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.

"People used to be proud to have a father/mother/daughter or son who was a teacher. This no longer seems to be the case. When did that happen?"

I bet the decline is correlated with the decline in the relative pay of teachers compared to other jobs (a recent FT study showed how this is the case). And I'll bet the latter is a causative factor in the former. It cuts the pool down to those with weaker qualifications and the self-sacrificing, and means that those who are very capable but also sufficiently materialistic as to want pay comparable to what say a (non-partner) accountant earns are put off. The latter is a pretty large group; it certainly outnumbers those who are motivated solely by public service ideals. So the pay decline was stupid and self-defeating, despite pay costs being an obvious target for the DfE to make savings.

sassy, I agree. Gove does have an answer for this, but it's not one you'll like. He'll say this is why he wants more academies - so that they have pay flexibility and can incentivise you to stay while exiting your weaker colleagues, which is difficult to do in ordinary schools because of union power.

how do they have a mandate to teach to a high standard when they may not even have post secondary experience of the subject they are paid to teach?

the tf teacher i know could probably do all that, in the subject she studied in depth. instead, she teaches, maths a subject she stopped studying at 18.

salaries already make up a large proportion of school budgets. schools are unlikely to seek out new ways to pay even more

My school is an academy, so theoretically more flexible. But when I went for a promotion - a job I was asked to apply for, that had my name all over it etc - it went to a colleague on the grounds that he was full time and I work 0.65 of the week. The theory doesn't work out, I'm afraid.

"the reputation and momentum of TF ensures it attracts lots of really impressive graduates"

Yep, agree. Teach First is the equivalent of the Fast Track into the Civil Service, or the future leadership schemes that many major employers use to accelerate their top graduates. They wisely didn't call it "Fast Track" because it sounds like a one-way street. They want it to be perceived a taster for teaching, and one of its most important features is its relationship with major employers, who recruit from it at the end of the two years. Many grads aren't sure what they want to do when they leave uni, and if they make the wrong choice they often don't get a second chance at the all-important Milkround. This way they can try teaching, secure in the knowledge that they can switch out to another high quality employer if it doesn't suit them (and, crucially, switch back in again later, when they're in a different phase of life). Those that do move into other jobs are strongly encouraged to volunteer as ambassadors for the programme, and their experience of working as teachers can only be useful to whatever future career they choose.

For those that stay, they still get a PGCE/QTS, just by a different route that suits them better.

"how do they have a mandate to teach to a high standard when they may not even have post secondary experience of the subject they are paid to teach? The tf teacher i know could probably do all that, in the subject she studied in depth. instead, she teaches, maths a subject she stopped studying at 18."

That argument is a red herring chibi. You're flogging a dead horse. As I've said multiple times, there aren't enough maths grads in teaching ... that is why your english/drama friend had to teach maths. Instead of being precious about it perhaps she should realise that she has studied for a subject that is not in high demand, and retrain.

It cuts the pool down to those with weaker qualifications and the self-sacrificing,

I think this is why teaching needs to stress the other things that it offers. For me the big draw was the holidays, they are worth the paycut by themselves. I would struggle to find another job that almost allows me to forget that I am employed for 12 weeks of the year. There is also the ability to fit the job around family life. Once a week I walk out of the door at 3:30pm. In secondary teaching it is also relatively easy IME to get promoted, so you need not stay in 25K for that long. The pension is also a big draw.

I think teaching needs to stop presenting itself as a self sacrificing form of employment suited to martyrs and idealists and sell the idea that we are on to quite a good deal.

I agree that promotion isn't just for TF - who can also work hard.

Name changed.

I have a place on TF. Primarily I think teaching has an image problem. 60% of TFers stay in teaching, many of whom wouldn't have considered it as a career were it not for TF. I think anything to raise the prestige of teaching as a profession is a good thing.

I was had a great conversation recently with a young woman who had had some TeachFirst teachers. She's gone on to do really well- she said that the most valuable part of having a TF teacher for her was the time and effort they put into kids who were doing well in a challenging school but could do better.

I haven't met most of the people doing TF yet, but I know that there are a mix- from people who went to private schools to people who went to TF schools themselves- and a good number of career switchers and people who are parents themselves. There probably are going to be a higher percentage of "posh" people than average but surely that's just the reality if you go to university or have a high falluting career?

It's not perfect and there is definitely room for dialogue around TF but I think it's fantastic that this large cohort of young people is being inspired to do something about social and educational inequality.

Chibi, you are concerned about somebody with Maths A level teaching maths in a school and you seem to think this is caused by the TeachFirst programme. I don't know why, as my understanding is that this has been a problem in state schools for decades. When we were looking at secondary schools for our son, ten years ago, one of the single things we were most concerned about was ensuring that he would be taught by subject specialists, especially for Maths and Science. Sadly, the only way we could guarantee that at the time in our corner of SE London was to send him to an independent school. There were some state schools in our area where we would have had that confidence, but we couldn't get him a place there.

