Should the DfE be offering £26k bursaries to train as a Classics teacher?

Seriously goodbye, it's Friday night. Noble doesn't exist to serve you. She offered you links to read through at your leisure. It's more than enough.

Not sure why you think it's her job to spoon-fed you.

They won't suffice if what was politely requested was a succinct list of the deficiencies you referred to but didn't elaborate on. I'll just assume that it's hot air and no substance - not a huge surprise because there's been a lot of empty posturing on the subject generally, so MN is probably no exception.

I am interested actually, just like I said, but not quite flush enough with time to trawl through all those threads. I'm sure you could put your assessment succinctly here, in a single post. Thanks!

Classics is lovely but we need all children to have good English and maths teachers first, and this should be prioritised by any bursary set up.
Foremost we need good (as well as enthusiastic) teachers rather than a greater pool of mediocre English and maths teachers. The classicists I have met would be excellent at enthusing children for learning at primary and early secondary years and I guess there are more Classics graduates out there who would be just as good.
IMO they would cover a lot of the core skills for secondary English and MFL thus freeing up teaching time for those specialist teachers.

Maybe all the potentially good maths teachers are being put off teaching by last summer's doom and gloom about the new GCSEs and that no DCs would dare do A level maths. It is good that noblegiraffe's teaching has proved the doomsayers wrong.

Well you enlighten me and all other ignorant listeners with what's crap as well as not so crap about the new exams then noble, both at GCSE and A2 and even at AS if you feel so inclined. I've already referred to the issues for the less able so clearly that's not the only crap factor as far as you're concerned. Mine was hardly intended to be an exhaustive critique but since ennui has got the better of you with only my headline, perhaps compiling a list of craps and not so craps will brighten you up. I'd genuinely like to know the substance of your views, and I'm sure you're easily capable of explaining in such a way as to justify them and convince us stupid people who know not of what we speak.

The new exams are good for the more able noble, not crap or insulting. Obviously the less able haven't been given as much consideration but to be honest what's been insulting for the more able in recent years is noddy type GCSEs which do absolutely nothing to stretch them. The old MFL GCSE syllabus was a shocking example of just how low we sank but these exams generally were not challenging and when you add in the option to take them as modular then there was not just room for reform but a desperate need for it. I think it's a real concern that the less able are now not properly catered for however but then I'm not a believer that one size fits all.

On your other point, not all teachers are experts or capable of formulating policy. Some are decidedly mediocre or worse. Obviously there are also plenty who are extremely impressive but lets not pretend all teachers are equal - there are wild extremes of competence and ability across the teaching profession just as there are in all professions. I strongly dislike this pervasive idea on MN that teacher always knows best. Good teachers will know that they don't always know best.

Classics is lovely but we need all children to have good English and maths teachers first If that were the case then we would also need to have good Maths and English teachers before we have any, RE, Drama, DT, Art, Music ... or anything? Where do you draw the line?

Separately I wonder if we dont train some more classics teachers will we actually lose the ability as a country to ever teach classics? Is it possible we need to keep a minimum number of classics teachers in the system to keep the option alive for the future? And if so, how close are we to losing classics forever?

Classics is lovely but we need all children to have good English and maths teachers first, and this should be prioritised by any bursary set up.

^
This

Also, this is debate (plenty have disagree with Noble) - ergo, opening minds. noble is very useful as she brings to light otherwise buried news. No one ever discusses stuff like this at my workplace so I find it refreshing.

Which discussions do you mean ?

To be fair, we tend to be discussing faits accomplis. Our views are not often sought and far less heeded.

Do we not think teacher/ doctor/ nurse/ dentist / insert other professional does know best then?

The discussions would have been vastly improved if the teachers collectively had been rather more open minded and prepared to engage with opposing arguments rather than dig their heels in and adopt the approach that teacher knows best, end of. On the whole the threads displayed a posse of people with very closed minds - a slightly worrying trait in teachers responsible for expanding young minds.

Piggy totally agree about the discussions - I find the debates very interesting and I've learned a lot. This one for example - I really loved classics at school and think the option to do it is great (as an option) but I wouldn't offer a larger bursary for classics than for core subjects and didn't dream that was even happening.

Classics is lovely but we need all children to have good English and maths teachers first, and this should be prioritised by any bursary set up. If education was funded properly, there would be nothing to see here anyway.

What I find hilarious is that PGCE students are training on 26k and then in the NQT year they will drop right down to 21k outside of London. Cash strapped schools are going to put the them on M1 in the NQT year so there won't be any matched salary to the training year. They won't train on 26k and then be told "oh you can go up to M3 straight away"... it's not going to happen. It's crazy!!

And don't get me started on how much easier the university PGCE students have it in comparison to Teach First teachers who teach an almost full time table straight away along with all the essays and the university meetings and CPD meetings . But they only earn £17000ish in their first year. Madness!

Sorry good bye at the risk of prolonging the argument, you mentioned moaning teachers before I did and started having a pop at noble long before I defended her.

I have locked horns with noble and others over many issues but I don't think that is moaning. In fact, that reminds me of my own SLT who think any valid point/ criticism/ suggestion is 'moaning'.

Agree with the independent sector element. I'm aware it is taught in some local grammar schools and academies.
Much easier for them on the PGCE. In my year, they did their placements in some of the best independent schools in the country.

Supply teaching is a murky business. I nearly did it - luckily managed to get enough hours at my own college - but the agency would have sent me anywhere to cover anything if I'd been up for it. DS1 warned me off it!