Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Teaching to stop being a graduate-only profession - 18 year old teachers.

697 replies

noblegiraffe · 30/09/2017 08:15

There were rumblings about this a while ago when the apprenticeship levy was introduced, but it looks like Justine Greening is going to introduce an apprencticeship route into teaching.

schoolsweek.co.uk/greening-teaching-will-cease-to-be-only-for-university-graduates/

I'm very concerned that in secondary schools, specialist subject knowledge won't be a pre-requisite for going into the classroom, it will be seen as something that can be picked up across the years, shortchanging the classes who get the apprentice in the first few years of the training (how long is an apprenticeship?).

In primary school, the education of a class for a full year could fall to someone just out of school themselves.

This isn't just about training on-the-job, we already have that as a route into teaching. This is about deprioritising a certain level of education for teachers and devaluing the profession. It's saying you don't need to be well-educated to teach, because you could be teaching straight out of school. The 'learning how to teach' part of any teacher training programme is so intense, that acquiring degree-level subject knowledge will certainly not be a priority from the start.

The wage for apprentices means this is just another way for schools to get teachers on the cheap and hang the consequences for education.

And knowing how many parents already view young teachers, fresh out of uni and just finished their PGCE, how will they take to having their child being taught by someone who hasn't even been to university?

OP posts:
Want2bSupermum · 01/10/2017 20:33

Reading through this thread, I agree that o/s teachers are at best sneered at. Good friend who is Romanian is fantastic at teaching at primary level. She was forced out of the local school. Parents were complaining about her accent and kept saying surely she wasn't qualified to teach.

This is a girl who spoke 6 languages (English, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian and of course Romanian). She did a masters in child development at Oxbridge. Teaching wise she had 5 years classroom experience in Romania. The school was damn lucky to have her. After all the terrible comments, which destroyed her confidence, she got a job at a private school which is highly selective and top 50 in the country. She has never had a single complaint about her language at that school. She was also paid a lot more than at the state school because they recognized her education and experience.

There is a strange notion of an apprentice teaching from day 1 aged 18. Yes they should be in the classroom but no they should not be responsible for a classroom. I would expect an apprenticeship would be 4-5 years to complete.

Also I do think the pay of teachers needs to be reconsidered as well as reasons for teachers leaving addressed.

G1raffe · 01/10/2017 20:32

There are secondary Beds. ( Or similar "X subject with QTS. ") They are usually 4 years and a huge chunk of the time is spent on the specialist subject!

Piggywaspushed · 01/10/2017 20:31

Yes, you can titchy , you can teach PE.

BEds are 4 years.

pestilencalone · 01/10/2017 20:29

By the time you finish L6 you get a degree. It is a feck of a lot of work to get there.

People can and do get degrees via apprenticeships, this does not make them second class citizens.

titchy · 01/10/2017 20:29

In a way primary is lower ranked though isn't it (not saying that's right btw), but you really need a subject degree plus a post grad to teach secondary - so four years up to level 7, whereas for primary a three year BEd is enough, which is three years and a level 6 qualification. (Ignoring the fact that academy teachers don't need anything - wrong imo.)

Or can you currently enter secondary teaching and teach the full secondary range with just a BEd and no subject knowledge?

PebblesFlintstone · 01/10/2017 20:26

there isn't a shortage of primary teachers is there

There is! Definitely in my area anyway.

I also think that there's a danger that if you say primary school teachers don't need degrees and secondary school teachers do, you risk devaluing primary teachers even more.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 01/10/2017 20:23

it wouldn't mean that primary was on a lower rank to secondary!

It's starting to look that way isn't it? The consensus on here seems to be that we do not need people to be academic to teach primary. It's the sort of job that mums can do to earn pin money. Then the pay will start going down.

OP posts:
pestilencalone · 01/10/2017 20:19

Kelley is never going to be a Maths teacher. Unless she also fits in an OU degree with is asking quite a lot of her.

pestilencalone · 01/10/2017 20:17

At the moment BEd can be L5/6 or 7 and PGCE L6 or 7
That is messy
Clarification for the future would be useful.

G1raffe · 01/10/2017 20:17

It's all backwards isn't it nobel. In order to be ready to start teaching in school they'd need subject knowledge and some experience in school and teacher training. Which they wouldn't even be at that point when they'd finished an apprentice so an apprentice both won't be any help in school (of not teaching) or gaining any skills or subject knowledge worth the paper it's written on.

G1raffe · 01/10/2017 20:15

A pgce is ranked "higher" in terms of being a post graduate course but I'd say not in terms of preparedness to teach. Especially in primary - 4 years mulling over and being in schools is a lot more experience than 1!

