To think most parents would be unhappy with their child being taught by a 19yo apprentice?

[Postapocalypticcowgirl]

schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-developing-teaching-apprenticeship-for-non-graduates/

The DfE are developing an apprentice scheme for teaching for people without degrees.

I think there are some serious problems with this idea, but this isn't about those, really.

I'm just thinking about the attitude that some posters have towards NQTs (IE they don't want their child taught by them) and I'm curious as to what posters think.

In terms of voting, I'd like people to vote not on whether they think it's a good idea overall, but just on whether they would be happy with their child being taught by a 19yo apprentice who's just left college/sixth form.

YABU - I would be happy with this for my children.
YANBU- I would not be happy with this for my children.

I do assume at least at the start, it would be under the supervision of an experienced teacher, hopefully with them in the classroom full time. But to make it viable for schools the apprentice would likely have to be unsupervised at least some of the time pretty quickly. I do think it would be much more involved than initial placements on primary teaching degrees AND this specifically targeting secondary level.

A 19 yo may have enthusiasm and energy that many older teachers disillusioned with the profession don't

A 19 yo may have enthusiasm and energy that many older teachers disillusioned with the profession don't

They may. Of course, within a few years they too may become dispirited and disillusioned and leave, like so many have done already.

My DS taught remedial maths when he was in the 6th Form. He enjoyed helping younger pupils, was highly thought of by his teachers, the pupils did well and he had a lovely letter of thanks from the headmistress when he left.

Yes, but he wasn't teaching classes full of children.

We have this too but they are never allowed anywhere near a class. The material has already been taught.

I think this is probably about capturing more mature entrants but I'm not sure where they are. The example of the SW degree apprenticeship is different : you don't need near expert knowledge in a specific subject in SW and aren't teaching that knowledge to others.

It's been a while now since most A level school leavers went to university. Where are the people with A levels in maths , physics, whatever but no degree who then decide they want to be teacher? This is not for career changers with relevant first degrees.

I can see , however, that they might think this is a way of harnessing people with A Levels in relevant subjects. That said, I bet loads of them won't.

We do have some young people in our school working with students (some interns doing a degree some recently qualified graduates earning a bit of money , and some sixth formers. The 18 year owls are under constant supervision . None of them work in groups bigger than 4 and none of them are actually teaching. None of our undergraduate summer interns with their A levels in maths, economics, MFL , physics have then gone on to teaching!

For those who think their DCs would like to be a teacher and are drawn to this route to save uni debt ... what happens if they change their mind and hate it?

But your daughter has a degree. In that subject. That’s the whole thread.

I think it’s limited but there will be some older people who gained A levels but then passed on University for some reason and are expert in certain fields who could take up a teaching apprenticeship, for example lab technicians, people working in some aspects of IT (which isn’t as well paid as people think) and certain business roles.

By'older' , Born, I'm just unconvinced there are many people under even 60 with A levels but no degree any more... I have been teaching for years and years and it's been a graduate profession since the 80s. Very few people since about 1992 ish have done A levels and not got a degree.

For those talking about unqualified teachers upthread. They don't have QTS. But they do have degrees.

I'm trying to get my head round what the subject component of the degree would be. I can only imagine English. I think it would include modules on YA and children's lit, a Shakespeare in education module, stuff on writing grammar. All of this exists in BA degrees but there should also be way more at a higher level of demand. It will be very narrow and utilitarian.

wow
bit uncalled for
what a mean post

I’m presuming this will be aimed at maths and physics posts. My DC’s school has so few teachers in either of those subjects that the departments are being held together by biology and business teachers. I can’t imagine for a minute that the few maths/physics teachers left have got a spare second in the day with which to ‘teach’ people who have only A levels themselves, how to be good maths teachers. I’m sure any of us that have been PGCE mentors know how much time/money/support we are given to do the role!

I would be very interested to know the entry grades needed and the salary they’d be on. If they want to teach A level maths, would they need an A*? Or would a B do? Would you need physics as well? I’m presuming they’d still have just three chances to pass the timed skills tests in maths/English like anyone else? Would they be on £15k? £25k? What if they hated it and left-would there be anything to pay back? Who would teach them the subject content of their degree? Mark their essays? Be their tutor?

I won’t spend any more time thinking about it though as I really can’t see it happening! I’m just intrigued to see if there actually is a plan or if it’s just desperate straw-clutching!

I wouldn't mind for primary, so long as the apprentice had high grades (7+) for Maths, English and Science GCSE's and a spread of good passes at A level that included quantitative skills and evaluative writing skills. Sadly, many primary school teachers with degrees don't have those qualifications.

