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?

I'm imagining a nurse apprentice learning how to do catheters (or something), then spending their time at work doing a load of catheters until they're awesome at it, then moving onto the next skill.

But teachers use so many skills at the same time so it can't really be compartmentalised in the same way.

Nursing can be an apprenticeship now... you still get a degree at the end of it.

Interesting point about whether we should even have BEds here:

After compulsory education has ended, vocational routes make more sense. But are they ‘equivalent’ to academic ones? I have no problem with a parity of esteem; that we hold them in as high regard. Even so, this is manifestly not the case in England where the general public think of degrees as superior. What is absolutely clear is that they are different to academic routes. You learn on the job, focusing on the tasks involved in doing that job. Academic learning does not have the same focus. Instead, it is built around growing and applying discipline knowledge, wherever that leads.

Teachers teach these disciplines, even generalist primary school teachers. And so teachers need an understanding of them. It is therefore essential that they have reached a recognised threshold of academic learning themselves. If anything, we should be pursuing this with greater vigour, not watering it down. I cannot prove that this will make teachers more effective but this is about our values as a society. And by raising the status of teaching we probably will end up with better teachers.

However, I am not making an argument for teaching degrees. I think all teachers, including primary teachers, would be better served by studying an academic subject at university and simply focusing on that for a few years. I can’t point to any studies but I can point to the fact that, just as with those hairdressing students, learning vocational aspects of teaching alongside learning your subject is incoherent. Once students have finished a degree in a subject, there should be a variety of routes open to train as a teacher. I still believe that university-based teacher education courses have the potential to deliver the best mix of theory and practice but I don’t think they do a brilliant job at the moment. That’s why I believe that school-based alternatives, as have already emerged in the U.K., offer an opportunity to improve the whole sector through competition.

gregashman.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/teachers-should-have-university-degrees/

I'm imagining a nurse apprentice learning how to do catheters (or something), then spending their time at work doing a load of catheters until they're awesome at it, then moving onto the next skill.

That really isn't how nurse training works. For each year you have 80-120 competencies that need signing off. You start practicing as many as you can as soon as you can. You could be focusing on 20 competencies at any one time. The main difference with apprenticeship nurse training and traditional uni based training is apprentices will be working 30 hours a week and spending 1 day in uni, whereas uni based training you tend to do blocks of 2 months in uni then 3 months of placements. I hope I've made sense!

I left teaching this year. In my new job I am not allowed to work 12 hour days and get told off for having ideas in my time. What is this 'my time' concept.

Teaching apprenticeships really could work.They are a ladder of learning, an 18 yo will not be teaching, they will be L3/4. Do some research, find out how the schemes work, especially at higher levels, if you want to have a say and influence the way they are constructed, you will need to be informed.
What we don't need is more redundant bankers becoming teachers in six months flat, you know because bankers are so much better or for PTLLS, CTLLS and DTLLS to seem like a good idea again.

I stand corrected fruit - sorry about that.

They still aren't at all similar as jobs, though, even though the government likes to lump all us pesky public servants together!

You could be focusing on 20 competencies at any one time

Yeah, I figured as I posted that I'd get nurses coming on here going 'that's not how it's done at all' It goes to show how people think that certain jobs can be trained for are not how it actually works in practice. How could you focus on 20 competencies at once? What would that look like?

if you want to have a say and influence the way they are constructed

...then don't hold your breath because when was the last time that teachers actually had any say or influence in education?

Piggy so do you teach just English to all year groups?

I was joking noble : I just teach the upper school bit :)

But I am not sure how a three tier system fits into everyone's thinking on here!

There are quite a few areas in secondary that have Bed entry, normally because they have people that have equivalent qualifications, and experience but no degree.

Oh thank god for that Piggy, I was about to feel very inadequate indeed!

Middle school teachers have it so easy. None of the bottom wiping of lower primary and none of the hormones of high school. They'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes, for their cushy deal.

Apprenticeship standards are written by the relevant industry, you and your school could volunteer to take part. Get proactive Noble

Titchy

In the majority of standard apprenticeships when in the workplace you are are just learning one area, in teaching you would be learning many different areas which would not necessarily be easily linked to what you learn in uni.

I think you should spare any middle school teachers who have Maths degrees come the revolution

Get proactive

the government hasn't taken notice of anything that teachers have had to say for years.

What makes you think that they would listen about this?

Middle school teachers with maths degrees? Why I don't believe they exist!

There must be one Noble

Is a BEd primary with a maths specialism close enough?

I think there were 5 on my course. 1 of those might still be teaching.

Teachers can be listened to but you have to direct your shout. Respond to Green Papers before they become White Papers, take part in consultations about new exams, become a trailblazer, take part in pilots and give feedback, don't leave it to the MATs. You might not make much difference but every so often you will make a little bit.

maybe Rafels maybe, depends what mood Noble is in.

Respond to Green Papers before they become White Papers

Have you not seen the list of consultations overdue to be published? The Ebacc consultation? The grammar school one? Government education consultations are meaningless and a waste of time. In my experience

I took part in consultations about the new A levels. Made fuck all difference.

Just like how my whole village protested a huge planning application...

We could start a list of all the times teachers have been listened to when directing their responses to the right place. It shouldn't take long...

depends what mood Noble is in.

A bad one tonight, tbh, so BEd with maths doesn't make the cut.

Whenever I tell my classes that I have a Masters in Maths (normally when they asked me what I got for my GCSEs) the response is 'why the hell are you a teacher then?'

Given the low value people usually assign to the academic status of teachers, I can't see teaching being given a technical route boosting the value of technical qualifications. I can see it degrading the value of teachers even further.

There's not a chance that this will boost the value of vocational qualifications.

Which is a shame because I think we could do with a well valued vocational qualification system. Unfortunately education is too much of a political football to get one.

Which is a frequent problem tbh.