Would you be happy for your child's school to be used as a teacher training institution?

[Mellowfruitfulness]

Gove wants teachers to train in schools rather than in universities as at present.

Article here:

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/17/teacher-training-strike-gove-reform

Schools are already used for training purposes, and they are of course where probationers learn to teach. Teachers and pupils are prepared to put up with a certain amount of the inevitable disruption this causes, but I doubt whether they would welcome more.

The teacher training courses (based in universities) usually send their trainees out into schools, first to observe, then to teach for a few weeks, under very careful supervision. Before that and afterwards, the trainee teachers have to read up on educational research into how children's bodies and brains grow and develop; which methods are most suitable for certain learning styles and needs, as so on. They also have to continue broadening and practising their own subject speciality, or in the case of junior schools, they have to know a lot about several different subjects.

Imo, teachers need both sorts of input. The system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. If possible, maybe they could spend more time observing, but to remove the theoretical aspect of the course - why?

I hope this isn't a knee-jerk response, and will be interested to see what Gove is going to reveal in June. So far, I've learnt to dread anything he says ...

re fans of gtp - i looked at it briefly a few years ago, but didn't take up the option because it is not internationally recognised. my concern is that there are valid reasons for this? it's fine if you want to teach in the uk, but not for most o'seas, whereas qts or pgce are internationally recognised.

i know a couple of friends who have completed the gtp - one struggled enormously in her first job (admittedly not unheard of in nqts however trained) in a different setting. i do think it removes the benefits of experiencing different settings (i managed two whole tps before i ran away screaming ) but have been interested in training approaches as a result.

would trainees graduating from the new scheme have an internationally recognised teaching qualification? or is it just a way of getting cheaper 'teachers' into schools?

On the GTP, greater access to the 'normal', everyday classroom gives greater access to learning about behaviour management. The trainees are seen as staff members, not students, by staff, parents and children, as they are part of the fixtures and fittings (albeit temporary).

They also attend staff inset sessions, several of which this year have been on behaviour management and SEN. Also, as I mentioned, they have Fridays off to go for student lectures and seminars.

I agree, tether. My primary PGCE threw me into a class with no SEN training (I didn't know what an IEP was - at an interview) and only theoretical behaviour management.

it's only one 'normal' though, isn't it? gtp still based in one setting?

I don't think this scheme would, madwoman. You don't have a university diploma, you don't have any kind of postgraduate qualification in fact, which is the pre-requisite - not the QTS. You'd end up with people having to do an MEd on top of the teacher training...

No, as I said before, GTP students have to experience at least two settings. Our GTP swapped with another GTP student recently at a school with a 'different' type of intake. So they will have more expereince than a PGCE student.

From the website:

The Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) is a teacher training programme designed for graduates. On the GTP you can attain the same qualified teacher status (QTS) often awarded alongside a postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE), while training and working in a paid teaching role. This vocational programme is ideal if you want to change your career and become a teacher, but need to earn an income while you train.

www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/teacher-training-options/gtp.aspx GTP web-site]

Whoops pressed return too quickly
GTP web-site

yes, it's still not recognised internationally as equivalent though (the 'GTP outside England and Wales' section in the 'about GTP' pages)

i looked into it quite thoroughly as it seemed perfect for my circs at the time (and in fact was very close to being accepted) but fortunately right at the last minute found out that it had limited validity - and i needed a portable qualification.

i was just curious whether the new system would be an improvement on the gtp, or just an extension to it - surely it devalues uk education even more if the new teaching qualifications aren't internationally recognised?

hadn't realised gtp students swapped - clearly didn't get to that bit. i had one setting lined up. assume the different setting bit happened further down the line. that's got to be an improvement.

"On the GTP, greater access to the 'normal', everyday classroom gives greater access to learning about behaviour management."

Agreed, eggsit- greater, but still insufficient IMO. It's a lottery as to whether you get to experience good or bad practice, and a strategy which works for you may not work for me.

In fact, you raise a good point WRT SEN- why the Jeff is there no SEN specialism when training as a teacher? It means that even those teaching in SEN schools have little theoretical knowledge of their students unless they have learned themselves or embarked upon a further -expensive- course of study.

I think allowing for narrower specialisms would greatly increase the quality of teaching across all subjects/settings.

I think if anything, teacher training should be longer than one year (9 months), not effectively reduced.