At secondary I would expect all teachers to have experience of higher education or an alternative pathway (including apprenticeship) outside of teaching. Otherwise they have spent their entire life in school and have no specialism to offer.

It's not the 19 year-old bit per se that I have a problem with, it's the lack of a degree and the devaluing of teaching, which is an important job which should done by respected, well-qualified professionals. Instead of trying to solve the issues which are driving thousands of experienced teachers out of the profession and also making new teachers quit after a couple of years (or sometimes straight after their training), the government is just cynically looking for ways of getting more and cheaper young cannon fodder. Quelle surprise.

By'older' , Born, I'm just unconvinced there are many people under even 60 with A levels but no degree any more

I met a quite a few when working in Apprenticeships. Some had started degree courses and dropped out, some hadn’t gone to University for personal or financial reasons, some had pursued alternative lifestyles and fallen into their current employment by chance. Meeting these people was a fascinating aspect of the job. For quite a while they had to gain Functional Maths and English as part of their apprenticeship because their original O level or GCSE had “expired” (this subsequently changed). Some, with their experience, skills and personal qualities might have made good teachers if a teaching apprenticeship had been available.

Which other professions should require you to have spent time in another job? Should medical professionals have done something else first? Accountants? If not, why not?

Fun fact. This is nonsense.

@Hobbi which other professions have so much influence on children's futures? I believe that at secondary schools the responsibility for higher education or careers guidance extends far beyond the designated careers teacher. It is a collective responsibility. The wider the range of experience the better.

Of course, supporting undergraduates at Cambridge is exactly the same as taking bottom set year 9s on a Thursday afternoon. Or maybe it's so far removed as to be a ludicrous comparison. And your comment about primary teaching is patronising and very misinformed.

Not all teachers have a degree nowadays. They are qualified teachers.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we all agree they should be. There is nothing 'fun' about this fact.

I suggest you research what countries successful with successful education systems do. They want their teachers to be teachers only, a professional vocation, available only to the brightest and of a very high status. In Finland, they're not even very keen on training people who have other experience of working with children, same with Taiwan. There is zero evidence that having experience outside the classroom gives you any advantage at all. It's just cliched nonsense, intended to make people feel superior to teachers.

@Hobbi I suggest you work on your comprehension skills as I think you may have misread my post. I said they needed experience of higher education or another pathway, not both. I have no problem with a history grad going straight into teaching secondary history, and I have no problem with a non-graduate with relevant practical skills developed in the workplace going into teaching those skills either, but I do have a problem with a 19yo going straight into an apprenticeship for secondary school teaching.

And why do you think primary teaching should be a profession suited for low qualified people?

The way in which people are able to dismiss primary is outstanding really. Primary age is where children are set up for their adult lives. Key milestones in development, teachers are expected to be experts across the whole curriculum and teach all subjects to a high standard. All of that whilst keeping the same children on track and focussed all day. That’s before you focus on the actual basics of learning to read/write/apply mathematics. Not anyone can just ‘do’ that.

In other countries, there is a reason that teachers are selected from the best of the best (used to be the case here). Where only the brightest grads are teachers and they study on average 5-7 years. Most other developed countries are a minimum masters and specific ed degree. We already have some of the lowest requirements to teach in the world because we are desperate.

How are parents happy with that accolade? This thread kind of proves what teacher say. Parents don’t care about their children’s education and they see primary as childcare. If parent’s cared, they’d be horrified at these proposals which is offering a poorer provision to children. It’s already in a state as it is, we are competing to have the lowest standards of entry into teaching throughout the world. 👏🏻

And why do you think primary teaching should be a profession suited for low qualified people?

I don't. Read my post. I don't think they nevessarily need a degree, but I said they need to be more highly qualified than many currently are in the subjects and skills they are teaching.

This is about money. They want cheap teachers, not smart people with degrees who demand graduate salaries. They want people who don’t have better options and can’t earn more elsewhere, so they won’t leave. Quality of education is not being considered.

I don’t agree with teaching being de-professionalised. It’s going to lead to a two-tier education system where kids at state schools are taught by unqualified apprentices while private schools employ proper graduate teachers. And that will have a knock-on effect on social mobility. It’s also going to lead to a decline in living standards, because parents who previously would have been happy to send their kids to a state school, are now going to scrimp and scrape to afford a private school with proper teachers.

I thought teaching hadn’t always required a degree. Didn’t there used to be teacher training colleges?

If you go back nearly 60 years you could find a non graduate approach. Your second question is a non sequitur.