Can 'teach first' really be doing this?

[Cathpot]

In our department at the moment is a very pleasant 21 year old who is on the teach first programme and doing some sort of research project for a week or so. She has a good degree and has signed up to the teach first programme to get into teaching. This summer she will get 6 weeks of training in how to teach, using I think at some point some summer school kids, then in September will be dropped into a difficult school (no choice of where to go) on a 2 year contract.

She is enthusiatic and bright and seems very keen and when I was talking to her I had to kept reminding myself not to look too shocked. She is going to stand up and teach her first proper class to her first proper group of probably very tricky teenagers on her first day in the job. This seems insane to me- how can this be working? How is this ok for her or the kids in her class? I am all for cutting down the college aspect of teacher training and getting students out into schools to work out how to do the job but it seem self evident that the PGCE year is essential to producing teachers who won't get eaten alive in tricky class rooms. She told me some schools have as many as 5 teachers from teach first at any one time and that if they dont stay on at the end of 2 years they just replace them with a new one. I can't really get past how insane this seems as an idea.

[chibi]

i am not surprised, i am outraged. if my child was trying to learn a level maths from someone with no further qualification than an a level themselves, I'd feel she were betrayed.

that person won't have the depth of understanding of the subject to anticipate common errors and misconceptions, and how best to address them if my child is struggling. they won't know how to stretch her and inspire her to go further if she shows a talent, as they will not have gone further themselves.

and, thanks to teach first, will quite possibly have a sketchy understanding of pedagogy and classroom management too.

I'd call that outrageous.

[chibi]

it is bad enough that they get a six week intensive how to teach course before taking full responsibility for classes- i really question the wisdom of the sink or swim approach tbh

if teach first candidates do not even have a degree or further study beyond a level for the subject they are to teach...that shows an impressive level of contempt for children.

i find that kind of cynicism and arrogance corrosive. no thanks.

the money training them would be better spent training and supporting teachers who have already committed to working in those schools, rather than parachuting in saviours who, like as not, will piss off after their term is done

that isn't very sexy though

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"if my child was trying to learn a level maths from someone with no further qualification than an a level themselves, I'd feel she were betrayed"

To be fair, they're not necessarily teaching A Level. In many cases they're teaching much more basic maths skills. In those circumstance teaching ability is probably more necessary than advanced maths skills.

Many primary school teachers don't have more than a C in GCSE maths, and some aren't great teachers either, so its not surprising many students are struggling by the time they get to secondary school.

[chibi]

this person is teaching a level maths as well as ks4 and ks3

subject knowledge definitely matters.

i am a great teacher, in a science subject.

would you like me to teach your child to play violin? or how to swim?

or perhaps how to drive- i can't drive myself, but i have had a go a few times, and as i say, i am a great teacher

an effective teacher is someone who can teach well and know their subject well. it is ridiculous to suggest you can be effective without good subject knowledge.

[SaturdaySuperstore]

So chibi, if you were head of a school that couldn't recruit any maths teachers, what would you do?

[ChocolateSnowflakes]

I am really anti-Teach First (and not just because I'm a PGCE student!)

I think it's very unfair that children in deprived areas are given Student Teachers for an entire year or entire course. Why do more privileged children deserve experienced teachers and less privileged children don't? Teach First students may well be fantastic (some may well not, just like any other teacher) but they are still learning themselves. At least with a PGCE classes are still generally looked after by permanent teachers, even if the ST takes most of the classes.

Also, Teach First students often tend to be from very privileged backgrounds themselves. This might not always be an issue but I'm not sure that they can all understand or have empathy for the children they teach. I've heard some horrible comments from TF STs, like "I can just imagine what her parents are like" or "It's not surprising considering what their family must be like".

[chibi]

why bother hiring a teach first candidate then, if they don't even have a relevant qualification?

if the priority is 'get anyone in tbe post' why not just pop down to town centre, and just grab the first random person you meet and offer them the job?

i guess it is good enough for some people's kids, though.

it would be a very rare school that had no teachers in a particular department at all. i would use any funds to train and support staff already in the department to make them more effective rather than hiring randoms who are unlikley to bring much in the way of teaching ability or indeed subject knowledge, and who see it as a stepping stone to bigger things

[chibi]

the only thing more cynical than teach first is the schools direct salaried route

they don't even get a 6 week quickie how to teach course. they are teachers with sole responsibility right from the start.

either highly qualified teachers who know their subject(s) and how to teach effectively make a difference to children's education, or they don't. fairly obvious to see what the government think.

yes,i am aware that the previous government startedthis shit. they ere knobs too.

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"if the priority is 'get anyone in tbe post' why not just pop down to town centre, and just grab the first random person you meet and offer them the job?"

It's not. The priority is to get the best person you can into the post. I'm pretty sure those Heads who decide the best candidate for maths teaching is a Teach First candidate with an 'A' Level aren't turning away queues of maths specialists in the process.

As I said before, the problem is that there aren't enough specialist maths teachers.

[chibi]

why not just hire any unqualified person with an a level then?

how does a person having a great degree in a completely unrelated area, coupled with zero teaching experience make for a potentially great teacher?

the fact that heads are having to choose between inadequately qualified candidates and no one at all isn't exactly great

the fact that the alternative to teach first may be even worse doesn't make teach first better. it just makes the whole charade more depressing.

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"why not just hire any unqualified person with an a level then?"

Some schools do! Some schools are clearly more desperate than others.

Presumably the schools must get some benefit from the Teach First programme, or they wouldn't use it.

Anything that encourages bright, motivated people into teaching can't be a bad thing. Many of the Teach First grads probably wouldn't have considered teaching if the programme wasn't seen as having a high bar for entry. In many cases that's what motivates them. You're right that many will go off and do something else after their 2 years, but I bet many of them come back to it in later life.

