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.

Also, my degree and my work experience is in Engineering, but I am uber passionate about teaching Science (Physics and Chemistry). I don't think my lack of pure degree is a problem at all. In fact, I think that since I am an engineer with industrial experience is a something that is viewed very positively. Because I didn't take a pure science degree does not diminish my qualities or passion for the subject at all.

Perhaps because teaching is not an obvious career path from my degree...

Last year when I was looking for a job I applied to three public schools, I am not a new graduate , I did my PGCE in 1999 I think. I applied for 3 jobs, I had an interview for each one and was offered one of the jobs but it was made clear that this was unusual as I did not have a masters.

At my present school ( which is a training school) they encourage all staff to do a master no matter how long you have been qualified. You will not progress if you are not at least studying for one.

I'm late with this but I think it is a ridiculous idea. The one year course (9.5 months, whatever) is already stupidly intense.

There is an argument for reducing some of the educational theory at this stage and build in more classroom experiences which is what people desperately need. The theory doesn't make half as miuch sense as it does a few years down the line after startingto teach.

Personally, I think a year's course is the minimum. But it could do with some restructuring.

I have never heard of that requirement before. Maybe it's a non-core subject thing.

We have a very very good student in onoe of our departments at the moment, discussions have been had about us offering him a job. It has been made clear from management that he does not have the correct degree and unless he agrees to study for the correct degree he can not have a job with us. They think the same will apply in all the good schools in the area.

We are a very very traditional school though, it has not been like that in all state schools I have taught in, but they have not been as good.

I dont see what the issue is. I htink it woudl have been fine for me. its a bit like driving - you start learning when you have passed.

Perhaps, I know we wont employ maths teachers without a maths degree, I dont know about English but would imagine it is the same. I think that in our science department they teach have to KS4 and KS5 according to their degree specialism but dont know what their exact degrees are if that makes sense.

When I did my PGCE, I was under no illusion that this was not the real thing. I taught maximum 50% timetable, with the other half given over to preparing and reflecting (alone, with my mentor, and with my partner student). There was no way this was going to be a refection of my first job.

When I did get my first job, I had four free lessons out of 25 (one more than everyone else since I was a NQT). I had a NQT meeting once a week in school with the other 8 new teachers, and got my one INSET a term. This was fine - a bit harder than today's teachers, who don't have to do cover, etc. At some stage, you just have to get stuck in, and as long as you have a mentor to run to when things get tough, there is much value in not being wrapped in cotton wool.

I do prefer the traditional PGCE, but I am not so proud as to think there are not valid alternatives.

We compete directly with a grammar as well which I would imagine why we have such standards. We joke that our head is trying to create a private school for the masses, but I do think there is some truth in that.

Given that few comps have a Physics specialist in their schools, it is not an expectation to have pure scientists in schools. I have an Engineering degree, but I trained as a Physics teacher, therefore go down in the stats as a specialist teacher.

I am passionate about engineering (scientists who can do math), especially for young women. It is an enhancement for my teaching, and I will not make apologies for not having a headline (go nowhere but teach) degree.

I agree science teacher. I had the best start to my PGCE practical block. I had been observing for about two weeks when the head called in to say that the Head of department and second would not be in for a week so I was the RE department. I had no time to fret I just had to get on and teach! Luckily it was a school with very few discipline problems so I could actually teach. I was always one of the most confident students as I knew that while I had much to learn I could cut it in a classroom.

I loved my PGCE as I just love talking about my subject, I enjoy reflecting on my practice and listening to other teachers. I learnt so much and still find myself revisiting it.

I am not sure what you mean by a headline go nowhere but teach degree. My degree is not a headline and was not particularly taken so I could teach. I had a feeling I wanted teach but was not certain. I took my degree because I knew I wanted to study theology as I was fascinated by the subject. I had a year out before I did my PGCE when I tried a graduate training programme as a fashion buyer. But I hated it and knew that I wanted to teach.

I am not asking anyone to apologise for anything, I have a keen physicist in my tutor group who is interested in engineering. I know she would love to have a female teacher who perhaps make her physics lessons slightly less male orientated. She would certainly benefit from someone with your experience.

I was replying to someone who said that to teach you do not need a masters or even a degree, in many schools that is just not the case especially if you want to progress.

I was replying

Twinset, I appreciate that you do "need" the degree these days to get anywhere in teaching I was merely pointing out that 20 odd years ago teacher training college was done instead of a degree and wasn't as involved as it is today and yet in my opinion I do think standards are piss poor right now, I took GCSE maths in 2007, bearing in mind i'd failed three times in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and given up. I didn't open a text book just a quick flick through a couple of past papers and I got an A* I'm sorry that's crap, I would have got a C tops back in the day.

Twinset, I have never heard of needing a masters in a subject to teach in a London state school.

I agree with all those that say teaching is a calling and that you have to have the right personality to be a successful teacher (in a state school, at any rate). it is great to try to get in people with good academic qualifications and experience in business or industry, but only if they can manage the children.

And I also agree that many cover supervisors and TA's would make fantastic teachers!

Sorrento- ime the teachers are increasingly better qualified but delivering an increasingly stripped down curriculum. It's not a reflection on the quality of the staff teaching it, more a reflection of governmental impetus to lighten the curriculum.

