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?

For primary, it may be OK. But for secondary I really think you need the kind of specialist knowledge that a degree entails.

titch I know this is funny to you but it's not to me. School managers cutting budgets means that people I know have lost their jobs. Experienced teachers are losing their jobs because schools can't afford to run all non-core subject.

Now, for political reasons, Justices be Greening has decided to put even more jobs, done by experienced and hard working TAs and teachers, on the line. Why? Because teaching isn't seen as important and teachers are seen as not valuable. Over the last eight years this ideology has been pushed so far that has started to erode the bedrock of the modern teaching profession. We've gone totally back to 'those who can't, teach'.

Ridiculous idea but doesn't surprise me.

Another way to devalue the teaching profession.

Sorry. Am angry and typing fast on an I-phone.

Given current apprenticeships / education training a teaching one could look like this
L3 - TA (Kelley)
L4 - HLTA
L5 - Assessor
L6 - BEd equiv
L7 - PGCE equiv

Each level takes a year or two (18 months is a common length). Apprentice and employer decide at end of each stage whether to continue. Qualifications are gained at each level. College / Uni attendance could be one day a week or in blocks. Unifying teaching qualifications under one umbrella could make them more Gove proof.

Apprentices join at the appropriate level. Secondary at L7, TAs at 4 /5 or 6...

The link I posted earlier Noble was an example of what Kelley might do. Mentors and Coaches could be alternative pathways. There were also links to the sort of path a vocational teacher of something like plumbing may take. There are a lot of teachers out there who do not teach at Primary or Secondary.

I would just hope that it wouldn't mean that primary was on a lower rank to secondary!

But BEd is not lower that PGCE at present? Are we accepting it should be?

No reason why a Primary teacher could not do L7.

But what I am saying is that I don't view those with BEds as lesser than me at present. They did a 4 year degree. I did a 3 year degree and then a PGCE.

A primary teacher with a pgce is a level 7 anyway, surely?

There are a lot of teachers out there who do not teach at Primary or Secondary.

I don't think there would be so much of a fuss if the assumption was that Justine Greening wasn't talking about teachers in state schools.

I can't see the point on your chart where Kelley could acquire enough subject-specific knowledge to become a maths teacher.

A pgce is ranked "higher" in terms of being a post graduate course but I'd say not in terms of preparedness to teach. Especially in primary - 4 years mulling over and being in schools is a lot more experience than 1!

It's all backwards isn't it nobel. In order to be ready to start teaching in school they'd need subject knowledge and some experience in school and teacher training. Which they wouldn't even be at that point when they'd finished an apprentice so an apprentice both won't be any help in school (of not teaching) or gaining any skills or subject knowledge worth the paper it's written on.

At the moment BEd can be L5/6 or 7 and PGCE L6 or 7
That is messy
Clarification for the future would be useful.

Kelley is never going to be a Maths teacher. Unless she also fits in an OU degree with is asking quite a lot of her.

it wouldn't mean that primary was on a lower rank to secondary!

It's starting to look that way isn't it? The consensus on here seems to be that we do not need people to be academic to teach primary. It's the sort of job that mums can do to earn pin money. Then the pay will start going down.

there isn't a shortage of primary teachers is there

There is! Definitely in my area anyway.

I also think that there's a danger that if you say primary school teachers don't need degrees and secondary school teachers do, you risk devaluing primary teachers even more.

In a way primary is lower ranked though isn't it (not saying that's right btw), but you really need a subject degree plus a post grad to teach secondary - so four years up to level 7, whereas for primary a three year BEd is enough, which is three years and a level 6 qualification. (Ignoring the fact that academy teachers don't need anything - wrong imo.)

Or can you currently enter secondary teaching and teach the full secondary range with just a BEd and no subject knowledge?

By the time you finish L6 you get a degree. It is a feck of a lot of work to get there.

People can and do get degrees via apprenticeships, this does not make them second class citizens.

Yes, you can titchy , you can teach PE.

BEds are 4 years.

There are secondary Beds. ( Or similar "X subject with QTS. ") They are usually 4 years and a huge chunk of the time is spent on the specialist subject!

Reading through this thread, I agree that o/s teachers are at best sneered at. Good friend who is Romanian is fantastic at teaching at primary level. She was forced out of the local school. Parents were complaining about her accent and kept saying surely she wasn't qualified to teach.

This is a girl who spoke 6 languages (English, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian and of course Romanian). She did a masters in child development at Oxbridge. Teaching wise she had 5 years classroom experience in Romania. The school was damn lucky to have her. After all the terrible comments, which destroyed her confidence, she got a job at a private school which is highly selective and top 50 in the country. She has never had a single complaint about her language at that school. She was also paid a lot more than at the state school because they recognized her education and experience.

There is a strange notion of an apprentice teaching from day 1 aged 18. Yes they should be in the classroom but no they should not be responsible for a classroom. I would expect an apprenticeship would be 4-5 years to complete.

Also I do think the pay of teachers needs to be reconsidered as well as reasons for teachers leaving addressed.

We are running degree level apprenticeships soon from my HE establishment in a STEM/allied health-based subject. They do a full degree spread over 5 years by attending one day a week together with lots of work-based learning and private study. They take the same modules and exams as the full time students except for 60 credits (out of 360 in total) that are different but equivalent as they are based on workbased learning. It will replace a degree we have been running part time as a self-funded option. The ones who finish are generally exceptional as they have to juggle it all. I'm sure, if well set up, the teaching apprenticeship will be the same.

PE

I think most people would agree though that ideally secondary teachers would have a degree in their subject (even if it's PE) followed by a PGCE?

Whereas a BEd is the ideal primary route? All the ones I've seen are three years btw e.g. http://www.herts.ac.uk/courses/primary-education

So it's divisive already? Or should all primary teachers have a degree in an NC subject and a PGCE same as secondary?

Why did PE get a ??