to think there is something seriously wrong with our education system..

[TwinkleToes101]

when teachers are leaving in droves?

Just recently reading about record numbers of newly trained teachers giving up within 5 years (that was me 14 years ago), then on MN today partners having depression/breakdowns and all the posters who teach knew the person in question was a teacher...what the F is going so badly wrong with teaching??

I thought my reasons for leaving were personal: too little me time, too much low-level classroom disruption. Other postgrads I know left as I did because of work load. But don't other professions have high workloads/stresses?

A lot of private schools badger alumni to set up direct debits, remember them in your will etc.

I haven't rtft but to the closing question in your OP: Don't other professions have high workloads/stresses? Yes. They do. And people are leaving other (public sector) professions in droves too. I'm a midwife and we have similar rates of attrition. Morale over the last year has been the lowest I've seen it, and the maternity staffing in our hospital is currently 85% of what it should be. I think it's because these sorts of jobs attract people who are doing it out of passion rather than for the money (lol). So if the job becomes overwhelmingly shit, there's really no reason to stay in it. Some of my friends in the corporate world also have stressful jobs but they're (quite openly) doing it for the money rather than love of the job itself, so there's no reason to leave because their primary motivator is still there.

I absolutely agree : you have hit the nail on the head gulliver.

The trouble with vocational careers, is they become disappointing and disillusion sets in. A study found that more teachers and nurses were identified as 'idealists' than in any other professions (which did include doctors, who were surprisingly low!). The trouble with being a 'make the world a better place' type is we soon learn we can't.

A study found that more teachers and nurses were identified as 'idealists'

The teaching adverts are shocking for this.

well, yes, but also lying about pay!

Who needs a first to teach Y9 algebra?

Fewer than 50% of maths teachers hold a maths-relevant degree, let alone a first! (Same for physics).

www.tes.com/news/class-sizes-rise-recruitment-crisis-bites

Pigywaspushed: okay, I see your point. I disagree in the sense that I don't think we need well qualified teachers for many subjects especially for earlier years or lower sets. Top sets and A-level - okay, you'll need those qualifications. I do very much agree with your comment on the anti-intellectualism in teaching. I believe it stems in part from the results oriented system - teaching to the test and all that.

I don't think we need well qualified teachers for many subjects especially for earlier years or lower sets.

What, because it’s easy to teach kids to add up or to read?

...hunts for diagram about how reading is the most complex process there is...

noblegiraffe: it's an interesting question though isn't it? They recruit maths specialists who then leave pronto. This leaves half the posts filed with non-specialists. Are they doing a good job teaching? They are staying so I suppose they are doing at least an adequate job. Perhaps if recruitment had a different focus and recruited good teachers based on criteria that ensure more 'longevity' in post. Perhaps more based on demonstrated people skills, negotiators, social activists. I'm just floating the idea

Also, OP, no teacher in a secondary school is 'just' going to teach lower sets becuase of their qualifications. I know a few who have been allocated that way and have been out of the door before you can say Jack Robinson.

But, yes, to the teachign to the test thing in English. My fried (upper KS3 and above specialism) protested when she was asked to train KS2 and KS1 teachers in a specialised reading skill, aimed specifically at KS2 SATs. A science teacher could not see why she didn't feel she was the right person to deliver this.

OFFS ... my friend, not my fried !

noblegiraffe: of course I don't think teaching is easy. My question is: do people who have the skills to succeed at university exams make the best possible teachers?

I trained 22 years ago and have been a full time teacher ever since.

Out of my cohort of 55 people who trained, only 5 made it beyond 5 years, and now it’s only me and one other who are still teachers (she’s part time).

I think it’s an amazing job - if you’re in a supportive school - but there’s a lot of negativity around it all.

I think because I’ve developed a strict persona in the classroom I have barely had any behaviour problems over the years but I know colleagues who have dreaded certain classes and this has tended to be one of the major factors in leaving. If I have a hard class (and I normally get the ones others don’t want) I see it as an exciting challenge to get them onside and sorted and working hard and doing well. I never give up.

The other major factor I think for people leaving is some schools’ expectations that you follow all the latest fads to the extreme. You have to guide staff and have parameters but also trust them to develop their own style and what works best for them.

Maybe I am indeed an idealist or an optimist but I think they do, as they often love their subject and want others to get some of the love, too.

Twinkle subject specialism is very important in my opinion.

I’m a secondary maths teacher and I had some kids who were working at KS1/2 sort of level. I have no idea how to teach them effectively because it’s outside my specialism. We had an ex primary school teacher do some intervention with them and it was amazing to see what she picked up on, how she dealt with it, how she knew about common misconceptions at that level. Total respect for primary teachers - especially as they need that sort of knowledge for every subject.

Kids in lower sets and early years need specialist teachers too. Not some sort of Mums Army of kindly well-meaning types, but people who really know their stuff.

My question is: do people who have the skills to succeed at university exams make the best possible teachers?
Passing university exams in a subject doesn't automatically make someone a good teacher but being a good teacher does mean having a reasonable amount of specialist knowledge.

Knowing your subject to a high level and being able to stretch very able students whilst passing on your love of your subject is key to being a good teacher. (Though to be fair I've seen some trainees from poorly regarded universities with abysmal subject knowledge)

It's also why (I hope this doesn't sound wrong), I think there is a correlation between schools who are staffed with nonspecialists and whoever they can find vs schools who are staffed with subject specialists who know their discipline well and love their subject.

Do we want teachers to be clever and have experienced success within the education system?

I think my answer to that would be ‘of course’.

The problem with insisting on a degree to go into teaching is the same issue we are having in nursing.
Those making this rule are missing out the fact that to get the degree you will now be around £30,000 in debt and the pay is quite low.

Once someone has got the degree then why would they go into teaching or nursing.

From what I remember about teaching secondary science, common pupil misconceptions is something you learn through teacher training not through the degree. I'm not arguing for untrained teachers.

I want teachers to be motivated and present in the classroom.

common pupil misconceptions is something you learn through teacher training

Yes but if you’re training people without science degrees you’d have to eschew that to actually teach them the science.

Kids in lower sets and early years need specialist teachers too. Not some sort of Mums Army of kindly well-meaning types, but people who really know their stuff.

I don't think you are getting at primary TAs here - at least, I hope not! But it maddens me that this is the perception people have of us. We're exceptionally diverse in terms of background, and yes, lots of us got into being a TA because it fits around our own kids/we've been pushed out of other fields because the hours aren't compatible with family life. I know TAs with paper qualifications not much beyond the CACHE2, but who are genius at pastoral care. Others are specialists in interventions I wouldn't have the first clue about. Some are brilliant all-rounders, as happy doing maths with a struggling child as they are challenging the gifted. I have multiple degrees and an encyclopedic knowledge of children's literature. We all bring something different to the mix, we're a team, we're the village that raises the child - at least, we would be if funding wasn't playing divide and rule with us. We are losing so much knowledge and experience by slashing TA posts and hours...and what we will end up with is a return to that "army of well-meaning volunteers" that populated schools when my mum used to "pop in to do baking with the kiddies". In my darker moments I think that's the aim from government.

If the pay is low you don't pay the debt off!

I eventually found the poll I mentioned about 8 pages ago :

www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/advertising-execs-rank-below-politicians-britains-least-trusted-profession

I don't think you are getting at primary TAs here

No, not at all, I’m talking about teachers. Primary TAs don’t have the same sort of responsibility for the education of a class of children as primary teachers. It means that they can be a much more eclectic bunch in terms of what they bring to the table.