Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

The difference saturday is that PGCE stupents are treated as trainees. TF teachers are treated as teachers. They have control of their own classes and are paid a salary. PGCE students work with a qualified teacher and the qualified teacher retains overall responsibility for the class.

That's an important point about teaching, experience is incredibly important. I look back on my first couple of years of teaching, and despite being well-qualified in my subject, enthusiastic and hard-working, I was nowhere near as good as I am a few years down the line.

Teaching isn't just about planning an interesting lesson and creating exciting resources, it's about dealing with children over the course of several years of their life.

An experienced teacher can look at a child in Y9 and advise them on the options knowing how similar children in Y9 have actually done, because they taught them in Y10 and 11. They can try different strategies with different children knowing what has worked for similar children in the past. They have experience of dealing with a wide range of children, a wide range of abilities and a wide range of SEN. They have taught the older siblings of a child and know the family.

Two years doesn't give you that. Two years is merely dabbling in teaching. Encouraging prospective teachers to see it as a short-term thing is doing a disservice to children.

One thing that struck me about the Tough Young Teachers programme was the maths teacher who left after a year. He had been encouraged to bond with his students, took that young lad on a shooting trip, got him to open up about his family, then fucked off. Just like all the other male role-models in that boy's life.

Totally agree goodness It's the assumption that the teaching profession should be thankful that suddenly there are decent graduates coming in to show us how to do it.

I wouldn't say I've a chip on my shoulder but yes, I do resent it somewhat. I am just as, if not better, qualified, than your average TF candidate (and was at point of entry to the profession) but I don't see anyone hailing me as the savious of the system. And in my very honest opinion, it is arrogant in the extreme to assume that 2 years in any profession makes you eligible for promotion in the way that TF suggests it is. I am a HOD (which is as high as I want to go) with 17 years of teaching experience. I became HOD after 6 years, having worked in two schools. Two years in in school does not make anyone an expert.

I agree they should be treated like pgce students. We're not expected to be "grateful" for them, we train them, make allowances for them etc as they them go on to develop their career. It's not a bonus that we get them for 2 years!!

"They aren't experienced"

Neither are PGCE students, until they gain QTS. Both are training. The TF training is more "on the job" and the PGCE training has more of a classroom element.

"It's exactly the arrogance or perception that a tf teacher is any better that is the problem"

They're not necessarily better. They've just come in from a different route. Horses for courses.

But they aren't well qualified are they? They aren't experienced so don't have the wealth of experience another teacher might bring. They're just as academically qualified as many current teachers.

It's exactly the arrogance or perception that a tf teacher is any better that is the problem.

Teach First didn't ever intend for all of its participants to stick with teaching though. The way I read that chart is that the teaching profession has inherited a body of very well qualified teachers and it's a double bonus that some of them stick with teaching beyond their two year commitment.

Some people seem very bitter about the status of Teach First teachers.

"I guess that's two more than you know though...."
I got an insight into the experience of 6 of them from watching the TV series. I also know people in the teaching profession who rate them highly.

It's not a competition Evil. You don't do your argument any favours by stooping that sort of level.

"not to sell it as a gimmick/extended gap year for 21 year olds who aren't quite sure what they want to do when they grow up"

That's a pretty patronising attitutude. Sounds like you've got a big chip on your shoulder. Everyone on this thread has agreed that the PGCE route produces great teachers too. The two schemes aren't mutually exclusive.

I guess that's two more than you know though....

The fact that I worked with two TF teachers some time ago is not my only basis for objecting - I think I've made that fairly clear throughout.

I don't think that TF warrants the praise it gets. Throwing recent graduates in to tough schools with hardly any training on the grounds that they are "top" graduates is ridiculous. The fact is that there are a great many well educated teachers in education, who work very hard and do not have the entitled-to-promotion attitude that TF seems to display (read their website - it's all about fast-track to management)

The "answer" is to make teaching a compelling career choice for well-educated graduates, not to sell it as a gimmick/extended gap year for 21 year olds who aren't quite sure what they want to do when they grow up.

TF is not the answer. I find it personally insulting, yes, that there is a suggestion that getting clever, well-educated people from good universities into teaching is a new thing, thought up by the TF people, and that selling it as a two-year commitment is the only way to do it. No - I did my PGCE at Warwick, along with other graduates from Warwick and some others (including Oxbridge graduates, one of whom (maths) had a Masters from Oxford) in 1997.

The retention rates speak for themselves

"Do you work in education Saturday?"

As I said upthread, I'm in Governance. I have no direct experience of Teach First, and no particular interest in it. I'm defending it simply because people are using poor arguments to criticise it.

The fact that you once knew 2 poor TF teachers, and use that as a measure for the whole programme, is a case in point.

Obviously I agree that schools should be given enough money to do their job properly

This is what it all comes down to really. If the government put more money into education, then schools would be able to pay teaching staff more in order to retain good and outstanding teachers, and much of these issues would be solved.

