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

Clarification:

a) no job earning £100k will be without stress. I was agreeing with Bubbles who made the point clearly.

b) HTs will be the only ones earning £100k in the teaching profession except possibly the DH in a vast school.

Why the fixation on £100k? .

showersinger - by spending all the millions going to Brexit lawyers and blue Passports in Education instead?

so how you propose schools make that happen?

goodbyestranger could you just clarify what you mean by your last comment:

"Yes absolutely Bubbles on every point and yes too re £100k for no stress."

Do you think that teachers are paid £100K?

mum by spending all the millions going to Brexit lawyers and blue Passports in Education instead? (Just an idea)

MumTryingHerBest this isn't entirely theoretical with me but there are always decisions to be made. Leadership of a school is vastly, vastly more important than the funding coming in. There are funding cuts but we need to be careful before we imply that schools can't function and provide a good curriculum - I say that coming from one of the least well funded parts of the country in terms of education. Weak HTs will blame any unpopular decision at the moment on funding cuts to minimize backlash.

I'm all for it

Good, how do you propose they achieve that without sufficient funding?

The idea that you can earn £100,000 pa easily elsewhere and have no stress is almost laughable. What job pays this with no stress?

is that how much you think teachers are paid?

Yes absolutely Bubbles on every point and yes too re £100k for no stress.

The problem with going by numbers ("only 4 kids studied it last year" sort of thinking) and going with what really matters ("core subjects") leads down to narrowing education and choices. It's that Gove way of thinking, Arts being redundant, etc. If they're aiming to support "less" important subjects, I'm all for it. In my country, I studied compulsory Latin and Philosophy (without religion) from age 14. This has given me a knowledge base which I find myself constantly using.
My local comp offers Latin as an optional extra-curricular. Two DC from it have gone to study Classics at Uni. Are we saying those kids don't deserve the opportunity to have discovered their passion just because it smells Tory? Two very good friends of mine are Classicists, both Corbynites

MumTryingHerBest if you do an analysis of numbers for Richmond you'll see that there are 10 subjects not including Latin where numbers at A2 are 4 or below. There's a lot of unthinking prejudice out there against Classics which should be countered in the same way as other unthinking prejudice. A great initiative, let's hope it takes off ( and I don't even vote Tory :)).

I went to a state school in the 70s. We were taught both Classics and Latin admittedly only a year's worth.
It was great for MFL, History, English and Drama. And critical thinking skills.

Or is it just your prejuduce talking?

What prejudice would that be. I made no comment about whether or not it should be dropped. The point I made was that if it is a low demand subject it will be under threat, as with all the others you have listed.

The idea that you do not teach subjects like Latin is just a race to the bottom. We have already sunk pretty low with MFL as people do not see them as important and children apparently find them difficult in state schools (not in private schools though) and, quite frankly, this country needs bright people in whatever their specialism is. Classics or maths. The continual drive for STEM is all well and good, but you still need very bright people to do other jobs in society.

I assume the Maths bursary is spread over 5 years because grads did the training and then never taught. All the bursaries should be staged and contracts in place to pay them back if the grad does not do 5 years.

I think a lot of the work/life balance issues are down to poor management of schools. I would have thought it reasonable to ask a science teacher to teach some maths. I think leaving puts your colleagues and the children in an even worse position so it is definitely looking after number 1. The nurses do this when they leave too. All this talk of nursing and teaching being a hellish job puts people off. The more teaching and nursing is talked down, the less attractive it is and clearly no-one wants to work in a poorly run school or hospital so the worse it gets.

The idea that you can earn £100,000 pa easily elsewhere and have no stress is almost laughable. What job pays this with no stress? I have been on many holidays where men and women were attached to their phones several times a day sorting out work problems. None of them were teachers.

I think there has been a huge change in teaching over the last 25 years and no doubt someone older will remember long holidays, less work at school and in the evenings which is no longer the norm. However, teaching has great career potential and salary progression (just look at the salaries for Academy Heads) and if you are good enough to do it, there is no need to stay on a low salary point.

so that argument is a relatively weak.