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 01/10/2017 20:12

There are a lot of teachers out there who do not teach at Primary or Secondary.

I don't think there would be so much of a fuss if the assumption was that Justine Greening wasn't talking about teachers in state schools.

I can't see the point on your chart where Kelley could acquire enough subject-specific knowledge to become a maths teacher.

OP posts:
Appuskidu · 01/10/2017 20:12

A primary teacher with a pgce is a level 7 anyway, surely?

Piggywaspushed · 01/10/2017 20:11

But what I am saying is that I don't view those with BEds as lesser than me at present. They did a 4 year degree. I did a 3 year degree and then a PGCE.

pestilencalone · 01/10/2017 20:10

No reason why a Primary teacher could not do L7.

Piggywaspushed · 01/10/2017 20:08

But BEd is not lower that PGCE at present? Are we accepting it should be?

Appuskidu · 01/10/2017 20:05

I would just hope that it wouldn't mean that primary was on a lower rank to secondary!

pestilencalone · 01/10/2017 19:59

Given current apprenticeships / education training a teaching one could look like this
L3 - TA (Kelley)
L4 - HLTA
L5 - Assessor
L6 - BEd equiv
L7 - PGCE equiv

Each level takes a year or two (18 months is a common length). Apprentice and employer decide at end of each stage whether to continue. Qualifications are gained at each level. College / Uni attendance could be one day a week or in blocks. Unifying teaching qualifications under one umbrella could make them more Gove proof.

Apprentices join at the appropriate level. Secondary at L7, TAs at 4 /5 or 6...

The link I posted earlier Noble was an example of what Kelley might do. Mentors and Coaches could be alternative pathways. There were also links to the sort of path a vocational teacher of something like plumbing may take. There are a lot of teachers out there who do not teach at Primary or Secondary.

NannyOggsKnickers · 01/10/2017 19:51

Sorry. Am angry and typing fast on an I-phone.

Speckledtulip · 01/10/2017 19:47

Ridiculous idea but doesn't surprise me.

Another way to devalue the teaching profession.

NannyOggsKnickers · 01/10/2017 19:46

titch I know this is funny to you but it's not to me. School managers cutting budgets means that people I know have lost their jobs. Experienced teachers are losing their jobs because schools can't afford to run all non-core subject.

Now, for political reasons, Justices be Greening has decided to put even more jobs, done by experienced and hard working TAs and teachers, on the line. Why? Because teaching isn't seen as important and teachers are seen as not valuable. Over the last eight years this ideology has been pushed so far that has started to erode the bedrock of the modern teaching profession. We've gone totally back to 'those who can't, teach'.

ferrier · 01/10/2017 19:45

For primary, it may be OK. But for secondary I really think you need the kind of specialist knowledge that a degree entails.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 01/10/2017 19:43

From the blog Appuskidu linked to:

"I don't think there are many teachers our there that don't see this move from government for what it is, and what I said in the title of this post, a last desperate attempt to ensure our schools have enough teachers without spending the money it would take to actually do this properly. With the minimum wage of a first year apprentice being £3.50 an hour this means schools could feasibly get a teacher in the classroom 4 days a week for as little as £4427.50 in wages, assuming apprentices would get paid for the same 1265 hours of directed time that is still commonplace in many schools. Of course some schools may offer more than the minimum wage, but in reality this is likely to be just so they don't lose any money in the apprenticeship levy - I can completely understand schools taking the attitude, "we have to spend this money on apprentices so we will pay ours a little more". I suspect though that even this will be unlikely - schools will probably just try and secure more apprentices and only resort to paying more if they are facing losing the money anyway. What then happens to these apprentices once they qualify and become more expensive is of course a different matter - as a cash-strapped school will I employ one of the apprentices I just trained but will now cost me a whole load more money, or will I just let them go at the end of their apprenticeship and take on a new apprentice? I have already seen this happen time and time again with apprentices in the back office or site team, and I have no reason to believe that some school leaders wouldn't behave in the same way with apprentice teachers."

Another teacher who thinks that teacher apprentices will be teaching on the days they're in school.
It's odd, the assumption that they wouldn't be.

OP posts:
Piggywaspushed · 01/10/2017 19:41

Now, on that I agree!

titchy · 01/10/2017 19:40

It is a way to plug the recruitment gap.

With my policy head on I disagree - I think it's a way for JG to show she's on board with the Governments apprenticeship agenda....

Despite that I think it could work along the lines I've suggested although I agree numbers entering through this route won't be huge.