Plan for 18 year olds to become teachers with on the job training

[noblegiraffe]

So the government's bright idea to solve teacher shortages is not to make any effort to retain the teachers who are leaving in droves, but to allow people to train as teachers on the job with only A-levels.

Because acquiring a solid expertise in your subject first is totally overrated.

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-first-teaching-apprenticeship-planned

I don't think the 18 year olds straight from school will be in charge of a lesson - they will be teaching assistants under supervision of the teacher. They will not have full responsibility until they have their degree and teaching qualification. It will provide more assistance in class and the apprentices will presumably not have to take out big loans for their degrees. The government want to generally promote the apprenticeship brand - so that it is not seen as a second rate chice at 18+. More and more professions are considering routes like this. For me, it would depend what sort of degree was on offer in the package

They won't be teaching assistants that's the point!
They will be apprentice teachers learning on the job ...the job is teaching.

It has long been argued that teachers who went to school, then to University and then back into school lack 'life knowledge/ outside world experience'. Employing 18 year olds would add to this argument.

It will provide more assistance in class and the apprentices will presumably not have to take out big loans for their degrees.

But a degree is not just a piece of paper: it is about being taught knowledge and skills. The actual training and teaching would still cost a lot of money. For example, if these apprentices went one or two days per week to the local university, the cost of their tuition there would still be in the thousands (particularly for science teachers). Who would fund these costs? For other kinds of apprenticeships it would be the employers, but where on earth would schools get the funding from?

The only way I can see this idea adding up financially is if the schools get the apprentices to teach a big fraction of a usual teacher's load, and then split the salary they would usually pay to a teacher into apprentice salary plus fees for apprentice at university. But then we are back to the concerns raised above: that apprentices would have to be teaching classes before they were qualified to do so, and that current teachers would have training/supervising apprentices added to their workloads (without removing anything from their workloads).

Why is life experience needed to teach?

To the person that said they would not want an 18 year old teaching their children, I suppose you don't allow 18 year old student nurses to be involved in your care either?

Why is life experience needed to teach?

To the person that said they would not want an 18 year old teaching their children, I suppose you don't allow 18 year old student nurses to be involved in your care either?

I know of a local school that has placed an unqualified apprentice as class teacher for next year. There's been the longest queue of parents outside the HT's office, asking wtf is going on.

OF COURSE it's about saving money and OF COURSE it's to do with the crisis in teacher recruitment. The general public has been shielded from the realities of the situation in some areas, even when the crisis is really hitting home, but we have a major problem and it's getting worse. The job is becoming untenable, and the final slap in the face is the shit pay. No wonder people are leaving in droves.

Now, what's the minimum wage for an 18 year old apprentice, I wonder...

Peanuts.

I teach in a private school. 3 times now (since i have been at the school) the school have appointed unqualified teachers.

They have NO IDEA how to do the job. Simple things such as pacing a lesson just doesn't occur to them and then they have terrible discipline problems because the kids are bored. These kids don't behave badly in their other lessons.

The non qualified teachers don't seem to be able to respect their colleagues and think they know best / sulk if they don't get their own way. They are also frightened of change - if something works once, they want to stick to that plan/ method religiously never mind that the kids have changed so we should be looking at different approaches.

The pgce might only be a year, but in my experience it makes a huge difference.

The idea of putting an 18 year old in the classroom is ridiculous. I teach the 6th formers at my (good ) school, and I have young children. I wouldn't even consider them as babysitters for my kids never mind let them 'teach' them!

Give them 5 years to grow up a little and then perhaps they can try.

A nurse involved in care is one thing; a nurse without much training in charge of care would be different.

If apprentice teachers were to act only as teaching assistants (under supervision) until they had received subject and teaching training that would be less objectionable, although clearly an increase in workload for the supervising teachers. But it's hard to believe that these apprentice teachers wouldn't be put in charge of classes on their own very quickly, simply because this is the only way this scheme could work financially - if a school is paying somebody, they can't afford for that person to just be an extra teacher in a class that has a teacher.

The 18year old may be intelligent, driven enthusiastic and available (cheap) but listen you governmental buffoons! THEY HAVE NO LIFE EXPERIENCE!. Sorry all, xx ex teacher.

I have always been bewildered by the fact private schools and colleges can recruit staff with degrees but with no further training like PGSE . Can anyone tell me why ?

It's unusual for independent schools to have large numbers of qualified staff. Huge schools, such as Eton, have the capacity to train teachers in-house.

Some schools may use unqualified teachers to staff tiny subjects, especially if they have lots of industrial experience.

But it's the expectation that teachers will have recognised teaching qualifications, and will be specialists in their subject.

*unqualified staff

In my DC's school the only staff who don't have formal teaching qualifications (equivalent to PGCE) are PhD educated staff who worked in higher education before coming to the school. These staff are trained during their first two years and tend in any case to concentrate on the older pupils, A level etc, for which their previous higher education experience is most relevant.

The school also has a few staff members who came from abroad; they have teaching qualifications and years of teaching experience but I'm not sure their qualifications would be acceptable to state schools.

In my school we run a programme which I believe to be unique - certainly the only one in the region. We call it a PrePGCE and it is a qualification of sorts (accredited by the local university) for 6th formers who are interested in teacher training post a levels. They are matched with a teacher and a year 8 class in a suitable subject, and get involved in teaching - as an observer, then an assistant, some small group work, then teaching starters/short sections of the lesson. Some progress to teaching the whole lesson by the end of the year.

Most are okay. Some are better than that, some are dire. It's a lot of extra work for the staff involved. It is mostly about improving UCAS applications for the students, not at all about teaching the pupils! They also don't do marking, their planning is done in conjunction with the teacher etc. It's a good programme - for the students. It's not good for the teacher, and not great for the younger ones either - tho staff ensure no gaps happen.

So what I'm saying is, this idea is daft if it is really about apprenticeships for a level students. And if it's for TAs, surely they will have to take a drop in their already poor salary to participate?? Non starter. I bloody hope, anyway!

This was written in January:

schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-plan-for-no-degree-teaching-apprenticeship-route-sent-to-government/

It does seem to be more about TAs who want to go into teaching who can't afford to take time out for a degree.

BUT: "Earlier this week, skills minister Nick Boles announced new plans that will require all public authorities with more than 250 employees to recruit 2.3 per cent of their staff as apprentices each year.

Schools were included in an official list of organisations expected to fall under the rule, with maintained schools and those in large academy trusts most likely to be affected."

The article suggests that this means that big schools will need to recruit 6 apprentices per year - which is why I guess some are in favour of teaching apprenticeships to meet this target as teachers form the bulk of staff. But wouldn't 6 new apprentices being recruited per year and apprenticeships potentially lasting 6 years mean that schools would end up overrun with apprentices?

You might say teachers should be paid more but you cant claim, the final slap in the face is the shit pay.
Upper pay range for class room teachers is now £37,871 (higher in London)
That is 43% higher than the average UK salary.

6 new apprentices being recruited per year and apprenticeships potentially lasting 6 years Wouldn't there be a large drop out rate?, as I keep hearing its a hard job. Also half them would probably be off at Uni studying. Also some might move to a different school to complete different parts of their apprenticeship. So maybe not that many in a school on any given day.

But teachers are graduates.

Not sure apprenticeship hiring targets should be based on the premise that they'll be so rubbish most people won't finish them.

38% of the population are graduates (2013) and probably higher now.

So pay up to 43% above the countries average, for a class room teacher, should not be described as shit.