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.

I have never been hailed as a saviour of education . I have never claimed to get better than a PGCE student, although apparantly I must be crap.

It is quite common IME for an NQT to move schools after two years and PGCE students almost always move on despite forging relationships with children. Are they ham

There are a lot of very experienced teachers who are rubbish. Experience is important, but it isn't everything. (Of course neither are grades.)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11743616

Are they harming children?

I never saw teaching as a gimmick.

I would be interested to see how different TF retention rates compare to the retention rates for PGCE students with 1st or 2:1 from top universities. Those candidates may have more options, more contacts and therefore may be more likely to leave regardless of their route.

I was never left in a room to fail children, I was under constant scrutiny and was intensively trained . I do recognise that the level of training depends on the school , however this is the same with PGCE students.

Philo course you haven't, but the TF website really does hail itself as the way to save state education. That's my objection. Individual teachers are just that - individuals. I worked with two PGCE students last year - one brilliant, one crap. If they were TF teachers, though, the kids being taught by the brilliant one would be fine, the kids being taught by the crap one would have had a shit year, and now a new bunch would be having a shit year. And she'd have been getting paid for it.

I appreciate that although the research was carried out at Manchester University it was commissioned by Teach First so not ideal.

philo - there is nowhere in the TF literature that says they take grads from only good universities. In fact, I know that they don't. The only requirement is a 2:1. Doesn't matter if that's from Oxbridge or an ex-poly.

In my experience poor TF candidates quit or are forced out. I have seen schools be far more ruthless with TF candidates than PGCE students.

In fact I was warned about being too tough with PGCE students because I was informed by my own training experiences.

Anecdotal of course , but that is my experience.

DH was a Teach First teacher. In his first year there was a small drop in grades, from his second year onwards grades were consistently better than previously. I admit that I am somewhat on the fence. Individual strengths and weaknesses are critical (as has been said upthread). Also, there are some very experienced teachers who have consistently bad results.

The TF candidates I worked with were all from top universities. I know they don't have to be, but I thought that would happen through the selection process. I was one of the early ones though, so it may have become less selective as it grew.

I have 'scanned' over this thread and I still feel the same way I did after watching the first episode of Tough Young Teachers! I would not want my daughter to be taught by any first time TF teacher. There were some children in the programme who had more then one of them as a teacher. A whole year of education in English and Maths, with a teacher who has had no classroom experience, and may turn out to be a bit crap, isn't something that sits well with me... more like an experiment.

Irish first. Damn you iPad.

Evil - I'd just be interested to know if your qualifications match the requirements for Teach First? Most teachers' qualifications certainly wold not. The deputy head at a local Primary school not far from me got DEU at A level in pretty hopeless subjects.

I gather the 300 points at A level, not including Gen Studies, and a 2:1 or better degree are the minimum level for application to TF. It is very very competitive (but less competitive for maths, sciences, comp for obvious reasons). The high status of the TF programme and their detailed selection process means they really can choose the people most likely to succeed on an accelerated teacher-training programme, from a very big, well-qualified field.. There are of course many truly excellent, well-qualified, dedicated and talented teachers who've come to teacher via non TF avenues, but the majority of teachers I've come across in state secondary schools aren't very impressive at all.

The fact that some teachers are bitter about TF ers having some status says it all really.

Grove... is that you?

I'm interested in how you know that most teachers' qualifications aren't as high as TF requires.

I am sorry One4therd that you think I am not good enough to teach your children. I actually have some of the best results in my school, I seem to be good be good enough for them.

Anyway, I already said that mine did. Did you assume I was lying?

is it so difficult to believe that anyone might have valid objections and concerns re:teach first?

apparently so- this is at least the second time someone has said posters with objections are bitter. now it is suggested that the bitterness stems from general incompetency and jealousy

At my school most teachers , if not all, have the same qualifications as a TF teacher, if a 2:1 is all they need.

Anais, from your BBC link

"They found a significant correlation between participation in Teach First and improved pupil achievement, one to two years after the teachers start at the school."

