Teacher training bursaries slashed/axed in response to pandemic (but Classics still qualifies)

The majority of people I've been involved with who have gone through teacher training in the last five years couldn't have done it without a bursary.

I know many people, who trained under a Labour government, incidentally, who had to pay for a a PGCE. Do many other progressions allow you to train for free?

I'd have thought, given the economic catastrophe that is looming, that people can understand and why the state won't incentivise something which is not going to need incentivising.

@larrygrylls biology graduates teaching physics is the least of it! Try psychology or forensic science graduates training to teach Maths.

I went to a inner city state secondary in Sunderland which offered Classic Civ and Latin GCSEs. I have an A* in the latter, very useful when studying degree level Spanish and teaching grammar.

That isn't what the OP is doing, twiz. The point is it is not widely taught. Yet a hefty bursary is still being offered form something predominantly offered in the private sector and with a small trainee cohort and has been removed for secondary English and primary maths. To anyone, regardless of attitude towards classics, its prioritising over subjects society states it 'needs' is bizarre. I can only think there is a powerful lobby somewhere that says if MFL gets a bursary, classics also must. However, MFL isn't even for all languages iirc.

Physics bursaries should be for Physics, maths and engineering graduates only.

Incentivising biology graduates to teach Physics (almost invariably very badly) is crazy.

I have a BA and MA in classics ... went to state school, studied it at A level..... I wouldn't call myself posh, I just loved history and Asterix ...

Classics teachers in my experience have also taught history and RE.

But yeah, let's bash people who have an interest in something a bit different.

You points might make some kind of sense madder if they hadn't kept classics so heavily funded.

But in this day and age not funding teacher training makes it seem like some kind of hobby MA.

[quote madderose]@ZolaGrey not just my life, it is not in the interests of children to be taught by student teachers who are not committed to the profession long term and who train for the single year's financial incentive, something I have seen time and time again.

It was an incentive to address a supply issue, not an entitlement. It's not going to be required as an incentive any more because the stability provided by employment as a teacher post pandemic is incentive enough. [/quote]
That is absolute nonsense. The majority of people I've been involved with who have gone through teacher training in the last five years couldn't have done it without a bursary.

This will punish the majority who DO want to teach and have the qualifications and life experience to do so but can't because of the bare bones financial support.

The choices they have made on which subjects to keep bursaries on only goes to reinforce the appalling attitude the government have towards any subject that isn't STEM and the total disregard for anything that doesn't fit their need to churn out indentikit kids with specific GCSE results.

The whole thing is a kick in the teeth and I hope there's a big enough backlash that it'll change.

@ZolaGrey not just my life, it is not in the interests of children to be taught by student teachers who are not committed to the profession long term and who train for the single year's financial incentive, something I have seen time and time again.

It was an incentive to address a supply issue, not an entitlement. It's not going to be required as an incentive any more because the stability provided by employment as a teacher post pandemic is incentive enough.

At least it'll make your life easier though

HerdyGerdy I know I'm biased, but I would argue that studying Latin leads to a better grasp of English grammar and spelling than almost any other subject. And at a higher level (A level and particularly degree level), classics teaches a particularly good breadth of skills, because of the combination of language, grammar, history, literature and philosophy it covers - it's very good at teaching a combination of linguistic, analysis, research and writing skills. Its cross-disciplinary nature also means it appeals to an unusually broad spectrum of students - on a classics degree course it's not uncommon to find students who've studied a wide mix of other A levels, such as Latin/MFL/MFL, Latin/English/History, Latin/Maths/Economics.

Piggy, I'm really not knocking you or your classics teachers - I just thought it was an interesting point, as I so often hear people on MN and in RL saying how awful it is that their child is having physics lessons from a chemistry teacher or maths lessons from a non-maths teacher or whatever, because of teacher shortages. So I was just querying that if that's a problem, why is it fine to have Latin taught by a French teacher? Maybe those kinds of complaints are a parental perspective though, more than an actual reflection of a genuine problem in the classroom.

I teach primary, truly entrenched after 20 years, and rarely peep over the sides of my professional furrow, so had no idea this was a thing. I'm pretty sure no bursaries are available for those who wish to train to teach primary? Loans all the way, by the looks of it. This is such a pity, because primary education makes a fantastic home for the most consummate, dedicated pedagogues.

typing not a specialism!

two ...

almost, I am a non specialist, technically, in tow subjects I teach and ma rather good, honest.

Our non specialist classics teachers are still bloody good teachers.

Now now. I teach English and appreciate your support but a) English at secondary doesn't 'teach' grammar and b) Latin does.

I don't believe in such a nonsense as fluffy subjects.

Good. I approve of this. I get enquiries all the time asking about bursary subjects from people who have entirely unsuitable qualifications and who disappear after the training year.

classics is being taught by non classics specialists, that suggests a need for more trained Latin teachers?

I’d love to know where all these schools are that teach Classics. None in my area / MAT. None in the areas of Brighton / Kent / Sussex where I’ve previously taught either.

Ah yes. Let’s get people trained in fluffy subjects. English and Maths are still shortage subjects (we’ve got unqualified staff teaching both) and frankly all students need good staff in those subject before anything else. Classics doesn’t lead to a solid knowledge of grammar, spelling or subtraction unfortunately.

Piggy you might be completely right. But I would really like to see the govt rationale for how they choose the subjects they choose to fund. (Just one push back at your post by the way - when other subjects eg sciences are being taught by non specialists that's often seen as a cause for lament, including on this thread. Isn't it arguable that if classics is being taught by non classics specialists, that suggests a need for more trained Latin teachers?)

There are some real enthusiasts for getting classics going in state schools : but this drive isn't coming from the government at all. It is coming from various groups.

Lots of classics teachers aren't PGCE trained in classics (many are historians, MFL) so I don't think we 'need ' a huge bursary for classics trainees.

It's not in danger of dying out : numbers also aren't growing so hugely that we urgently need teachers.

I can't see this being anything other than driven by the government's ideological love of the free school and the MAT many of which offer classics for elitist reasons, it does have to be acceded.

My school does classics and it is definitely not ideologically driven but neither of the teachers are classics trained.