How is it a weak argument.

That particular school (linked results) no longer offers Drama as a main GCSE option (as of this year).

This school is now asking parents to contribute to the cost of music:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/how-can-it-be-2018-pupils-are-having-pay-study-music-gcse

If funding is not improved, schools will continue to drop subjects of low demand.

Whilst a subject may be useful, there has to be sufficient demand to make it viable.

I would also llike to add that this school offers Latin yet only 16 DCs studied it for GCSE and 4 DCs studied it for A Level this year:

But only 3 did A level computing, only 6 did Music, only 3 did PE, only 6 did textiles, only 3 did Spanish, only 3 did product design, only 5 did German, only 7 did art history. Presumably you want all those courses to stopped too?? Or is it just your prejuduce talking?

*I did Classics and Latin through state secondary and loved it. It’s a great shame it’s not an option for more students as it’s such a good foundation for other Western European languages and history.

Yes, my state comp offered Latin too. My son's state school has Classics as a compulsory subject in years 7-9. He loves it and it's massively improved his English and MFL skills. It's not just Latin, it incorporates Greek Mythology, ancient history, Greek alphabet etc. A surprisingly high number of pupils take it to GCSE (more than PE, Music, German, Drama and Art), so you can't say it's some kind of peripheral subject.

In answer to your question I'd opt for axing D&T at Richmond School in favour of retaining Classics, although that's merely my top choice, there are others.

Same happens all over the country with German, Music, D&T, Drama etc etc etc etc MumTrying HerBest so that argument is a relatively weak.

A problem with Classics is that it's (very unfairly) got a bad name for itself so parents weigh in against it a lot of the time in favour of 'useful' subjects. Classics is a fantastic subject with masses of benefits to the pupil it's a crying shame that it's become so undervalued.

heyHoney Oh, fuck off. Latin is a fantastic second language

I'm sure it is.

Just to emphasis a point I previously made:

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/22/yorkshire-richmond-school-stop-teaching-latin-600-years

Potter said all schools were having to make adjustments to their curriculum offer because of funding restrictions.

Based on this, which core subject do you think should be replaced by Latin?

I would also llike to add that this school offers Latin yet only 16 DCs studied it for GCSE and 4 DCs studied it for A Level this year:

www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/_site/data/files/documents/about%20us/exam%20results/73DE1BA49FA6678434FBD493322D39D5.pdf

unicorndiscoball obviously you have to attract new recruits. Because even the non moany experienced enthusiastic teachers capable of stretching their pupils will fall off their perch at some point. You do need a mix of experience and newer recruits, obviously, but no profession can do without a sufficient stream of high quality recruits coming through the ranks.

Thanks noble, did think it a bit of an odd omission. That said DH still earns 4 times what a teacher earns, twice what a HAT earns as a maths grad. They're never going to attract maths graduates when other roles are far more lucrative (well- housing, most people want a home!), and less stressful too (long hours seems to be everywhere though).

I do think there's a huge gap in English children's history education, Ifailed, I never once studied China, Mongols, Mughals, Ottomans in school! Astonishing really (but I did go to the ultimate sink schools, primary and secondary).

I loved Latin and did it for A Level. Several of my extended family did Classics at university. Almost no state comprehensives do it though, so I can't see why the government would even consider offering a bursary to teach it.

Much as it's fun and interesting to study an ancient language, even as an MFL teacher I think its actual usefulness is wildly overstated. It is simply ridiculous to think that you should need to go to the lengths of learning a dead language in order to understand English grammar and be better at MFL, when the only reason people don't know English grammar is that we decided decades ago not to actually teach it!

In my large city my dc’s school is the only state secondary to teach Latin and classics and there’s a huge campaign to keep it going; parents are having to fund it basically. So someone doing the course will be hard pushed to find a job.
Also did someone say you only get that bursary on courses actually taught in Latin on Ancient Greek?!