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?

Doesn't anyone here know how an apprenticeship works.

No they don’t Pestilentialone.
They are frothing over a completely imagined scenario.

I'm in two minds.

If it goes as noble predicts which apprentices teaching full classes from day 1 then that would obviously be a bad idea.

I also can't see it working for secondary schools as the age / maturity differential would be too much. I also totally agree regarding subject knowledge and that would be an issue whatever the age of the apprentice.

But a structured approach to learning the skills, teaching the occasional class under supervision, learning how to plan on the job could be good if properly resourced. (I realise this is a gigantic IF).

Also, provided the apprentice doesn't have full responsibility for a class, then they should have plenty of time in half terms and holidays to do the theoretical assignments and work.

I know this isn't the same but my DD is doing a nursery apprenticeship and because she is seeing and doing day-to-day the theoretical stuff is going in much better because she can relate it to reality.

Schools pay the apprenticeship levy, they might as well get some benefit from it.

So, if done properly, I think for primary it could work. However if done in secondary or done as noble predicts, then it could be a disaster for all concerned.

I don't know any teachers who would encourage apprenticeship of 18 year old teachers to be honest.

After a degree there are "on the job" training schemes with various success. Most secondary teachers have a degree I their subject knowledge before starting teaching in whatever form of training.

Not sure why that's snobbery?

Do you understand how teacher training works?
Yes, I have done a fair few years training teachers. Also do a fair bit of mediating between employers and training providers to ensure that an apprentice receives a complete education.
It could work very well, but some will try and cut corners. That is why IQAs and EQAs exist.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with someone doing a 3 year apprenticeship and then becoming a qualified teacher.

The trouble is, those of us currently in education know that what would actually happen is an 18 year old would be stuck in front of a class immediately with little or no support as a cost-saving measure. By the time they were qualified and able to earn a teacher's wage, they would probably be burned out.

I can't see why it couldn't be done, if it's done properly. What will probably happen is that they will be dumped in classrooms expected to do too much too soon and leave. It could be done if they are nurtured, allowed time to develop, given the right support and carry on their education alongside but I doubt that would be how it would work. Who would do this though? Teachers certainly don't have time!

But most people end up going into teaching because they have succeeded in their academic discipline anyway so what difference does it make? Unless they are willing to pay teachers more, teaching quality will always be poor.

why were you talking about students who 'didn't get the grades but would make good teachers'?

Because a student who didnt quite get the grades for immediate entry to University but has a fantastic portfolio from the last few years at school hitting As and Bs throughout but just didn't perform well on the exam day will have a better chance of gaining a place as an apprentice because they consider the whole person and not just a bit of paper with a few letters/numbers on. Im a fe governor and this is absolutely the case for a considerable number of our students. If they still wanted to go to University they would have to do resits or look at a foundation degree which some students may find off putting. Also some of our students are from very deprived areas and an apprenticeship is by far the preferred way of gaining qualifications rather than the debt of university. Currently those students who may want to teach won't pursue it due to cost. Apprenticeships will open that profession to them. By arguing teachers should only have a university degree you are by default discriminating against those from more deprived sections of society who do not feel the debt of university is worth it.

Yes, I have done a fair few years training teachers.

Then please explain how, in the current climate of schools barely having enough money to pay experienced teachers and opting for cheap NQTs and unqualified teachers, how this won't end up with 18 year olds in the classroom on their own?

What about the first week of term, grass, when they've had just a few days of teacher training, and then they're in a classroom. Will they cope with the class of 31 year 6's my DD2 is in? They'll have 2 with ASC whose anxiety is raging because of moving to senior school and whose parents have not yet managed to fight through the minefield which is getting them 1:1 support, several high flyers who are going for private school exams later this term and whose parents have the ear of the Head and get annoyed if they report being bored, a severe asthmatic, a child with a nut allergy whose epipen has to travel everywhere with him, several dyslexics and my child whose father died and who cries in class of work is introduced about sickness or death without a heads up?

They'd drown, and it wouldn't be fair on them or the teacher.

That same class had a 24 yr old second year past qualification teacher last year, and she couldn't cope. But the school didn't have any other choice apparently.

Reinette you are making a case for supporting poor kids into uni, not 18 year olds into the classroom.

The government is talking about putting them in classrooms before they have either degree-level subject knowledge or any teaching skills -WTF?

Except they're not talking about that at all. It's a scaremongering article. It's just that saying that they'd like an apprenticeship standard for teaching to be written (in reality there'll have to be several) - and if anyone has been involved in writing a standard you'll know how long and tortuous it is - and how long it takes to be approved. It'll be degree level, and until it's been written no one can possibly say there'll be 18 year old apprentices trying to teaching A level Maths by themselves.

Nursing apprentices exist, lawyer apprentices exist, in fact there's no reason why doctor apprentices shouldn't exist either (although the length of the apprenticeship might be an issue - I'd guess it would be at least 7 or 8 years). The training they'd receive as an apprentice would be identical to that received if they go down the pay fees at university route.