If the PGCE had a higher bar for entry, maybe Teach First wouldn't be necessary.

[chibi]

bright motivated people who get minimal training and variable levels of support don't thrive, generally.

this programme does a huge disservice to those it purports to train, and those it pretends to serve

if great teachers come out of it, it is in spite of rather than because of.

out of curiosity, are you involved in teaching at all?

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"bright motivated people who get minimal training and variable levels of support don't thrive, generally"

Bright, motivated people who get 6 weeks of intensive training before they start teaching, and ongoing intensive support, can certainly thrive, and clearly many do or the Teach First programme wouldn't be considered successful.

"out of curiosity, are you involved in teaching at all?"
I'm involved in governance. I don't have direct experience of Teach First because we don't have any trouple employing good teachers. Other schools aren't so fortunate

I did watch the TV series about Teach First, and could see they were getting lots of support.

I'm also a pragmatist. I think you can waste a lot of energy being outraged on principle, and miss opportunities to recognise when people are making the best of a bad situation.

[chibi]

Pragmatism is very easy when you are being realistic about things which will never affect you, or your children.

how on earth is having an opinion a waste of time? if only i could agree with you that teach first is awesome, i would have more time to do what, exactly?

if employing underqualified people with very brief training was the optimum way to staff schools, they'd all do it. funnily enough, they don't.

whether this is the best of a bad situation or not does not negate the fact that it is poor practice all around.

i have not seen the tv program you refer to, and i would be skeptical of any claims that a reality tv show would show an accurate portrayal of what teach first is like

[ChocolateSnowflakes]

Saturday just looking through your conversation with chibi, I'm guessing you're all for Teach First. Can I ask why you think that it's only schools in deprived areas that are given Teach First trainees? Surely there must be schools in more privileged areas that are also desperate for teachers. Especially as your reasoning for having unqualified teachers seems to follow the same path, even though it's mostly private schools that employ unqualified teachers. So surely desperation can't be the only reason for using Teach First trainees?

[chibi]

a lot is made of private schools hiring unqualified teachers. however a private school would be very unlikely to employ someone with only an a level in a subject. increasingly more teachers also have qts.

[HomeHelpMeGawd]

Chibi, this statement is just silly: "if employing underqualified people with very brief training was the optimum way to staff schools, they'd all do it. funnily enough, they don't"

1. The people who go through TF are not defined only by not having a pgce. They are top graduates and have a host of other skills and capabilities. Qualifications aren't everything, and pedagogic quals in particular are not the be all and end all.
   
2. You are arguing that the dominant method of teacher training is de facto the best because it is dominant. That is circular reasoning. TF is very successful, despite not being the dominant method. By definition it can't be, because it starts with taking top graduates, and the pool for the dominant method is a lot less selective
   

TF is excellent and gets very good results for both pupils and teachers. It is more systematically successful than the dominant method of teacher training in the UK, without a doubt...

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"I'm guessing you're all for Teach First"
Not really. I just think chibi is slagging it off without knowing much about it. Nothing wrong with having opinions, but if they're not based on solid grounds then you have to expect them to be undermined.

"Can I ask why you think that it's only schools in deprived areas that are given Teach First trainees?"
Schools apply to be part of Teach First. They participate in it because they expect benefit from it. None of them are "given" trainees unless they ask for them.

I have no idea whether "most of them are in deprived areas" or not, and didn't say that. I was giving a possible explanation for why some schools might ask a Teach First trainee with Maths A Level to teach maths rather than their specialist degree subject. I assume they wouldn't do that unless they desperately needed maths teachers. That might be because their school has a poor reputation, or it might be because they're out in the sticks. Doesn't really matter why. There aren't enough specialist maths teachers to go around, so some schools are desparate.

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"if employing underqualified people with very brief training was the optimum way to staff schools, they'd all do it."

But they're not just "employing" them, they're training them. It's just another model for teacher training. The trainees still end up with a PGCE and QTS at the end of it.

At first it was presumably an experiment, probably done on a trial basis in a small number of schools. I imagine it was judged to be working, so they continued it.

It's popular with schools. It (reportedly) produces some great teachers. If it didn't it would be scrapped.

[chibi]

i am not arguing that the de facto method of training is the best. i am arguing that teach first is inadequate. a subtle difference, i guess.

what is the point of having highly qualified graduates who then are not teaching in that subject? i.e. the teach first teacher i know who has a first in english/drama who is teaching maths? what is the point of that?

[EvilTwins]

HomeHelp - define "top graduate" My babysitter is a fabulous young woman, but is on for a 2:1 from an ex-poly. She got thought the first part of the application process and is waiting to hear how she got on at interview.

Define "top graduate"

[chibi]

lol at qualifications aren't everything

if that isnt a fitting motto for the education system in this country i don't know what is

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"Pragmatism is very easy when you are being realistic about things which will never affect you, or your children"

And its very easy to be outraged at the decisions other people make in adverse situations, when you've never had to experience them yourself, and probably never will experience them.

If your child's school couldn't employ a specialist maths teacher, you'd presumably move your daughter to another school. Not everyone can do that.

[SaturdaySuperstore]

"what is the point of having highly qualified graduates who then are not teaching in that subject? i.e. the teach first teacher i know who has a first in english/drama who is teaching maths? what is the point of that?"

What is the point of churning out thousands of english/drama graduates when the country needs more maths specialists?

[EvilTwins]

Having looked at the TF website, the entry requirements are as follows:

2:1 degree
300 UCAS points at A Level (that's 3 Bs, if taken from 3 A Levels, though it doesn't specify the number of A levels)
A C grade in GCSE English & Maths

So any smuggery about "top" graduates is misplaced IMO.