Six Month Teacher training plan

[AtheneNoctua]

People could qualify as a teacher in England in six months rather than the usual year, under new government plans.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7933690.stm

Is this good or bad? Discuss please.

They're basing the 6 weeks on the Teach First programme I think. 55% of participants stay on after the two years they have committed to apparently.

However, they have a lot of ongoing training, and don't start teaching with QTS as far as I can make out. A 6 week course and you're in is bonkers.

The first time these 'high fliers' with their six happy weeks of 'aren't children wonderful' (sorry I mean training) have Y9 lower set last period on a cold wet Friday they will run screaming to the hills.

That's if the scheme ever gets off the ground.

I liked a comment I heard on Radio 5 about it this morning - that many bankers may also make good pilots, but you'd still want them to do the full training!

I'm doing a PGCE at the mo - there's no way we'd be able to fit it all into 6 months, especially considering the NTC or someone refered to as "they" by the uni state we need 18 weeks in school - that'd be over half the course done with!!

It's an utterly stupid idea.

Sorry should have been months not weeks, the ofsted faerie is in and casting her malevolent influence on my brain typing connection!

I have my bottom set year 9s tomorrow, we are looking at the Quaker movement but I dont think i will get much silence from them

I think I sit on the fence on this one. Shortened training seems not only insufficient preparation for the job but also an insult to those great teachers out there who have done a whole lot more work to prepare themselves for a career of teaching. But, I also think that bringing the business world into the classroom is a good thing. I remember when I was a kid so many others would comment that they didn't see the point of algebra or how it could possibly benefit them in the real world. So, if there was a teacher who could say "well I was a banker and I used x and y in this way and that way" then that would be really beneficial.

Also, I'm not sure about later years, but I am disappointed that the foundation stage seems to have gone crazy teaching the kids to read at the expense of math and science. This is probably in line with the national curriculum and I'm sure the school is doing what they are supposed to. But science and engineering week was just brushed aside whil book week was celebrated like a big fancy dress party. Not that reading isn't important. Of course it is. But, so are some other subjects. So if bringing in some city bankers gets more focus on the math subjects, then I think that is a good thing.

However, I do wonder how many city bankers are prepared to work for the average teacher salary.

I agree with ReallyTired - the only sensible reason to have a shorter course would be for those who already have extensive experience of dealing with children/younger people. I think this plan is a badly thought out "quick fix" - kneejerk politics.

To be honest I reckon it will happen! There are many Cover Supervisors out there with little experience literally thrown in at the deep end to 'teach' when people are on long term sick! My school is well above average and we still have staffing issues in the Maths dept! Cover Supervisors are doing their best and are doing above and beyond what their job description (and salary) dictates! Whizzing graduates and bankers through training courses will aim to fill these posts! I would love to be a fly on the wall when one of these top bankers is fighting fire with year 9's on a friday afternoon for less than 20k per annum!

it may not be ideal but anything that can be done to get experienced professionals into teaching is probably a good thing, IMO.

Just curious, but why do people not think that schools are the real world and why should teachers need experience in other jobs more than say doctors, nurses, or even bankers. Working in a school is nothing like going to school.

When someone changes career I think its fair to ask why and what is their moviation. Do you really want the mum who is doing teacher training solely for the holidays in front of your kids? If someone has failed at banking then who is to say that they will be anymore sucessful at teaching.

I want the kind of people with vocation teaching my children. The sort of person who has fire in their belly, great communication skills and interacts well with children.

There are many great young teachers, (as well as great older teachers)

OMG! Chosen ONe! Too Many exclaimation marks!

(this idea is ridiculous, of course..)

great idea. means we might get some people teaching children skills they really need in the real world, rather than by a bunch of long term teachers living in their ivory towers who know nothing about the world that most of their charges will have to survive in.

nb. all the people i know who did pgce's spent most of the time getting pissed.

dont like the idea personally - ahve talked about it on my new shiny blog

If they are going to attract good mathematicians and scientists as the govt hopes then I think that is a great thing. I don't know whether 6m would be enough but you're not starting out with total numpties after all.

Does a banker or a research scientist have real life skills.

I used to work as research scientist and when I did my MSc I spent time at the pub and socialising. Its what students in their twenties do.

It is possible to be a good scientist, but no good at teaching. I know that my science knowledge is better than that of many science teachers, but frankly do school kids need someone with postgraduate knowledge of radiological protection?

Most science done at school isn't proper science because the children aren't ready for that level of difficulty. What they need is someone who can keep control of 30 kids and has a reasonable grounding in their subject.

I am sure that someone with a third in biology has the nouse to mug up keystage 3 physics. Provided they had good communication skills, prepared their lessons well and have that X factor I would be happy for such a person to teach my child.