Someone who's been a TA in a primary for years and wants to become a teacher but can't afford three years of being a student would be ideally suited to a teaching apprenticeship.

Likewise someone with a Maths degree working in a secondary to support kids with poor numeracy skills who again can't take a year out to do a PGCE would be ideally suited.

Likewise someone with a Maths degree working in a secondary to support kids with poor numeracy skills who again can't take a year out to do a PGCE would be ideally suited.

No they wouldn't. They could do Schools Direct or Teach First. There's already a salaried route for them.

People who are saying it won't be 18 year olds into the classroom, how long do you think it will be before they're put in front of a class and start earning their money?

I don't see how studying roman classic and theology for example equips you for teaching in a primary school. It's the year at the end of the degree, the specific Teacher Training that you have to have a degree to do that trains you, so ........... no harm done to students.

It's amazing that people routinely slate teachers who have gone from uni to teaching for having no real life experience but people think that this will be fine.

Putting an 18yo apprentice in front of a class on their own would not meet the terms of an apprenticeship, so would invalidate it. Also liability insurance would not cover it, so it would not be done.
An electrician's apprentice would not be put in charge of rewiring your house on their first day.

Actually if this was well planned as an alternative route into teaching in which the apprentice had a full induction course, worked along side an established teacher, was given a very light and easy workload, whilst attending seminars and completing assignments and courses. They shouldn't be seen as replacements to teachers but as a super-teaching assistants, I guess.

However I think to do it properly it would probably cost more than getting students to pay for their own degree and living expenses for the 4 years that is necessary to train as a teacher.

Another factors to considered would be there is the work load of the teachers assigned to mentor these apprentices - it should be reduced.

I would not trust this government to introduce and run this as it should be. I wouldn't trust this government to organise a pissup in a brewery

As a pp said they just want a warm body in a classroom and can't bring themselves to tackle the retention crisis they have created because they would have to admit what an almighty cock-up they have made of everything. Where would they begin?

Likewise someone with a Maths degree working in a secondary to support kids with poor numeracy skills who again can't take a year out to do a PGCE would be ideally suited.

I don't think many people would argue with that. But in essence it would be a second-degree apprenticeship then. Totally different kettle of fish.

Lots of my friends with good degrees have gone and done a PGCE. They consistently describe it as the hardest work they've ever done.
I don't see how it's possible to do all that work, and the subject work, and teach in schools. it would be exhausting.

And I don't trust that the government wouldn't have apprentices taking classes before they had acquired the in-depth subject knowledge they'd need, and at least a good start on the myriad of different skills.

Plus, I think experiencing the in-depth learning of a university degree, and having the opportunity to pursue the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake is pretty essential before someone can know for sure that they want to spend their career focussing on children's learning. Perhaps it's possible to replicate that with an apprentiship. But only if it's very well funded and staffed, and the majority of hours are spent outside of schools.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have a PGCE and I still think it's a good idea!

Can you explain how you see this working in your department or the class below yours then?

What a worry. I hate how my profession is continually being devalued.

Noble, your point about people criticising teachers for minimal life experience and then applauding this is excellent.

Somerville - I wouldn't call that an apprenticeship. I would expect the 18 year old to start their apprenticeship observing a teacher and doing small sections of class time on their own under supervision , gradually building up so that the last term of a 3 year course was flying solo.

I'm sorry the school your child's teacher couldn't cope. Perhaps if she'd done a decently structured apprenticeship she'd have had much more classroom experience and been in a better position to handle things. Although I suspect a struggling school supports noone.

I actually think is really sad that the state of education is such that everyone assumes the apprenticeship would be done really badly and it would just be 18 year olds teaching FT with no support. There must be a way to regulate it so that doesn't happen.

There is the BEd which has 18 year olds in schools already, isn't there?

I don't think you can put subject knowledge aside, as if it isn't important. Take teaching History for example - the subject teacher at A level teaches students about different interpretations of events, source analysis, how to read critically etc. These skills are introduced at school, but honed at university. It is only when you study a subject at degree level that you appreciate just how much there is to learn. At 18 you have only scratched the surface of what you need to know.
Now imagine putting that 18 year old, or even a 22 year old at the end of am appreticeship, in a classroom and expecting them to deliver an A level course when they haven't had the benefit of developing their skills as a historian and their subject knowledge at university.
Degree learning is so very different from school learning and it is essential if you want truly knowledgeable people to be teaching your children.

An apprenticeship can teach you strategies for classroom management and how to go about planning, but what exactly do you plan to teach, if you have little subject knowledge yourself?

Then of course, the children taught by teachers who have little subject knowledge will grow up and become teachers who have little subject knowledge and we end up with a population who are broadly ignorant. And we are supposed to compete with the rest of the world...

Apprenticeships are great, but not as a stand alone qualification for academic work, which requires academic knowledge!