Is PGCE most respected route for someone who wants to teach but hopes to end up in school leadership one day?

[Stringbean70]

As the title asks really. My DC is doing modern languages and keen to teach at secondary level (we understand there is a government payment for MFL teachers but that is NOT motivation here). Should DC pursue a PGCE or another route into teaching and, ultimately, SLT? Any advice much appreciated

Teach First trainees do study for a PGCE. My best advice here is to do your research properly so you know what you're applying for.

Teach first is quite frankly, shit. However, the calibre of teacher we are getting through TF or PGCE has plummeted over the past 10 years so either route would be fine. I would recommend PGCE for their sanity. However, if they are even vaguely competent they will do well. I would suggest a couple of weeks in a school and see the reality.

I’m going against the grain here ~ I did my PGCE at Oxford and I did think it opened a few doors to me. Interviewing headteachers were impressed. Of course, had I been rubbish that wouldn’t have helped.

A plus is also that all the placements from Oxford Uni are in local comprehensives so you get a wide experience and they were all pretty reachable with a car.

As my career went on, the ‘Oxford experience’ did help me advise aspiring students too.

Maybe think about where your DC wants to teach/live and look at courses in that area. You make invaluable contacts with local schools and many people get offered jobs within their placement school. So if they don’t intend staying in Swansea ( and teaching jobs are harder to get if you aren’t Welsh), look at somewhere she would like to live.

And you can’t possibly know if you will be SLT until you’ve been teaching for a while.

The real question is whether to do university based or school based training. You can get a PGCE either way. The advantage of school based is that you are being paid and learning on the job, but it is very hard work and very stressful. A university based PGCE is a bit more relaxed, with more time to consider alternative ways of doing things. But you'll have less experience under your belt and less money.

I'm a school governor with lots of involvement in teaching and SLT appointments and I agree that no one cares how you qualified.

My experience of teach first is not positive I'm afraid, because of the arrogance it seems to engender.

Russell Group STEM academic here and I do not agree with this statement. Teach First do brilliant recruiting and part of their marketing is that they prepare for leadership.

What they really seem to prepare for is other careers. There is an older thread on here where a very astute MumsNetter’s DC was thinking of doing TF (possibly the MumsNetter was SandyIrving) and posters had found statistics. During the course, TF has a much higher attrition rate than PGCE and those who take the TF route quit the profession sooner. TBF it seems they do find good jobs in other fields, but that is not OP’s concern.

DF is a Maths prof at an excellent RG university. A strong and personable student of his barely survived Teach First. She called in a couple of years later to catch up and was quite scathing about the lack of support. (I realise this is just one example but it is consistent with the previous thread)

I also know many PGCE graduates and I have never heard the PGCE experience characterised as ‘soft’. Quite the opposite.

I agree with you.

@Sandyhand Languages are still being taught in schools and schools still need teachers to teach them, hence government paying PGCE MFL students huge sums of money in bursaries to learn how to do it.

My niece had an awful time with TeachFirst for MFL, including being put in a London school that didn’t even teach her languages (very common ones) and then just suggesting she taught Sociology which had been part of her degree, before it turned out school didn’t teach Sociology either. She had a First from RG uni and went off to far more gainful employment elsewhere.

edited for typing error

Having worked with lots of trainees PGCE teachers always seemed more prepared and thrived compared to Teach First who were chucked in the Deep end.

More Teach First trainees seemed to quit and the only people that seemed to thrive via that method were those who had extensive school and behaviour management experience via years of TAing / cover supervising or instructing as an Unqualified Teacher. For those that hadn't stepped foot in a Secondary School since their own school days it appeared to be a huge shock to the system. Particularly as they were probably quite academic and in top sets and had never been in a lesson with those who were not.

I am SLT and honestly, it doesn't really matter which route as long as you have QTS. A strong degree will
probably also help, certainly my school would look at this when recruiting more than the ITT route.

TeachFirst very much throws you into the deep end!

And as others have said, it will take years to hone your craft as a teacher before you are ready for SLT.

I was a main scale teacher for 8 years and then a head of department for 6 years before I became SLT, which I have been doing for 4 years. The fact that I've done it slowly and steadily is part of the reason why I think I'm still in teaching. I've got a lot of friends who I trained with who burnt out way before me.

Sorry phrased that wrong- I've not burnt out just yet!

Was going to say this. I'm in SLT and did a PGCE. As long as you're qualified it doesn't really matter but I would not recommend Teach First as it's very full on and puts some people off teaching 🤣

Worth mentioning that in a 'university-based' PGCE, most of the course is spent teaching on two secondary school placements, and some time spent in a primary school. Far more time spent learning on the job than in lectures. 'University based' can make it sound like you don't actually do any teaching.

Teach First is absolutely not the better option.

I wouldn’t agree with this at all.

I would absolutely recommend a PGCE over TF.

PGCE is absolutely not the softer option in the slightest!

This. I spent two blocks of five weeks studying at uni, the rest of the time I was on placement.

PGCE is held in the highest regard in the profession.

Noone cares as long as you are qualified but I'd try and make life easy for yourself and if your DD has the option of living at home with you whilst she trains, it will make life easier for her as it's a tough year. In my experience, it's the school, where you do your placements that determine alot of the quality of training you recieve.

Absolutely does not matter. Leadership is for those who have proven ability/great work ethic/ guts/ Learned Helplessness/Ambition/are in the right place at the right time (delete as appropriate)

I have never met anyone who was impressed by an Oxford or Cambridge PGCE.
PGCEs are all about Teaching Practice and noone cares about anything else.

I qualified nearly 35 years ago and literally noone cares where you do your PGCE.

As someone upthread said, TF is aiming to produce managers and what many of those people turn into is managers who just haven't walked the walk and who make everyone else's lives deeply unpleasant as they foist the latest magical thinking on everyone else.

think it is odd that your DD is aiming for school leadership without having entered the profession. I might dial down that aspect of my aspiration during any application or interview process for PGCE or TeachFirst or similar programme: it suggests she is seeking to join a notoriously tough profession, one euphemistically referred to as a vocation, without the most basic interest in actually teaching at the coalface. It could be perceived as a smidgen arrogant when, at least on paper, leadership in education is a destination arrived at after considerable experience and a proven record of facilitating measurable change and whole-school impact. This really isnecessary as 'school leadership' is not so much about procedural, operational or administrative function, or even directing pupils, but all about leading colleagues in processes of change and driving progress. This is where teaching experience and years under one's belt really matters, as without it, your DD will lack credibility with more senior (in years and experience) colleagues and is likely to struggle to lead. There are plenty of relatively new colleagues who find themselves in premature positions of leadership, put there by either desperate or nepotistic leaders, and they tend to really struggle.

I agree with this. What is it about SLT specifically that she likes the sound of?

I don't think it matters. My cousin did a BEd and is now a deputy head in her mid 40s

I agree with this, and with almost all of the posts.

Really odd question to be asking at this stage. You (your dc in this case) should be aiming to be a great teacher first and foremost, then going the extra mile once established beginning to make decisions about career progress.

Once you’re teaching, nobody really questions how you qualified. In order to get a leadership role it’s much more about how you perform in your role, whether you volunteer for extra responsibility etc.

This is spot on.

Generally, I think I'd give more credence to a PGCE than a Teach First, but if a school needs an MFL teacher, they won't be inundated with dozens of applications, so the way they qualified won't prevent them getting a job.