Saturday - I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do, having worked with TF "teachers" (a long time ago, admittedly, but they were both dreadful, and left after one year) and having supported my babysitter through her application (which I did objectively, but was a bit at the things she was asked to do in her interview)

Do you work in education Saturday? Do you have first hand knowledge of how the education system works? Do you have first hand knowledge of Teach First?

"Performance related pay only helps where schools have enough money in the first place"

Obviously I agree that schools should be given enough money to do their job properly.

"Consider whether anyone would support a scheme whereby graduates were offered two years of being a doctor in order for them to decide if medicine was for them"

It's done in other professions, but not in medicine.

If the schools weren't getting good teachers from Teach First they wouldn't use it. Its voluntary.

"It's a massive risk and IMO, causes damage to children and potentially to the teaching profession"

What evidence do you have that it's causing damage? The risk exists, but is mitigated by close supervision and evaluation. Presumably the evidence is in favour of the scheme continuing, or it would stop.

You just don't like the idea of it but clearly know very little about it.

My school has had to get rid of teachers and support staff due to massive budget cuts (thanks, Tories). The remaining teachers have had to take on extra teaching commitments. The school is scrabbling for money where it can, selling our sports facilities to the public etc.
I can't see my request for a pay rise due to being a fab maths teacher going down particularly well.

Oh dear, Saturday - you are naive. Performance related pay only helps where schools have enough money in the first place If a school has sod all money in the first place, then there simply isn't the money to pay teachers who are doing well.

saturday - no it doesn't. You need to do your research. And also, you need to stop being patronising. Consider whether anyone would support a scheme whereby graduates were offered two years of being a doctor in order for them to decide if medicine was for them. Wouldn't happen would it? People would object on the grounds that irreversible damage could be done during those two years. This is similar. It's a massive risk and IMO, causes damage to children and potentially to the teaching profession. I don't want my kids being taught by someone who sees teaching as an extended gap year. And if graduated are committed to teaching as a career, then they ought to be committed enough to realise it's not just something you can walk into and be instantly good at.

"Yes. We definitely need to pay teachers more. Much more"

Yep, agree. I think performance related pay will help.

"A scheme which sets out to make teaching a temporary commitment is, I think, wrong"

But it isn't. It sets out to help people decided whether teaching is for them or not. Simples.

"i know i must sound like a total weirdo"

No chibi, you just sound like someone who is conflating two different issues. You need to start a new thread about the lack of non-specialist maths teachers and its consequences. I'll be fully behind you then!

It's just not a reason to slag off Teach First.

Yes. We definitely need to pay teachers more. Much more. It 's the sole reason for the ever widening gulf between state and independent education. If the worst schools attracted the best teachers. they would no longer be the worst schools. And perhaps some of excellent teachers languishing in cushy little private schools would be tempted to move to the state sector?

And perhaps we could then going back to the days when teachers commanded respect and the profession conferred a certain status.

And then perhaps people would cease to opt for independent schooling. It's so obvious really.

The turnover rate isn't quite that dramatic! Teachers who are experienced and established tend to stick around. A scheme which sets out to make teaching a temporary commitment is, I think, wrong. The issue if retention does need to be addressed. I do love my job and at present, can't think of any reason why I would leave it. I'm certainly not a martyr but I do think that most good teachers get involved with their work - emotionally as well as professionally. How can you spend time with these children and not? So to see it as a temporary stop-gap which will look good on your cv when you're applying for "proper" jobs is wrong IMO, on a number of levels. The "at least they had a clever/well educated/aspirational teacher for 2 years" argument is a duff one.

i am not worried that it is caused by tf

i am disappointed that a program that purports to send highly qualified, bright well trained teachers into challenging schools sends in people who have not studied their subject post a level

i know i must sound like a total weirdo, but i think kids deserve better than that. i wonder if other posters would want better for their children?

i also think that money invested in improving the teaching skills of teachers who are already in post.

Evil, it must be galling to people like you when others seem not to grasp that there are already many excellent teachers and portray TF as coming to the rescue. The trouble is though the dropout rate from teaching is very high, isn't it? One of the TF people on this thread said that at her school staff turnover was so high that having a teacher (any teacher, never mind a good one) who stayed for two years would have been a real bonus. I agree with Noble and others who say that far more should be done to retain the really good teachers.

I also think Philoslothy's point is a good one. There is a lot about teaching that makes it attractive, but so often it's portrayed as a vocation that people go into despite the working conditions, and that's not much of an incentive to give it a try.

"I guess my issue with it is the implication that TF is somehow the saviour of education"

Nobody is implying that. It's just one positive measure to get people into teaching. There are others too.

I find it frustrating that other teachers feel they have to slag of TF, just because they chose a different route themselves.