I think it's typical of this slavish adoration of bankers. Govt. has spent the last two decades bowing down to the them because they are so much cleverer than anyone else. Now that's blown up in our faces, govt persists in thinking they are so ruddy clever they can just walk into teaching jobs with far less preparation than anyone else.

Madness. (I am not a teacher btw. And I'm sure there are plenty of clever bankers, just not convinced they are a special class of people who are far more worthy than us mere mortals in different jobs.)

Most bankers I came accross were off their tits on cocaine by 10 am and trying to get their hands up my skirt, there is no way i'd want them around my children.
Niavely I was hoping that this might be aimed at nice mum who could now do with a job because the kids have started school.

I can understand why anyone who has already completed the PGCE would object to this, but personally I think there is too much academic content in the present course (probably due the vested interest of the people who run these courses) and this could easily be reduced as long as the practical side of training is maintained. I know a few people (mothers with young children) who have undertaken a PGCE and it just about finished off all their enthusiasm for teaching and none of them pursued teaching as a career. This reduction wouldn't just benefit desperate bankers, but also young mums who have already studied for years, got plenty of letters after their names but haven't got the time or energy for another year of academic slog (teacher training on the job being completely different).

Bettany, the problem is many teachers already have a dubious grasp of spelling, grammar and maths as it is. How much more dumbed down do you want it to get?

I agree Bettany - most of the people I know in RL who did (or started) PGCEs thought they were mainly a waste of time and those that dropped out generally ended up going into teaching via another route.

Thuis is interesting

A lot of my class went onto do a PGCE after grad (I still would like to, caring responsibiities halting it). AFAIK only one wanted to teach; the others wanted the security and salary (it might not be massive but its better than nowt).

The two-most-unlikely imo lasyted less than a fortnight: not sure about the others but I could happily bet the one who really wanted to do itr is still there and will be wonderful.

She'd spenbt a lot of the apst few years in teaching- like jobs and really I expect a lot of the six month traineeships will go to similar people. People employed as comnpany trainers, doing a lot of presentations, mentor schemes etc.

If you've got that already and a decently relevant degree then I imagine it will be OK to train for 6 montsh prior to doing the QTS. Me,i'll need the year but am spending some of next year preparing as have been drafted in to support recently- promoted Head of RE at the local school

I did PGCE and learned nothing. The first thing the teachers say to you when you arrive all bright eyed for your first placement is 'forget all that shite they tell you at college'!

You can't teach how to teach. You can teach the subject, the curriculum etc but certainly when I did it the 'how to be a teacher' stuff was all a load of rubbish about how you can control a class quite easily by simply setting them interesting lessons - guffaw!

We were part of a year that had very political, full-on tutors, and I felt we were there to learn their world view rather then to learn how to deal with classromm situations.

Can you tell I never became a teacher? Hats off to them - I couldn't do it.

I loved my PGCE and do continually refer back to it. I am very much a product of my PGCE still even though it was 7 or 8 years ago. I loved the theory content and again refer back to that again and again. I had 2 tutors one of whom had only just stopped teaching and the other still taught part time it was very much about how to deal with classroom situations. I dont think we covered curriculum at all bar having to evidence your knowledge and the odd trip it was assumed we had the knowledge and what we did not know we had to learn in our own time. We looked at theories of education, the purpose of RE, learning styles, psychology, what we were trying to achieve, questioning styles, educational law and classroom management.

It is easier to control a class if you have more interesting lessons which was why so much of our PGCE was about planning interesting lessons.

In an average state school you dont need a masters to teach but if you are in a good comp and you want to progress into middle and higher managment you will find it easier if you have the MA. In my school there was an expectation that if you dont have one you will study towards one.

I think you can teach someone who has the ability to teach how to teach id tat makes sense.

I'm inclined not to worry too much.

Kids aren't stupid - they know when they're being short-changed by a teacher who doesn't know their job.

Presumably all these surplus bankers etc aren't entirely daft, either. They'll either get good at teaching, very quickly, in which case hurrah for them, or they'll get out as quickly as they got in.

It's a gimmick.

Saying that, I learnt absolutely bugger all on my PGCE (at a leading Uni). Most of the theoretical stuff is considered fairly guffaw worthy these days, the subject knowledge I already had (despite my degree being in another discipline), & the classroom management - well, you learn it by doing it.

So AFAIC by all means drop failed city types into schools to have a crack at it. Some of them might turn out to be fabulous, some won't be able to do it & will swiftly drop back out, & the mediocre ones won't stay for the lousy pay.

I think 6 months training is going the wrong way.

Whilst I think there is a lot of rubbish taught on the PGCE (in my experience of doing a PGCE and mentoring students on them), one huge reason why I think it shouldn't be reduced is that to be a good teacher, you need time to learn and reflect upon your lessons, your progress and so on. I cannot see how anyone could do this sufficiently within just 6 months. The learning curve would be just too steep.

I also think teaching should make a masters level qualification compulsory. I completed mine a few years ago now, and I know that I have been an infinitely better teacher since then. I was able to explore issues in much more detail and depth than I was able to do in my PGCE, and I use the material I learnt in my MA on a weekly, if not daily basis. I'm now studying for a second masters degree to improve my subject knowledge now - there is still so much to learn and improve on, yet I've been teaching for 12 years!!

I think 6 months training sends out the wrong messages about teaching and worse still, will only provide more teachers that won't hack it and leave within a few years (or worse, do the PGCE and never actually go into teaching).