaried route

they don't even get a 6 week quickie how to teach course. they are teachers with sole responsibility right from the start.

either highly qualified teachers who know their subject(s) and how to teach effectively make a difference to children's education, or they don't. fairly obvious to see what the government think.

yes,i am aware that the previous government startedthis shit. they ere knobs too.

why bother hiring a teach first candidate then, if they don't even have a relevant qualification?

if the priority is 'get anyone in tbe post' why not just pop down to town centre, and just grab the first random person you meet and offer them the job?

i guess it is good enough for some people's kids, though.

it would be a very rare school that had no teachers in a particular department at all. i would use any funds to train and support staff already in the department to make them more effective rather than hiring randoms who are unlikley to bring much in the way of teaching ability or indeed subject knowledge, and who see it as a stepping stone to bigger things

I am really anti-Teach First (and not just because I'm a PGCE student!)

I think it's very unfair that children in deprived areas are given Student Teachers for an entire year or entire course. Why do more privileged children deserve experienced teachers and less privileged children don't? Teach First students may well be fantastic (some may well not, just like any other teacher) but they are still learning themselves. At least with a PGCE classes are still generally looked after by permanent teachers, even if the ST takes most of the classes.

Also, Teach First students often tend to be from very privileged backgrounds themselves. This might not always be an issue but I'm not sure that they can all understand or have empathy for the children they teach. I've heard some horrible comments from TF STs, like "I can just imagine what her parents are like" or "It's not surprising considering what their family must be like".

So chibi, if you were head of a school that couldn't recruit any maths teachers, what would you do?

this person is teaching a level maths as well as ks4 and ks3

subject knowledge definitely matters.

i am a great teacher, in a science subject.

would you like me to teach your child to play violin? or how to swim?

or perhaps how to drive- i can't drive myself, but i have had a go a few times, and as i say, i am a great teacher

an effective teacher is someone who can teach well and know their subject well. it is ridiculous to suggest you can be effective without good subject knowledge.

"if my child was trying to learn a level maths from someone with no further qualification than an a level themselves, I'd feel she were betrayed"

To be fair, they're not necessarily teaching A Level. In many cases they're teaching much more basic maths skills. In those circumstance teaching ability is probably more necessary than advanced maths skills.

Many primary school teachers don't have more than a C in GCSE maths, and some aren't great teachers either, so its not surprising many students are struggling by the time they get to secondary school.

it is bad enough that they get a six week intensive how to teach course before taking full responsibility for classes- i really question the wisdom of the sink or swim approach tbh

if teach first candidates do not even have a degree or further study beyond a level for the subject they are to teach...that shows an impressive level of contempt for children.

i find that kind of cynicism and arrogance corrosive. no thanks.

the money training them would be better spent training and supporting teachers who have already committed to working in those schools, rather than parachuting in saviours who, like as not, will piss off after their term is done

that isn't very sexy though

i am not surprised, i am outraged. if my child was trying to learn a level maths from someone with no further qualification than an a level themselves, I'd feel she were betrayed.

that person won't have the depth of understanding of the subject to anticipate common errors and misconceptions, and how best to address them if my child is struggling. they won't know how to stretch her and inspire her to go further if she shows a talent, as they will not have gone further themselves.

and, thanks to teach first, will quite possibly have a sketchy understanding of pedagogy and classroom management too.

I'd call that outrageous.

either well qualified teachers who know how to teach are important for students to learn and nake progress, or they aren't

if they are, fund appropriate training for them so they learn how to be effective teachers

if they aren't, well, keep chucking them in at the deep end, a bit of sink or swim never hurt anyone.

"i think it is outrageous"
Not surprising though when we have a shortage of maths teachers generally. Agencies are recruting them from abroad.

i know of one who has a degree in english/drama, but who is teaching maths because that's what the school needed, and she has an a level in maths

i think it is outrageous.

i was just 23 when I started and was paid for it - taught as a PGCE at 22

you are a teacher ergo you are ancient acc to the kids

"Surely Archbishop Lefranc did not come into that category?"

No, its in Special Measures.

Chloerose, here's a link to info on Tough Young Teachers, but it looks like its not on IPlayer any more. There are some clips though.

I watched the whole series, and thought most of the TF teachers were a bit eccentric in one way or another. I guess you have to be to agree to be filmed doing something like that. It would be nerve-wracking enough anyway without a TV crew following you around.

I do know people in the teaching profession who are full of praise for the Teach First programme, so its hard to tell if the experiences in the film were typical.

I think the obsession with getting a C was to do with the fact that a C is the bare minimum for many 6th forms. It was more the question of what choices the student would have in September than how well the school had taught him up to that point.

Re pps who said that TF students are sent to 'oustanding' schools. Surely Archbishop Lefranc did not come into that category? I think the last programme said that its results had been on the decline for the previous 5 years.

Tough Young Teachers on BBC3. It was clearly edited for effect, but yes, there was some appalling stuff. What annoyed me most, in all honesty, was the lack of up-to-date thinking - obsession with getting a C when it's more about progress now.

One thing that did make me raise my eyebrows was the young guy who left after one year - clearly a good teacher but more than once the issue was raised by his friends (and fiancée) that he should be doing a "better" job with more money. This is my issue with TF - graduates who think it's the first step on the ladder to something else. I also wanted to punch the TV any time one of them referred to
"Giving back" to the community.

My babysitter has just applied for TF and had her assessment. The task they set her was, IMO, bizarre - she had to teach 2 adults for 7 minutes, and pretend that they were "ks3" students - no suggestion of whether that meant 11 yr olds or 14 yr olds. No info given about ability or SN. This wouldn't happen in a real teaching interview. I'm really not sure what they were trying to do.

What TV prog are you talking about? Might I player it.

Number 1: have you ever taught in a school?

If you have you must realise how difficult it is on your first few weeks, no matter what route you take into teaching.

Number 2: do you really think you were getting the whole picture of these fledgling teacher's careers from 1 hours tv programme?

Get a grip

I know this is an old thread, but watched the TV program on BBC 3 yesterday and I thought the level of teaching of these graduates was SHOCKING.nthey were clueless, both in terms of subject matter and didactics.