Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

And I'm a damn site better teacher than many of a 'higher educational calibre'.

"On TYT, the one woman who was in her 2nd year felt that she should only really stay on if she was offered some kind of responsibility"

She wanted to go travelling. She was torn between that and teaching. She needed an incentive to stay. Seems reasonable to me. If schools want to hold onto their staff then they need to allow them to fulfill their ambitions. That's how other employers hold onto their staff.

Good post, EvilTwins. I do know some outstanding TF teachers, but still think more experience is needed before teachers take on greater responsibilities. And I totally object to the assumption that TF people are somehow superior to others. Individual TFs don't think it, ime, but TF definitely perpetuate that idea.

I propse a system whereby universities recruit students in proportion to employers' needs, rather than on the basis of what students want to study.

If English students found it harder to get onto a degree course, because a limited number of places were available, they would soon switch to Maths.

I don't deny that many TF candidates are from decent universities. But also there are plenty of teachers who trained in other ways who went to decent universities (me, for example) One of my issues with TF is the constant labelling of them as "top graduates" when actually the TF entry criteria are nothing special. It's clearly not that selective. The assumption then is that TF teachers are somehow special, and that schools should feel grateful that these "top" young people are selflessly putting the start of their real careers on hold.

On TYT, the one woman who was in her 2nd year felt that she should only really stay on if she was offered some kind of responsibility. I was at her arrogance! Two years in one school does not make anyone an outstanding teacher.

The Teach First cohort appear to be of a higher educational calibre than your average cecondary school teacher at a poorly performing secondary school.

What do you mean, that wasn't your reasoning? You said: "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"

This is clearly a statement that argues that TF can be seen to be nonoptimal because it's not the dominant method used.

Maths/physics graduates complete 2 years teaching in schools

There must be more incentive for maths/physics graduates to teach in schools otherwise the UK is never going to raise its numeracy levels. I propose if maths/physics complete 2 years of teaching then their student fees are wiped out by the government.

But time wise we worked it out quicker that PGCE students because we were teaching more - sooner. You learn by doing IME.

IME we figured it out as quickly as PGCE students. I don't think teaching is a great mystery, you watch a few people, you read a few books - if you are reasonable bright and willing you can reach a good standard fairly quickly.

okthen I am about as far removed from posh as you can get! I am the sort to be looked down on by most MNers. However I was struck by the poshness of the people I met on TF, but that reflected the universities they went to I guess.

"what about the education of the children who are being taught by them while they figure it out?"

Who else is going to teach them? You're missing my basic point that the schools are making the best of a bad situation.

"even if our education system churned out (grim phrase actually) an adequate number of maths/physics teachers, that would not make teach first a great way of training them to be teachers"

No, but it might make it a less necessary way of training teachers.

We need more maths specialists in teaching. If we can't get maths specialists, then someone with A Level maths is the next best thing. If we have to bribe them with golden handshakes, "Teach First" prestige, or anything else that is flavour of the month, so be it.

i am unsure as to how expecting a maths teacher to have studied maths beyond high school, and wanting them to know how to teach their subject effectively is an inappropriate expectation.

i am cheered by ypur optimism that a bright person can figure out both their subject and how to teach it as they go along.

what about the education of the children who are being taught by them while they figure it out? oh well, never mind, it isn't like they matter anyway, right?

I was quite shocked at how, well, posh, the TF graduates in Tough Young Teachers are. I'm making assumptions, but I'd be surprised if they weren't largely private school/Oxbridge. If TF is about ending educational inequality, I would hope it would apply the same thinking to its own recruitment. Surely a role model they can relate/aspire to would inspire pupils in tough schools. I know it's not as simple as that...but I can imagine the kids I went to school with (inner city comp) switching off if faced with someone so alien from themselves. JP from Fresh Meat sprang to mind!

no, that wasn't my reasoning. there are only a small cohort of school eligible to choose teach first anyway.

i object to teach first on many grounds, none of which are centered on how popular it is.

Chibi, your reasoning was that it could be deduced that TF wasn't the best method because it wasn't the dominant method. That is fallacious

Evil, the definition at matters isn't mine but the one TF uses. In practice, what it means is that people who have the wherewithal to get the most selective jobs in the graduate market join TF. People who wouldn't otherwise consider teaching. And quite a lot of them then stay in teaching, rather than bowing to the lure of mammon.

Chibi, qualifications aren't everything. Lol at you for believing they are. A Manichean view of the world is unhelpful to delivering better education, although it may help you avoid affronts to your dignity from having to recognise that a TF teacher could be good despite (gasp) not having a pgce, I admit. I guess the more nuanced version of my original statement would have been to say that the mentality behind TF is that quals matter, but that pedagogical quals are a lot less important than quals that show raw intellect and ability, and that the broader traits of good teachers can be assessed and developed by means other than a pgce.

I am not making any claims about my personal qualifications and am not claiming to be better qualified than other teachers. I was just making the point that IME the Teach First candidates were significantly more qualified than the minimum quoted.

I think all teachers should have at least a 2:1 tbh and as far as I know while I have been a member of SLT we have not employed anyone who is not a subject specialist and who does not have at least 2:1. We also have a healthy spread of Oxbridge graduates and most of our staff are from top universities..

even if our education system churned out (grim phrase actually) an adequate number of maths/physics teachers, that would not make teach first a great way of training them to be teachers

quite a few people training on other routes have similar qualifications to you, then

some teach first teachers will be amazing. i don't think it will be due to the training they get though. i just think we could do better

I was expected to teach Further Maths, I don't have a GCSE in Maths.
When I complained and explained I hadn't got a clue, my line manager told me to get the most experienced student to explain to the class.
I went to the union and got no help at all.
It was to cover mat leave so not even as if everything was done and it was just cover teaching, which imo still wouldn't be right.

This is happening in schools throughout the country and is nothing new.
I have posted about this before. There are people with Post Compulsory quals, no QTS or secondary qualifications teaching y7-11. They are employed in the 6th form but then have to teach other years.
Unions couldn't give a monkeys and the school tell you to leave if you don't like it.
I left, but several of my peers stayed and are teaching subjects and school years they are qualified to teach.

"are you trying to belittle my posts"
Nope. I was using quotation marks because I was quoting you. You're a little too sensitive!

I think we're broadly agreeing . We both think that kids should be taught maths by maths specialists.

Trouble is, you're blaming the fact that they're not on the wrong thing. It's not the fault of Teach First, its the fault of the entire education system ... a system that ultimately churns out too many Enlgish grads and not enough maths grads.

About half of us are still teaching. I keep seeing a statistic on MN that about half of teachers leave within five years anyway.

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

I was a teach first, most of us were from Oxbridge with a few from places like Imperial and quite a few of us had 1sts.