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

Noble - I do think the point about the total amount rather than the headline number for what I assume is a relatively small number of Classics teachers is relevant. If I am honest I think the geography number looks too high, but , then I do not know. Call me naive ( cue " Basilisk - you are very naive " ) but where it is possible then e.g. Latin is a sensible subject to teach IMHO. Not always and not at the expense of some others , but not silly. It reinforces some disciplines.

Yes it does completely justify it, by definition. If the bursary works to attract the target number of Classics trainees it justifies the amount because it will be pitched at the minimum level thought to attract Classics graduates away from other jobs.

There are a significant number of English graduates floating around after graduation these days trying to find their way into a job but far fewer Classics graduates and those that there are (presumably because of the rigorous nature of a Classics degree) tend to go for fairly competitive/ lucrative jobs. Not sure how Classics can be written off as a 'pet project'!!!! Try saying that to a decent Classicist and I'm not sure you'd survive the first round :)

Since the model will be based on the bursary being sufficient, hopefully, to attract the number of Classics trainees the DFE reckons it wants, and you concede that that won't be a large number and that the payout therefore won't be large, I'm struggling to see your problem.

You're welcome to explain your objection to a modest amount going to Classics!

Yes I agree that money is found when the politicians want it to be.

Classics was not funded by Labour

Indeed, when Ed Balls was Education Secretary he said 'dance' was a more useful subject than Latin! Doesn't seem to have done Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Martin or J.K.Rowling any harm though - all of whom studied Latin at college or uni.

Or even just STEM and English.

Nothing to spoil and certainly nothing I'd recognize as sport :)

The DfE don't pluck stuff out of thin air.

The total payout for Classics will be tiny compared to the payout for Maths. It's really quite surprising (or is it?) that that isn't recognised in the OP.

It's incredibly narrow minded just to promote STEM.

I don't know if I explained that well.

I'm very involved with libraries at the moment, which are facing cuts and closures and deprofessionalism everywhere, and you really have to fight to resist the urge to dissolve into arguing with councils 'Well X deserves a library more than Y area does because blah blah blah' everyone deserves a fucking library, it's a statutory right, the situation where some huge areas won't have one for miles is ludicrous.

But people have got worn down from constant cut, cut, cut, and start 'making the best of things' which is okay to a certain extent, but beyond that... I think you have to make sure you don't shift your lines too far and accept what is unacceptable because you are so worried that it could be even worse.

I think saying the classics bursary should be less than the english one is totally fine, and I agree. But saying classics shouldn't have one is too far.

Having jumped on on Friday night, I don't know about classics particularly but it does also serve as an introduction to philosophy, much like RS can.

I do think it's a shame we specialise children so early, I don't think you create the best, most imaginative engineers if they never study creative or interpretive subjects for example.

So I struggle with this idea that we should throw all our resources at core subjects and forget about the rest.

I am quite depressed that our education system has got to the point where people who I don't think normally would are advocating one subject should lose out in favour of another (as opposed to everyone should get more money type sentiments)

It's a divisive place we have ended up.

Piggy yes it does - it’s still doing well though having been academised I would be surprised if it lasted forever, sadly.

Noble , one thing I would ask you ( and be in no doubt I am not a maths teacher nor indeed very good at maths ) - my son was competent at maths , not talented , not gifted , competent - as in he got a very good GCSE result. He started maths as a 4th A level and gave it up. I think part of that was that he did have some talented pupils in his class & it was a bit dispiriting to be always the one who needed stuff explaining a bit more. So , to the question , I know we need more STEM graduates , but for those whose interests and talents lie elsewhere ( and that might be e.g. History or Classics , ) should they just troop through ? IMHO Classics is not a necessary subject but it does encourage logical thinking . History as a discipline has advantages. I would absolutely be in favour of people not being scared of maths , but that said , some humanities subject ( not just English ) seem to be subject to the vagaries of marking and yet instil disciplines useful for jobs we all need to be done.

I cannot comment on your OP because I don't know how many would be offered the £26k bursary rather than the £6k for maths.

Leaving this here:

I said the issues with English last year weren't the first of their kind by a long way. There's no inconsistency whatever in what I said, nor would there be. With respect, I think you should try to find the plot again because you've made some seriously spaced comments.

No idea what the fuck you mean :)

Oh I see, I thought it sounded as though you weren't and it would be quite reasonable for you not to know about difficulties other subjects have encountered in recent years, especially since maths has been far less touched by this stuff. I'm aware of the issues over the 2017 English grades yes. You seemed to be challenging my comment that it isn't a unique case of inconsistencies by exam boards so I responded to that.

Historically (and no doubt it will continue this way) there have been far fewer inconsistencies with maths, for very obvious reasons noble. You may well not be familiar with the issues in other subjects over the years, but they've been marked and many.

Yes some conditions would make sense.

I agree that the bursary for all subjects should have conditions attached. Of the twelve or so students who started their pgce in the same group as dc1, four years ago, only four, including dc1 are still teaching. Several never taught after getting their pgce, so do not have qts. They all pocketed the substantial bursary though (stem subject). Maybe the bursary should be repayable, pro rata, if the recipient does not teach in the state sector for, say, five years. And maybe, as an added bonus, student loans could be 'paid up'at different stages of a career? Say, 50% after 7 years and the remainder after 10 years? Given that many teachers are unlikely to ever pay their loans in full, the cost to the government would not be ridiculous, but it would make quite a difference to those students.