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

Great idea for Reception-Y2/3 but after that a bit more is required I think.

As a KS1/KS2 teacher, I am appalled that anyone would think it's not 'ok' to have an unqualified apprentice in KS2 or higher, but that anything goes in EYFS or KS1!

Do people really think that any old fool can pitch up and teach a class of thirty-odd five year olds and ensure every one makes progress across the board?

You wouldn't want a degree-educated person in charge in there? One who knows about child development perhaps?

Terrible idea.

There is a route into primary teaching like an apprenticeship from college: a 3 year BEd degree with placements over that time and academic study.

OR
People get a degree and then choose any number of routes:

• pgce
• gtp / scitt
• assessment only
• teach first

Children have no right to a qualified teacher and haven't for years.
Academies have been free to employ staff with only 5 gcses for years.

All that's happening here is the formalising of an agenda to deprofessionalise teaching that is well under way.

Maybe realising that this affects their chikdren we'll get a bit more backing from parents to challenge this.

I've taught out of specialism and it's tough as a degree level specialist and qualified teacher. How the hell a new teacher with no degree and limited pedagogical knowledge will be able to plan schemes of learning etc is beyond me. (But the cynic in my thinks that some friend of a minister probably has preplanned curricula that they can sell as a ready made colour by numbers approach to eb delivered unthinkingly for a hefty price)

titchy - Plenty of primaries will be part of academy chains which will have a £3m salary bill.

What % of primaries are currently in an adademy chain?

Why wouldn't a Level 7 apprenticeship which requires apprentices to have a degree in a national curriculum subject work in a secondary school?

Would the person with this qualification be able to teach up to the standard of L9 Maths, English or a MFL etc.?

So a class of 30, 4 year olds is easier? Les and an 18 year old without teaching experience would be able to ensure all children make progress across all 17 aspects of learning? Have you ever spent a day in a room, leading learning for 30 4 year olds? Clearly not!

Great idea for Reception-Y2/3 but after that a bit more is required I think.
I cannot see how that would be the case ever for secondary. Here's hoping at least!

It might not be designed as a punishment but surely you can see the issue when budgets are as squeezed as they are?

The option not to have an apprentice isn't there if you are going to have to pay for it anyway.

If the government want to do it this way they should fund it themselves from a budget that doesn't come from the school's own.

That is entirely different to teaching and doing a degree on the side.

Except as the standard hasn't even been written yet you don't know that - at least for secondary they probably will require a degree first.

All employers have to pay the levy if their salary bill is high enough. It's not a punishment for not having an apprentice. The levy is then available for school to use to pay for the qualification their staff need.

titchy

More work for qualified teachers. (mentoring, checking apprentices work, double marking books, ensuring (pushing) 18 year olds to learn the entire curriculum, teachers having to spend time learning and meeting the apprenticeships requirements)
Poor quality lessons.
more money from school budgets.
less money and time to be spent on the pupils.
Training the teachers to do this (You were thinking of at least training us?)
and real time less money for more work.

Is forcing budget starved schools, who are already having to cut staff to make ends meet, to pay 0.5% of their wage bill for not having an apprentice supposed to make the idea less ridiculous or more?

I'm sure it does work in businesses who can afford to pay their apprentices extra but I doubt it's going to lead to a high quality of staff in the public sector in general or teaching.It's basically only open to people who have no or very few living costs.

It leads to the same qualification that teachers get now so how wouldn't it be worthwhile?

I read her position point as teachers no longer have to do their degree first before they enter the profession, they can do it alongside working in a school - which as I've said before could work really well at primary level for staff such as TAs. They'd still have to gain a degree before they got qts so Teaching would remain a graduate profession, just with another route, very similar to the existing routes, but funded through another mechanism that benefits both parties.

titchy

But a good way for schools to spend their levy

but only if the apprenticeship was worth while.

An apprenticeship would be superfluous.

But a good way for schools to spend their levy.

It would be better to fund the students ins Bed or pgce..

Plenty of primaries will be part of academy chains which will have a £3m salary bill.

Why wouldn't a Level 7 apprenticeship which requires apprentices to have a degree in a national curriculum subject work in a secondary school? (Plenty of secondaries will have a £3m payroll.)

Where has any proposal said that secondary teaching Apprenticeships will be open to 18 year olds?

I understand objections based on a general objections to school based training, but other than that what's the issue with a Level 7 apprenticeship?

Nope tis madness!
I believe no-one under 25 should be allowed to be a teacher. Going from school to university back to school can be a bit of a protected bubble.

Schools Direct are not all salaried. DS pays £9k tuition fees for his place. He is a Maths graduate doing secondary maths training. At 21 he is extremely concious of being only 3 years older than the sixth formers.
Incidentally many maths teachers don't have a maths degree.

I am a parent not a teacher.

I have a child with SEN's..

My experience and it is based on one child going through school is the more experienced staff have done a spectacularly better job at getting the best out of my DS.. I think some of this is life experience/ teaching experience and understanding there is far more than one method of getting to the same point.
Now at some point everyone has to be a NQT in order to gain the experience but at 18 I don't think they have the life experience along with the teaching experience to think outside the box.

So I wish the government would look at more ways to retain the experienced staff.

Pestilentialone are many primary schools likely to have a £3m wage bill?

Schools who have a wage bill of £3m have to pay 0.5% of this as an apprentice levy ie £15,000. They pay this to the government if they have no apprentices. If they had an apprentice teacher, they could pay it to them instead. They would have ONE apprentice who could move around the school, shadowing a handful of teachers, helping and learning. This model of learning has already been used in FE teaching.
The school as the employer would interview and choose a candidate. They would choose the best candidate for them, that may well not be an 18 yo. The school would not have spent any excess money. They would double staff classes.
If your school does it another way, they might well be a crap school.