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

Dixiebone you isn't really answer my question, which was -

If you have a problem with 18 year olds training on the job to be a teacher, do you also have a problem with 18 year olds training on the job to become nurses/midwives? Or are you just against the idea of young people teaching your children and not saving your life?

Also teachers pay is pretty good. £32k basic after 5 years, compared to £26k basic for a nurse. So not quite sure why people are under the impression it's a badly paid job?

Nursing is now a 3 or 4 year degree course much the same as the current BEd teaching course

Are nurses paid during their degree?

Well, yes, I am aware of that having just completed one. But more than 50% of your time is spent learning on the job, meaning 18 year olds help staff the wards and act up as a nurse for at least 20 weeks a year under supervision.

Being as the new teacher training will be more practical based (which I think is absolutely correct), what is wrong with 18 year old trainee teachers working under supervision?

Mrz we did receive a bursary. From 2017 we have to take out loans to work for 2300 hours over 3 years. Paying £10.87 an hour to work effectively.

Teachers have always spent a large part of their training working in schools. What do you think happens in teacher training?

Also teachers pay is pretty good. £32k basic after 5 years

Where has this come from? If you're looking at the main pay scale that would be 6 years, but progression up the pay scale isn't guaranteed and the majority of teachers have quit by then.

For the record, nurses pay is really shit.

Pretty sure most teachers train with a PGCE which is one year as opposed to longer? I know the ITT is available but I don't personally know any teachers that took this route.

Then you're wrong

fruit was your post to me? Not sure I follow.

Yes noblegiraffe, you said the majority of training is done in schools, which I would expect, but you failed to mention it's quite possible to qualify as a teacher with just 24 weeks work experience. How does such a training programme expect to prepare teachers for the realities of teaching?

Also teachers pay is pretty good. £32k basic after 5 years, compared to £26k basic for a nurse. So not quite sure why people are under the impression it's a badly paid job?

I don't know where your information is from but it is outdated. There is no automatic yearly pay progression for teachers anymore. A teacher could earn 22k for a number of years.

How does such a training programme expect to prepare teachers for the realities of teaching?

That's why there's another year after that, your NQT year, which if you fail means you're never allowed to teach again in a state school. (Actually, not sure about academies, as they can hire unqualified teachers anyway).

What I don't understand about this route is that I spent 4 years at university studying maths. I then did a PGCE, where I spent time at uni learning Piaget and Vygotsky, and in the classroom planning and delivering lessons. I then had a further year teaching as an NQT before I was finally signed off.

I know we already have Schools Direct which is training in schools, so I assume they manage to fit their Vygotsky in somewhere. But where on earth in a school-training route will they fit the minimum 3 years of degree-level maths? Who will teach them the degree-level maths? What will their classes be doing in the meantime?

Or are we just accepting now that secondary teachers don't need to be subject experts?

I wouldn't really define having an undergraduate degree as a subject expert.

Anyway, is degree level maths needed to teach primary school children?

MrSlant

I trained like that in a different NHS field. I am now a teacher and I am passionate about getting HCP in to hospital ASAP in their training (my field you can now do either work based with p/t degree or uni f/t degree) I don't think is s appropriate for teaching.

Exactly noble I teach MFL- I don't think a teacher apprentice could do so!

Sashh that's interesting, can you explain a bit more?

Anyway, is degree level maths needed to teach primary school children?

No, that's why I said secondary teachers.

I can't really comment on how best to train primary teachers, I think they need to be experts in child development more than maths.

So 3 years of studying your main subjects alongside BA or BSc students in addition to teaching studies isn't subject specific?

I attended the same lectures, completed the same assignments and sat the same exams (history and English ) except I had additional lectures assignments and exams specific to teaching plus school placements.

I've seen on Twitter that the BEd is considered the best route for primary teachers.

I just can't see where subject knowledge fits into these apprenticeships.

As I've just said I studied my specialist subject areas alongside those studying for a BA for the first 3 years of my BEd. I chose humanities but there were maths, science, art, PE etc specialists on my course.

It was good prep for teaching as some days my first lecture would start at 9am and my last at 9pm

Sorry posted too soon ...

I'm assuming with the apprentice model they are assuming degree level subject knowledge isn't required and that A level is good enough ...oh dear!

Sorry posted too soon ...

I'm assuming with the apprentice model they are assuming degree level subject knowledge isn't required and that A level is good enough ...oh dear!