I agree that it's a lottery, but surely all teaching experience is a lottery, whatever course you do?

I also agree that teacher training should be longer than one year (postgraduate) - maybe 2 years in 3 or 4 settings of funded training, with the understanding that the student will teach for at least 2/3 years in a state school.

I agree that there are flaws in the current system, but I don't think Gove's ideas address them at all. I trained 14 years ago, and learned a great deal from my first TP (middle of the road secondary with great mentor) but then was thrust in sink-or-swim style to my second TP, in a very low-achieving inner-city comp in Coventry which has since closed down. My "mentor" gave me her timetable, then buggered off - I rarely saw her, and learned nothing from her at all.

We did learn a bit about behaviour management, but not enough - my first job after PGCE was in a top-rated comp in a very middle class area, and classroom management really wasn't a problem. Then I moved to inner-city London and boy did I get a shock. What I know about effective classroom management, I learned there.

At the moment, I think the main problem is the inevitable lack of continuity between placements. Mine were vastly different. My sister is currently doing a PGCE at a highly regarded institution. She had to complain about her mentor on her first TP as she was given literally no information or help when she was starting to plan lessons (the teacher gave the excuse that her DP was coming home after a stint abroad and she was too excited to focus ) During her second TP, she was told that she must create (literally) her own resources, and that she wasn't to use the resources already in school - ridiculous.

However, Gove's proposals wouldn't necessary address this.

I've worked with 2 Teach First students - one of whom was superb, and went on to become a Head of Dept within two years, the other of whom quit teaching the year after he qualified. I've worked with GTP students and PGCE students, and there is very little difference - some are great, some are clearly not cut out for it.

I don't know what the answer is though, other than to try to instill greater consistency. I agree with the poster who said that, in order to attract the best graduates to teaching, the profile of teachers needs to improve, as does the starting salary.

But a rigourous course of educational and behavioural theory which runs alongside teaching practice will ensure that you are able to properly critically evaluate observed strategies without simply emulating them because you believe them to be the only way.

Interesting idea about committing to teach in a state school for a certain amount of time...

My post was to eggsit BTW...

"But a rigourous course of educational and behavioural theory which runs alongside teaching practice will ensure that you are able to properly critically evaluate observed strategies without simply emulating them because you believe them to be the only way."

I completely agree tethers.

When I said that I learned classroom management from my second job, I didn't mean to imply that this is a good thing! I was 3 years into my career at that point, and really ought to have been given the opportunity to know more than I did. It just wasn't really covered on the course... Oh, and before I mastered managing my classes at that school, I had my fingers broken by a student - not the best way to learn.

Ah, OK x-poster

x-posteD even.

S'Ok.. glad we agree

Broken fingers are really common injuries amongst teachers- often from trying to block a doorway to prevent a student leaving the room... (not saying you did this).

It's completely unacceptable that teachers are being physically injured through basic lack of training. The problem shouldn't exist, but it does. am for you.

lol evil, i wonder if we were at the same inner-cov school (i can't actually remember the name of it now tbh, it was so long ago). that was for my second tp as well (were you at warwick?) and it sounded the death knell for my burgeoning career.

i joined up and went off to kill people instead - far easier.

At the end of my PGCE it turned out that a number of the trainees were 'women who did courses', several were pregnant, several went to teach at private schools and the rest just did something they wanted to do (having done the PGCE just in case a job in their preferred career didn't come up). Of the 100 students who started our course (15 years ago) only about 25 went to teach in state schools.

that's interesting egg, is that still the case do you think?

tbh it's the reason i'm no longer interested in teaching - after the initial 'vocation' stuff at 18, (then ditching the course) and taking a different track, it became more of a pragmatic choice. (i needed a portable career). i'm surprised that 75% went elsewhere though. and that's 75% of people that finished the course - so i wouldn't even feature. higher with drop out rates. mind you, low entry requirements probably don't help.

I don't know, madwoman, but it would be interesting to find out! I might add that I did the course in a leafy little area just north of London, which may explain an uncommonly high proportion of 'woman who do courses'!

I just seemed like an unbelievable waste of resources to me.

madwoman - yes, was at Warwick. Degree 93-96 then PGCE 96/97.

i was a few years earlier on a 4yr qts - don't even know if they still exist tbh.
interesting that it was closed. i do wonder what would have happened if i'd been placed elsewhere for that tp!