As a maths teacher I feel compelled to point out that correlation does not equal causation. What else happened in these schools alongside hiring new teachers? Could it be that other measures to improve achievement were introduced at the same time? A school doesn't suddenly decide to sign up to a new recruitment programme in isolation, I suspect.

"Researchers used a complicated points system to measure this and concluded the average improvement equated to a third of a GCSE per pupil per subject."

But what about improvement in the subjects which the Teach First candidates were teaching? It sounds like they could be ascribing an improvement in maths results to a Teach First candidate teaching geography.

Perhaps the original research clears up these questions, or maybe, if it was commissioned by Teach First, not?

Well, I didn't think the English teacher, in particular, came across as a teacher that anyone would want for their child. She was put onto 'cause for concern' before the first term was finished! For someone's child that meant a whole term of, I think, Y8 English wasted. I would prefer to have a teacher who has had experience controlling and inspiring a group of teenagers over someone that has had none. Maybe if you had been filmed in your first term/year, I would have a different view.

I've had bad PGCE students in my department. The difference between them and from what I saw of Meryl on the program was that the PGCE student had far fewer classes, for a far shorter period of time, therefore their impact was substantially lessened. When the relationship between a PGCE student and a class broke down, as Meryl's did with her bottom set Y10, the class was removed from them and the normal class teacher restored. There are more options and back-ups with a PGCE student.

Tbh, I'm a bit about a teacher with no experience being given a bottom set GCSE group to deal with on their own. Even an experienced teacher would have found that class tricky, I'm surprised that Teach First would allow it.

I thought that school was pretty shoddy all round to be honest . When I was on my TF placement if I struggled with a class I was supported. Just as any teacher would be supported when they are struggling.

I thought it spoke volumes that the children didn't behave when the head was in the room. Poor TFTC candidates seemed to be the least of their problems.

You put it far better then me noble... I didn't enjoy watching it at all. As a parent of a13yr old, it made me worry slightly. I found myself asking her if she had heard of TF or if she had any TF teachers! She has a science NQT who seems very very good.

noble of course you are right. We'd need to read the research in more detail to see what extra variables were controlled for.

This thread is making me laugh! IME, even the worst TF candidate can outshine a run of the mill PGCE student. The requirements for TF go far beyond a 2:1 from Oxbridge or Russell Group universities. The selection process is ruthless and only those who are resilient enough to cope succeed to the programme.

The BBC documentary - as will any such documentary - does not give the full picture. The 6 weeks' training given is far more valuable and effective than anything the regular PGCE route can offer. That is not to say that traditional route teachers are less able - but the results are certainly mixed: in my school there were 5 NQTs (i.e. fully trained and qualified) and 2 TF (6 weeks's training and never taught before): who struggled and failed to deliver on targets, who never contributed to the wider school life, who struggled to produce any lesson plans let alone effective ones despite being on lighter timetables and not having any of the academic learning to cope with on top of the full time day? Not TF. They are not unsupported as you might have gathered from the documentary.

And OP - no, I can agree that having your child taught by someone who is deemed cause for concern is not ideal - but the same can occur for regular NQT's - in fact probably more regularly. The difference being that calibre of the TF teacher means that they will go that extra mile to succeed and to make sure that the students do not suffer. Everyone has to learn, and therefore there will always be glitches in the quality of education at any given point in the process. But at least with a TF teacher you know that the quality will shine through in the end. In my school there are 3 teachers in my department who are "highly experienced" - and highly useless. (They have been there for years and offer nothing of any value to their students. If you thought the English teacher in the documentary was inadequate, you would have rather your children be taught by her than by any of these ones - at least she had an intelligent brain). And there is 1 TF teacher who has been graded outstanding. In his first year.

IMHO it is a fantastic programme that delivers - the kids that are taught by these young people are phenomenally lucky. Elitist? Unashamedly, yes. And long may that continue. Because the children are benefitting massively. Not because of the educational background - there are plenty of highly qualified teachers from other programs - but the commitment to addressing educational disadvantage permeates all that they do. I totally understand the fear that has been aroused but the documentary did not do the programme justice. Sorry for the ramble.