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

and I think you will find that people like me - who want to change things for the better - are viewed (in schools) as moaners or somehow disruptive and don't get promoted....

Yes, some of this is SLT but a lot of it is external factors which affect their 'safety first' attitudes.

I misread you and saw you only mentioned retention. But still, the report also lays blame at the DfE for not having a coherent strategy as regards workload. .

Individual SLTs will not change much while there is still no pressure from the DfE to face up to things and change. That is what has really changed over my years of teaching. The how high would you like us to jump? culture is endemic.

Individual SLTs should have responsibility for the national issues facing schools in recruitment and retention? Retention possibly to an extent - but recruitment?

Goodness.

I think you will find it is squarely within the remit of Nick Gibb!

And that the report from a bona fide group above and a cross party group in parliament - also released yesterday - does not agree with you.

It marries perfectly well with a good and creative and forward thinking SLT Piggy and it's the SLTs who are the main drivers - and indeed should have the main responsibility - for retention and workload. That's not in the remit of the DfE.

I agree Rowena although others might argue that it delays a problem rather than solves it. Let's say you 'had to stay' for 5 years. Unless, in that time, teaching proved to be a great and fulfilling career and/or rapid promotion was secured then staff will leave then. This is what has been found with TeachFirst. I think hollow promises are often made to these excellent and ambitious graduates about career progression (see the ads!) and again this suggests the wrong motivations for going into teaching are being pitched at graduates.

And, as the article I have pasted above, points out the DfE has no coherent plans about retention and workload. CPD (found to increase job satisfaction when of a high quality) will be the new thing going forward but how this marries with funding cuts is anyone's guess!

Came across this this morning:

schoolsweek.co.uk/public-accounts-committee-report-on-teacher-supply-the-7-recommendations/

Headline comment :

the department “does not understand why more teachers are leaving the profession, and does not have a coherent plan to tackle teacher retention and development”.

This from the Public Accounts Committee!

It's my opinion that if you are in receipt of a bursary, then you should work in a state school for a minimum number of years. In reality I don't know how that would work if you couldn't find a job! But when I trained, we got bursaries and in my subject (mfl) the majority of trainees had been recruited from a partner university abroad. They were encouraged to take a year out of their MA degrees and spend a year teacher training, which would give them MA credits and they would get a bursary. The vast majority of these students came and trained with us and then returned to their university and did not become teachers in the UK (although a small cohort of them loved it enough to stay!). Similarly, a number of the UK based trainees never taught in the UK, or taught here very briefly, and instead went abroad to teach. So what was the purpose of everyone getting 15k? How did that help education? Just throwing money at a situation is not solving the teacher crisis.
Also, as I said before, I got a bursary and now 6 years later my subject is barely taught here. So that was a waste of time! Wish I had trained in a core subject.

Now you see , this is where I very well may be wrong. I think the analytical skills required for an English degree could pretty much get you where you could be with a History degree ( if you had a mind to) - and an assumption that it leads to teaching I think is false.

Surely £26k isn't enough to prevent a person who just did their degree for a high salary shooting off to be a fat cat at the bar??

Schemes like Teach First and Fast track schemes were meat to address this ,too. But lots of them didn't and don't stick it out.

People need to want to teach. That's the key.

They have spent huge amounts on these ads. Huuuuuge.

I think the point is that they did calculations goodbye but you yourself said they have also attached a premium to classics because they think otherwise those graduates will toddle off to these jobs that apparently classicists can secure that are attractive and/or lucrative (and English graduates can't).

I think there is a very worrying complacency about recruiting English : lots of people assume English graduates have a view to teaching when they set out on their degrees and that there are so many of us we end up maybe 'falling into ' teaching. Things are changing - there are so many jobs out there now in the creative and media industries, for example- and even the DfE had to adjust its figures for English, admitting they got their estimates wrong.

I am confused by them having a bursary of anything that appears to lead to a pay cut later down the line... but I am sure they think classicists will also be able to demand higher starting salaries?

I just think you and Noble are East is East and West is West.

Cross post again this time with noble.

Of course it isn't hard to understand that a lower bursary would produce a lower bottom line in fact it would probably produce a nil cost bottom line because no Classics graduate would think it worth their while and they'd shoot off to be a fat cat at the Bar instead.

The bursary pitched at the amount the DfE reckons is required to recruit Classics graduates. The DfE might have their calculations wrong we won't know for a while but that's the logic behind the sum settled on.

Piggy good teachers are hard to come by full stop and particularly in certain subject s and that's exacerbated in certain geographical areas. That's not breaking news.

Also, are you agreeing with noble's viewpoint as to how the calculations are made ie that no-one at the DfE has estimated a bottom line? That's just not how it works.

No indeed but I agree with her viewpoint and yet I have classics in my educational background.

English teachers are in anything but plentiful supplyespecially good ones

Piggy you're not noble (well you might be noble obviously I've no idea but you aren't she-noble).

History teachers are in plentiful supply, English slightly less so.

I did .

Grrrr cross post Basilisk :)

Of course the bursaries are calculated with an estimate of the likely total amount! There's some very curious logic flying around here noble. Did you ever study Classics yourself?

Ok thanks - I am one who would vote for more good English teachers. Mandarin ? , DS did it , not sure how much it has ever helped him , I think if you want to do e.g. classics , mandarin , universities ( if that is your aspiration) can test as to languages which do not use the same alphabet. Yes I think Mandarin would count as MFL but the amount you can learn at GCSE , well , I am not a teacher , so I best bite my tongue. Nothing like you can learn with French or German , but yes , possibly trendy. I suppose my point with latin etc is that is teaches skills rather than something you might need in later life. But I would agree with you , were it a choice between a good english teacher and a latin one , I would choose the english teacher every time. Partly because it is a basic skill ( both language and literature and partly because I ( many moons ago ) took a degree in English ( so I expose my bias for the avoidance of doubt)

I do think that Latin teaches a certain logicality - and would sit happily with Maths etc - and it is not necessary but I think it helps. Lets be honest - I shouldn't think anyone ever has wasted a life because they haven't done Latin GCSE but it is a discipline which can help. Prepared to be shot down in flames.

So Noble does that chart imply that English and History teachers are easier to recruit ? Or do we have enough of them ?