My mum was a teacher and when she trained in the 50s it was still a highly respected career, especially for women. I think the rot sent in not just as teachers' pay declined in comparison with other professions, but as more and more people in the UK came to value people largely by what they earn and what they spend their money on. In the early 80s a university friends of ours told us that in his first year of teaching his pupils scoffed at the idea of only having a small black and white TV and were already obsessed with brands and labels. I don't think that mindset was anything like as prevalent before the Thatcher years.

I guess my issue with it is the implication that TF is somehow the saviour of education and that the idea of well educated people going into state schools is a new one. I have a 2:1 from Warwick and never got anything lower than a B in GCSE/A levels (before the days of A as well) I started teaching at 22 in a nice MC school but since 2000 have only* taught in the kind of schools TF target- first in London, now not. In all the schools I have worked in, there have been highly educated, dedicated teaching staff. Yes, there have also been less impressive staff but you get poor staff everywhere, not just in teaching. One or two TF candidates in a difficult school is no going to turn it around. My problem with it has always been the temporary nature of it - commit for two years. It's like extended work experience.

"I guess my issue with it is the implication that TF is somehow the saviour of education"

Nobody is implying that. It's just one positive measure to get people into teaching. There are others too.

I find it frustrating that other teachers feel they have to slag of TF, just because they chose a different route themselves.

Evil, it must be galling to people like you when others seem not to grasp that there are already many excellent teachers and portray TF as coming to the rescue. The trouble is though the dropout rate from teaching is very high, isn't it? One of the TF people on this thread said that at her school staff turnover was so high that having a teacher (any teacher, never mind a good one) who stayed for two years would have been a real bonus. I agree with Noble and others who say that far more should be done to retain the really good teachers.

I also think Philoslothy's point is a good one. There is a lot about teaching that makes it attractive, but so often it's portrayed as a vocation that people go into despite the working conditions, and that's not much of an incentive to give it a try.

i am not worried that it is caused by tf

i am disappointed that a program that purports to send highly qualified, bright well trained teachers into challenging schools sends in people who have not studied their subject post a level

i know i must sound like a total weirdo, but i think kids deserve better than that. i wonder if other posters would want better for their children?

i also think that money invested in improving the teaching skills of teachers who are already in post.

The turnover rate isn't quite that dramatic! Teachers who are experienced and established tend to stick around. A scheme which sets out to make teaching a temporary commitment is, I think, wrong. The issue if retention does need to be addressed. I do love my job and at present, can't think of any reason why I would leave it. I'm certainly not a martyr but I do think that most good teachers get involved with their work - emotionally as well as professionally. How can you spend time with these children and not? So to see it as a temporary stop-gap which will look good on your cv when you're applying for "proper" jobs is wrong IMO, on a number of levels. The "at least they had a clever/well educated/aspirational teacher for 2 years" argument is a duff one.

Yes. We definitely need to pay teachers more. Much more. It 's the sole reason for the ever widening gulf between state and independent education. If the worst schools attracted the best teachers. they would no longer be the worst schools. And perhaps some of excellent teachers languishing in cushy little private schools would be tempted to move to the state sector?

And perhaps we could then going back to the days when teachers commanded respect and the profession conferred a certain status.

And then perhaps people would cease to opt for independent schooling. It's so obvious really.

"i know i must sound like a total weirdo"

No chibi, you just sound like someone who is conflating two different issues. You need to start a new thread about the lack of non-specialist maths teachers and its consequences. I'll be fully behind you then!

It's just not a reason to slag off Teach First.

"A scheme which sets out to make teaching a temporary commitment is, I think, wrong"

But it isn't. It sets out to help people decided whether teaching is for them or not. Simples.

"Yes. We definitely need to pay teachers more. Much more"

Yep, agree. I think performance related pay will help.

saturday - no it doesn't. You need to do your research. And also, you need to stop being patronising. Consider whether anyone would support a scheme whereby graduates were offered two years of being a doctor in order for them to decide if medicine was for them. Wouldn't happen would it? People would object on the grounds that irreversible damage could be done during those two years. This is similar. It's a massive risk and IMO, causes damage to children and potentially to the teaching profession. I don't want my kids being taught by someone who sees teaching as an extended gap year. And if graduated are committed to teaching as a career, then they ought to be committed enough to realise it's not just something you can walk into and be instantly good at.

Oh dear, Saturday - you are naive. Performance related pay only helps where schools have enough money in the first place If a school has sod all money in the first place, then there simply isn't the money to pay teachers who are doing well.

My school has had to get rid of teachers and support staff due to massive budget cuts (thanks, Tories). The remaining teachers have had to take on extra teaching commitments. The school is scrabbling for money where it can, selling our sports facilities to the public etc.
I can't see my request for a pay rise due to being a fab maths teacher going down particularly well.