Teaching to stop being a graduate-only profession - 18 year old teachers.

[noblegiraffe]

There were rumblings about this a while ago when the apprenticeship levy was introduced, but it looks like Justine Greening is going to introduce an apprencticeship route into teaching.

schoolsweek.co.uk/greening-teaching-will-cease-to-be-only-for-university-graduates/

I'm very concerned that in secondary schools, specialist subject knowledge won't be a pre-requisite for going into the classroom, it will be seen as something that can be picked up across the years, shortchanging the classes who get the apprentice in the first few years of the training (how long is an apprenticeship?).

In primary school, the education of a class for a full year could fall to someone just out of school themselves.

This isn't just about training on-the-job, we already have that as a route into teaching. This is about deprioritising a certain level of education for teachers and devaluing the profession. It's saying you don't need to be well-educated to teach, because you could be teaching straight out of school. The 'learning how to teach' part of any teacher training programme is so intense, that acquiring degree-level subject knowledge will certainly not be a priority from the start.

The wage for apprentices means this is just another way for schools to get teachers on the cheap and hang the consequences for education.

And knowing how many parents already view young teachers, fresh out of uni and just finished their PGCE, how will they take to having their child being taught by someone who hasn't even been to university?

They can't get a subject specialist degree, surely?

Where are they going to fit that in? Presumably between the education theory, the planning, assessment, reflections and the working as an underpaid TA for 80% of the time.

If it takes three years to get a degree when studying full time, how long will it take to get a degree when you're only at university one day a week? What about if you don't live near a university?

If it only takes say three years on one day a week, then how could it be possibly comparable with a standard degree? Or will it be that there be batchelor degrees and then a lower class 'apprentice' degree? Will those people get paid a lower salary when qualified? If you can get a full degree doing one day a week at uni for three years and not have student loans-why would anyone go to university and pay £9000 per year for the privilege?

What about
Apprentice : I have my job at Costa this evening and then I'm going out with my mates. Plus, miss, my mum took my phone off me and I don't have a printer at home.

Right... so I think we agree they won't get a 'subject ' degree.

I genuinely thought the BEd was being more or less phased out as a route into secondary teaching, apart from PE. On the given that one's subject knowledge needs to be deeper and broader than the oldest students one teaches.

... and my mum didn't wake me up so I couldn't be her at 9am anyway. Soz.

here! Not her!

Hang on a minute, it was only 5 minutes ago that they were saying teaching needed to be a Masters level entry profession, as that was the only way of ensuring the best people became teachers.

Talk about a 180!

Yes but schmoopy, that didn't work, it seems...

pengwynn , you missed the basic 'oh, sorry, I never read my school emails. No one on whatsapp reminded me.'

Sorry for completely making up the spelling of pengggwn

Stop it. 16-18 year old apprentices aren't going to be that bad. I refuse to believe it.

They're all going to be exactly as responsible and experienced as the previous trainees.

Well quite, because all those with an MA/MSc went to work somewhere where they got paid better and actually had the resources to do their job properly and some respect...

And what about the plan to get people from industry? And the armed forces? People with life experience and good discipline..? I suppose that didn't work either.

I suppose the correct response would be to get them at 18 then...

Bonkers.

Why not just treat the profession with some dignity and respect, ensure the appropriate resources so that people can do the job they want to do, and just leave it alone for a bit.

I did see on Twitter that the goverment seems to think that there are vast swathes of people who want to be teachers but are unable. This is aimed at all those TAs who havent got a degree.

Except everyone knows loads of TAs used to be teachers and couldn't stand the job as it is. How many will actually want to go the other way for £3.50 an hour and potentially years of being strung along on low pay?

Gove wanted all entrants to the teaching profession to have at least a 2:1. He thought that people who were going to deliver an academic education to kids should at least have decent academic credentials.

Which makes sense.

Thing is, noble, there are always people on the outside who think they could handle it. They imagine how they'd do it better...

TAs without QTS don't know what it's like to be a teacher any more than childfree nannies know what it's like to be a mother.

Titchy was saying that apprenticeships wouldn't work at secondary, so they think they won't be introduced at that level.

But secondary schools have to pay the levy, so of course they'll be introduced at that level. Otherwise secondaries would kick off about the levy and it would all go wrong.

did see on Twitter that the goverment seems to think that there are vast swathes of people who want to be teachers but are unable. This is aimed at all those TAs who havent got a degree.

Yes-that is how it'll be marketed-that there are simply thousands of kindly experienced TAs out there who can't leave their job and get a degree but who are simply itching to become teachers. Or other super clever people who would make wonderful teachers but for some inexplicable reason, haven't got a degree yet.

What we know will really happen is that it will be done in the cheapest most crap way possible and is 99% likely to involve teenagers with A level grades that weren't good enough to get them into university.

Rather unlikely that a L3 or L4 apprentice is going to be paid £3.50.

Please can some of you stop behaving like playground bullies and read up about apprenticeships. Some old draft standards note how long they take, note that there is progression. Do some research, get into a position where you could help inform you students of potential life choices and stop looking like ignorant prats

And the TAs (often "mums" looking for school hour jobs) are all going to leap at the chance to get paid even less and commit to earning 3.50 an hour term time only. Unlikely.

Pestilentialone. Honestly I think it's you/policy makers who need to do their research. If they were to engage with teaching as a profession they would perhaps have more of a clue of what teachers themselves think would make great training.

Surely it's a red flag if teachers are all warning it's a bad move.

and is 99% likely to involve teenagers with A level grades that weren't good enough to get them into university.

You sound breathtakingly ignorant. The attitude towards apprenticeships on this thread is actually pretty disgusting.

Fgs, it's not about apprenticeships generally. It's about the fact that many people don't believe that this scheme will be implemented properly given how past initiatives have been implemented.

Not unlikely at all. As I said upthread I've spent the last week looking at Level 3 training positions. Every single one in my sector is now an apprentice position paying £3.50 an hour.

Companies like KPMG might be paying above that. But I'm assuming they also aren't having to cut a 6 figure sum from their departmental staff budget.

I'd love to believe that it would be different with teaching, but with school budgets in pretty much the same state as the NHS I don't really see it happening.