Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

Noble giraffe - There was nothing wrong with Meryl's teaching. The fault was entirely with the ill disciplined children she was attempting to teach. My children are bright and well-disciplined and would have no difficulty appreciating Meryl's teaching. She just had to learn crowd control sadly.

Thanks for that Monday morning giggle Noble...Amen!

I'm not sure Beautiful should be taken seriously since she said she'd be happy for her children to be taught by Meryl.

We Rejected a Cambridge candidate in favour of quite frankly a better teacher from a different uni.

beautiful - what is your involvement with schools....?

Because you said you didn't know who appointed teachers and wondered if it was already centralised. I was surprised by that, frankly, and also by the idea that really bright people might be passed over because of defensiveness from the interviewers. All the schools I have had anything to do with have been falling over themselves to get the best candidates. Maybe you meant who decides who gets onto initial teacher training, but even then several people on this thread have described how they were selected for that.

On the panel that interviewed me was the head, a member of slt, a governor and the head of maths. Also involved in selection was the maths teacher who observed the lesson I taught. In other schools, a student panel may be involved as well.

I think it's inconceivable in those circumstances that the decision could be based purely on where the HT went to uni. They aren't even involved in who gets shortlisted at my school.

EvilTwins - I'm pleased to hear it. But who is the arbiter of who gets the job? Is it the head?

AllMimsy - I mean this in the nicest possible way, but why are you asking me what I actually know about state schools?

I think it's more complex than that. In a teaching interview, a candidate has to teach as well as do the face to face interviews. At the application stage, I would imagine that a HT would go for the candidate with a) the best educational credentials and b) the most relevant experience. If the candidate is an NQT, then education would be important, plus the personal statement and the way in which the candidate addresses the job spec. At interview, the teaching is important, as is the way the candidate performs in the various interviews.

I have never applied for a job and not been invited to interview - perhaps my A Level results and degree can account for that. Since my first teaching job (which was my 4th interview I think) I have never applied for a job and not got it.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, BeautifulVisit, but what do you actually know about state schools? My knowledge is from being a parent of a child at one and formerly a school governor, so nothing like as in depth as a teacher's. From this, however, I believe that it's the governing body that makes appointments.

60 years ago when my mum finished her training as a primary school teacher in Scotland, she simply wrote to the local school board or whatever it was called to tell them she was about to qualify and from what I can make out they wrote back and said 'Report to School X on such and such a date'. Baby boom years.

I think teacher recruitment should be centralised. Perhaps it is though.

EvilTwins - do you think it happens that decision makers (I'm unusure who makes the decision as to whether to hire someone) are arse-guarding? So that a well-educated candidate (someone with a 2:1 from Durham and then a Durham PGCE for example) gets rejected in favour of someone from the interviewer's ex-poly (or equivalent) and a less impressive educational profile?

TheBeautiful - it's obvious because it goes on the application form along with other qualifications. Schools are fully aware of degree classification and when and where someone trained.

manic - great post

manic - all credit to you for sticking with it.

I admire all (good) teachers ... for their teaching ability, not their qualifications. I've got a degree in physics, and would love to be able to teach, but I just don't have the personality or resilience for it. That's why I'm in governance instead :-)

manicinsomniac - nice post.

As a matter of interest, when teachers apply for a first teaching post, is it evident where they studied their first degree and PGCE or is it like medicine where first Foundation Years doctors apply med-school blind?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with TF. If it didn't work then it would have been pulled by now.

The Tough Young Teachers programme made me cringe but only as I looked back with horror on my own PGCE/NQT time and thanked God nobody was filming my incompetency to air on national television.

Everyone learns. I don't think the classroom fiascos we witnessed were related to them being TF, they were related to them being young and inexperienced. Which all new teachers are. A PGCE doesn't suddenly make you wonder-teacher.

I qualified as a teacher 8 years ago. I have 5 As at A Level (in English Literature, History, Theatre Studies, Psychology and Dance if it matters) and a 2:1 from Durham University. I was required to have a 2:1 to stay on at Durham for PGCE so it isn't just TF that needs 2:1s.

My high qualifications counted for precisely nothing. I was shit, quite frankly. A class of 7 and 8 year olds ran rings round me. I dragged myself through PGCE and went on to teach Music, Drama and Dance in an inner city school where I continued to be spectacularly shit. I cried myself to sleep most nights and became more and more mentally unstable (that wasn't due to teaching, but it did make it worse). I had no class control at all. Children swore at me, shouted over me, left my lessons whenever they fancied, laughed at me and generally did as they pleased. As soon as a member of SMT walked into the room they transformed into angel children. My self esteem was in shreds. I failed my first term of NQT and then got more support to improve.

8 years on I am a good teacher. I'm not going to kid myself that I'm the best classroom practitioner in the world but I do well. The thought of having my first two terms filmed, aired and immortalised as my teaching ability forevermore makes my blood run cold.

TheBeautiful No, I don't agree. I don't think that TF are better educated. Just because TF are the first to say that candidates have to have a 2:1 does not mean that previously PGCE courses were not selective.

This is part of the problem- the assumption that TF teachers are bound to be better educated. Rubbish.

it is disheartening that this is presented as a battle of subject knowledge vs pedagogy. both matter. too many teachers (yes, even TF) are teaching subjects that they themselves have not studied post a level.

it isn't good enough.

I know some allegedly excellent teachers whose subject knowledge is shockingly poor but who get away with it by meticulous planning and by avoiding top sets. I know a couple of others with first class degrees in their subject but who really, really struggle in the classroom.

The best teachers will have good subject knowledge and be able to apply what they've learned about pedagogy and have presence too. If just one of those is missing, pupils will be short-changed.

Beautiful what use is it being well-educated if you're not "passionate" enough about pedagogy to understand the most effective way to pass that education on to children?

Evil twins - no one said they were automatically better educated than other teachers, but I think we can agree that TF are educated to a standard well above the mean of the entire teaching profession. Give me a well-educated teacher over a teacher who is passionate about pedagogy any day of the week.

Not arguing with that, beautiful but I don't know what it has to do with this thread, given that it's already been mentioned a number of times that there is no reason to believe that TF teachers are automatically better educated than other teachers

"National and international evidence tells us that teachers’ level of prior education is directly linked to standards of attainment of their pupils [Wossman (2003)]. The more knowledgeable the teacher, the better able the pupil is to learn. Degree class is also a good predictor of whether a trainee will complete their course and achieve QTS."

cat - I don't have any experience of that, but if you mean that they're doing that as cover supervisors, then that's a different kettle of fish entirely. For a start, they have no direct responsibility for the class - planning, marking etc is done by the actual class teacher.

It's not ideal, but not in the same league as actually handing over responsibility for the progress of students to someone with no experience/training.

I have to throw this in ...

I agree that it is crazy to pitch people in front of a class with no experience.

So why is it that this really does happen, already, on a routine basis? I'm not talking about Teach First, or the truly alarming Schools Direct (which worries me a lot more than TF). I mean the fact that graduates, still in the midst of their degrees, are paying for their courses by working as temps and covering secondary school classes. Yes, I know that they are supposed to pitch up and follow the careful plan left by the real teacher. But we know that doesn't happen all the time.

I think that situation is worse than TF.