The Conservatives are bonkers on this one- teaching is a CALLING and not something you can push anyone'clever enough' to handle in the space of six bloody months!!

Especially given sensitive situations e.g a teacher having to liase with parent/social workers/ police with suspected at risk pupil, can you honestly say someone is qualified to handle this well just because they are 'clever enough'.

On the other hand I do indeed agree with OrmIrian yes it would be good and they should be attracting more maths and science brains - just please check they have the aptitude for the large part of the job which requires interpersonal skills.

I don't really understand the outrage here.

I do value the traditional PGCE which runs for about 9 months.

That doesn't mean you can't teach without all of this. A lot of the PGCE was dealing with background info, such as the Education Act and how to construct a broad and balanced curriculum. I think these topics are important, but they are not essential to day 1 classroom teaching. They can be run in parallel with the usual NQT stuff, imo. I certainly think it is better than the GTP programme, which may people love.

Having a shorter ITT course is just yet another way of the govt moving responsiblity onto schools. Look what they have done with examination courses. It doesn't mean that you lose the robustness of training. There are lots of routes into teaching nowadays, and each have their little niche. I like the traditional PGCE because that's what I did, but others will fly the flag for the route they took.

Too much here is being said for the vocation and being sceptical of anyone who may think about entering teaching for rational reasons. There are loads of absolutely rubbish teachers in the system and many will have entered because they once had a passion for it. In reality, a lot of teachers are there because they couldn't get a decent graduate job (dons flack jacket at this point).

I went into teaching for quite intangible reasons, including not wanting to give up work completely and throw away my degree. I stepped 'down' from the corporate world to SAHMdom via teaching. I really didn't enjoy teaching in those days (so probably fulfilling the prophesy that most people here have highlighted, but I could mask my failure with lots of new babies). However, after a passage of time, I now love teaching and couldn't imagine doing anything else. There is a season for everything.

I feel fairly strongly that doing something before teaching is only ever going to be an enhancement to all aspects of the job. I feel that experience of life is one of my biggest assets in my teaching. I am convinced my pupils save up their weird and wacky questions just for me.

One thing to add...

I think that variety on staff is very important. I don't think it is good if there is a uniformity of experience and skills. We should not dismiss people who are different from us.

I dont think people are dismissing people who do not consider teaching a vocation but I know very few teachers who do not see teaching in that way, But maybe the reflects the schools I work in and the teachers I socialise with.

In reality, a lot of teachers are there because they couldn't get a decent graduate job (dons flack jacket at this point).

I think this is the real concern, my DH has a chemistry degree and so in theory would be a sort after candidate and whilst he might do it to pay the mortgage if he had to he would hate it and no doubt the kids would pick up on it.
Do we want people purely motivated by there being nothing better available ?

Teaching isn't necessarily a graduate and certainly isn't a masters level profession, teacher training college was 2 years in total in the 70's and yet apparently standards were higher, i guess people just don't like change.

I agree with you Sorrento.

I don't think teachers are quite as afraid of change as they are to be fiercely protective of their own experience.

I quite like the idea of doing a masters but would not be able to get the funding (and am not so keen as to spend £2000 of my own money), and all the modules seem to be about behaviour management which isn't an issue for me. I am genuinely interested in science teaching and the learning of girls, so hope I get the chance to see some academic research in those areas in the future.

Teaching isn't necessarily a graduate and certainly isn't a masters level profession, teacher training college was 2 years in total in the 70's and yet apparently standards were higher, i guess people just don't like change.

Most public and good state schools wont touch you if you do not have a masters they certainly wont if you do not have a degree in your chosen field. I would imagine and hope the same is the case for grammar schools. I teach in a good state comp and I know that you will not be shortlisted for consideration never mind interview without a degree as we teach A Level. I would not want someone teaching my dd an A Level in a subject I did not have a degree in.

I use my degree every day, we like our teachers not just to be excellent classroom managers but passionate in our subject specialisms. A sign of this passion is having a degree, you have lived your subject for three or maybe 4 years.

I have a theology degree but in order to get my job I have had to agree to study philosophy at degree level as I teach philosophy of religion. Much of this was covered in my degree but my head wanted more from me.

If I want to move into middle management I will also be expected to do a Masters and the school willingly funds this.

I have a student teacher whose degree is philosophy rather than RS or theology and he struggles with his subject knowledge and is a poorer teacher as a result. It frustrated my top set GCSE class that he is taking at the moment as they are used to having me in front of them and I do live and breathe me subject. Get me on topic and I ooze passion from every pore. If we are to provide a quality education students need that.

I meant public and good private state schools.

tsap, I don't think there is any expectation that current teachers should have a masters. It is a new thing for new graduates, yet to be fulfilled. Obviously, in 3 or 4 years time, teachers will be expected to have a masters, but not old fogies who predated the system.