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.

"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"

It's done in other professions, but not in medicine.

If the schools weren't getting good teachers from Teach First they wouldn't use it. Its voluntary.

"It's a massive risk and IMO, causes damage to children and potentially to the teaching profession"

What evidence do you have that it's causing damage? The risk exists, but is mitigated by close supervision and evaluation. Presumably the evidence is in favour of the scheme continuing, or it would stop.

You just don't like the idea of it but clearly know very little about it.

"Performance related pay only helps where schools have enough money in the first place"

Obviously I agree that schools should be given enough money to do their job properly.

Saturday - I suspect I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do, having worked with TF "teachers" (a long time ago, admittedly, but they were both dreadful, and left after one year) and having supported my babysitter through her application (which I did objectively, but was a bit at the things she was asked to do in her interview)

Do you work in education Saturday? Do you have first hand knowledge of how the education system works? Do you have first hand knowledge of Teach First?

Obviously I agree that schools should be given enough money to do their job properly

This is what it all comes down to really. If the government put more money into education, then schools would be able to pay teaching staff more in order to retain good and outstanding teachers, and much of these issues would be solved.

"Do you work in education Saturday?"

As I said upthread, I'm in Governance. I have no direct experience of Teach First, and no particular interest in it. I'm defending it simply because people are using poor arguments to criticise it.

The fact that you once knew 2 poor TF teachers, and use that as a measure for the whole programme, is a case in point.

I guess that's two more than you know though....

The fact that I worked with two TF teachers some time ago is not my only basis for objecting - I think I've made that fairly clear throughout.

I don't think that TF warrants the praise it gets. Throwing recent graduates in to tough schools with hardly any training on the grounds that they are "top" graduates is ridiculous. The fact is that there are a great many well educated teachers in education, who work very hard and do not have the entitled-to-promotion attitude that TF seems to display (read their website - it's all about fast-track to management)

The "answer" is to make teaching a compelling career choice for well-educated graduates, not to sell it as a gimmick/extended gap year for 21 year olds who aren't quite sure what they want to do when they grow up.

TF is not the answer. I find it personally insulting, yes, that there is a suggestion that getting clever, well-educated people from good universities into teaching is a new thing, thought up by the TF people, and that selling it as a two-year commitment is the only way to do it. No - I did my PGCE at Warwick, along with other graduates from Warwick and some others (including Oxbridge graduates, one of whom (maths) had a Masters from Oxford) in 1997.

The retention rates speak for themselves

"I guess that's two more than you know though...."
I got an insight into the experience of 6 of them from watching the TV series. I also know people in the teaching profession who rate them highly.

It's not a competition Evil. You don't do your argument any favours by stooping that sort of level.

"not to sell it as a gimmick/extended gap year for 21 year olds who aren't quite sure what they want to do when they grow up"

That's a pretty patronising attitutude. Sounds like you've got a big chip on your shoulder. Everyone on this thread has agreed that the PGCE route produces great teachers too. The two schemes aren't mutually exclusive.

Teach First didn't ever intend for all of its participants to stick with teaching though. The way I read that chart is that the teaching profession has inherited a body of very well qualified teachers and it's a double bonus that some of them stick with teaching beyond their two year commitment.

Some people seem very bitter about the status of Teach First teachers.

But they aren't well qualified are they? They aren't experienced so don't have the wealth of experience another teacher might bring. They're just as academically qualified as many current teachers.

It's exactly the arrogance or perception that a tf teacher is any better that is the problem.

"They aren't experienced"

Neither are PGCE students, until they gain QTS. Both are training. The TF training is more "on the job" and the PGCE training has more of a classroom element.

"It's exactly the arrogance or perception that a tf teacher is any better that is the problem"

They're not necessarily better. They've just come in from a different route. Horses for courses.

I agree they should be treated like pgce students. We're not expected to be "grateful" for them, we train them, make allowances for them etc as they them go on to develop their career. It's not a bonus that we get them for 2 years!!

Totally agree goodness It's the assumption that the teaching profession should be thankful that suddenly there are decent graduates coming in to show us how to do it.

I wouldn't say I've a chip on my shoulder but yes, I do resent it somewhat. I am just as, if not better, qualified, than your average TF candidate (and was at point of entry to the profession) but I don't see anyone hailing me as the savious of the system. And in my very honest opinion, it is arrogant in the extreme to assume that 2 years in any profession makes you eligible for promotion in the way that TF suggests it is. I am a HOD (which is as high as I want to go) with 17 years of teaching experience. I became HOD after 6 years, having worked in two schools. Two years in in school does not make anyone an expert.

That's an important point about teaching, experience is incredibly important. I look back on my first couple of years of teaching, and despite being well-qualified in my subject, enthusiastic and hard-working, I was nowhere near as good as I am a few years down the line.

Teaching isn't just about planning an interesting lesson and creating exciting resources, it's about dealing with children over the course of several years of their life.

An experienced teacher can look at a child in Y9 and advise them on the options knowing how similar children in Y9 have actually done, because they taught them in Y10 and 11. They can try different strategies with different children knowing what has worked for similar children in the past. They have experience of dealing with a wide range of children, a wide range of abilities and a wide range of SEN. They have taught the older siblings of a child and know the family.

Two years doesn't give you that. Two years is merely dabbling in teaching. Encouraging prospective teachers to see it as a short-term thing is doing a disservice to children.

One thing that struck me about the Tough Young Teachers programme was the maths teacher who left after a year. He had been encouraged to bond with his students, took that young lad on a shooting trip, got him to open up about his family, then fucked off. Just like all the other male role-models in that boy's life.

The difference saturday is that PGCE stupents are treated as trainees. TF teachers are treated as teachers. They have control of their own classes and are paid a salary. PGCE students work with a qualified teacher and the qualified teacher retains overall responsibility for the class.

Excuse the typos. Am making Yorkshire puds.

Exactly evil twins. I'm ex oxbridge, many colleagues were. Lots of Russell group graduates. Some very good very experienced teachers with years of experience behind them. I'd go to them for inspiration and advice. Not a trainee!

Evil twins - What subjects and grades did you get at A level? Which university, what degree course and what class of degree did you come out with? And what do you now teach?

As and oxbridge in my initial degree. A first in my second.

I'm a good teacher but not the world's best. Lots of very experienced teachers are less qualified than me but far better, more inspirational etc.

Experience really counts in teaching.

Similarly I agree re: disappearing after a year. Bring able to go through school without all your teachers choppimg and changing is a good thing.

tf teachers are essentially trainee students and should be seen as such!

I'd be happy for my children to be taught by any of those TF graduates on the TYT programme.

Goodness - what class was your Irish degree and from where and in what subject?

A levels in English Lit (A), Classics (A) & History (B) Went to Warwick and got a 2:1 in English & Theatre Studies (joint honour) then PGCE in English & Drama. Am now Head of Performing Arts at a school which fits right into the TF category (they're starting in my area in Sept 2014) having previously taught at one on the list in Central London.

Either answer or don't answer. Answering selectively is utterly pointless.

Why do you want to know? I have no issues sharing my qualifications.

TF teachers are not paid a teacher's salary until year 2. (No-one said they were, but wanted to clarify anyway.)

The introduction of Teach First teachers into a school is associated with a boost in results. Presumably that's why schools continue to use them.

Can you point to evidence for that boost in results?