Most professions do have a non-degree route where you can take professional exams and learn on the job. Why can't teaching offer the same? There was talk of a degree level apprenticeship several years ago as a route into teaching. I'm not sure it ever went anywhere though because of the cost of setting up courses like that when there are already a number of routes into teaching.
You should get paid more and there should be more time allocated towards it. If there was a massive recruitment, then it would be good to have some more time dedicated towards it. As the senior mentor in my school, I do have time and money for my role. But the mentors below me get nothing. No time. No money. I only get my TLR because I am responsible for all Teaching and Learning training across the whole school. Everyone else has to squeeze it into their breaks and lunches and wherever they can. It's impossible to give them time because we never know exactly which subjects we'll have trainees in from one year to the next, and non contact time is expensive and disruptive to timetabling.
I'm sure they could be paired with an existing teacher, taught and given a small class of their own. Perhaps retention would be better for these people if they didn't have to manage 30 children at the moment, teacher training requires 120 days of in school training across the age and ability range. I'm secondary so that means trainees in every subject in my school have to be with some ks3 and some ks4. They can't have a small class of their own because that wouldn't allow them to meet the standards. If you come in via the Assessment Only route, the same standards apply - it's got to be full classes, across the age and ability range. That's in the rules for qualifying as a teacher.
It could be any empty modernised building. I have suggested retail, because many have closed. In one town, an extra school might mean the Toys R Us. In another village, it might be class held in an empty church. A furniture store, a large retail store, whatever can be adapted. That's true. But the guidance for reopening was very clear - this is not permitted, and won't be funded. It's not a lack of willingness from schools and their leaders stopping it; it's the government.
You're right about austerity - but schools can't do anything about that! Their hands are tied.
I'm sure someone will be around to tell me that's impossible because its different to what they're used to and different is a dirty word here. It's not impossible. But schools have been told not to do it and if they do, they won't get the money they spend back. So not impossible because it's different but impossible because we're not in a position to do it. Not least because of all the logistical issues aforementioned.
I think if I sent my 4 year old to be taught on a part time basis by Susan, a former flight attendant with childcare experience who had been trained by Liz, a teacher with years of experience who was with her in the room for the first few months, then I would be fine with that. In your example, Susan "owns" the class and Liz floats, but that's not how teacher training works. Susan has to be trained across the age and ability range so it's not her class, and Liz has to stay with her.
I've got a lot of experience in recruiting trainees, in training them, and in working with RQTs, and I've seen people come in from all areas of expertise at all stages of life. I'm not knocking anyone who wants to train - but training to be a teacher is not easy or quick. It has to be done well because if it isn't, it's the students who suffer. Yes, we need more teachers but the government recruitment drive isn't making the difference it should be, and that's with chucking vast sums of money at it.