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?

Let's not kid ourselves.
This isn't to provide a unique opportunity to join the profession.
This isn't a valuable addition to the apprenticeship scheme.
This isn't to offer an alternative route for those for whom a degree is inaccessible.

It is because current teachers are leaving in droves and it is a very real and tangible crisis that the govt don't seem to want to face.

80sMum
Back in the '70s,

Lets also consider some of the detritus that stood in front of a class back in the 70s.

Lets also think about the lack of paperwork and the system which was pretty much no checks or measures.

Lets also put forward teachers who could only control a class by using physical force.

Do we really want to go back to the 70s?

As mentioned by PP this is not a route likely to be very suitable for 18 yos and secondary school. Teachers have to be qualified to at least one level above their students. So to teach a History A level you require a degree in History.
It would be very useful in the FE sector, where teachers are coming from industry. In primary it would probably not be too different to models of teacher training that have previously existed. Secondary schools will find it difficult to meet the requirements, they do need to spend their apprentice levy and to do this well, it will be a challenge.

I do agree that subject knowledge is essential for Secondary level.

I'm quite passionate about apprenticeships because I did one. It was 5 years and had degree level subject knowledge exams, alongside practical exams and the end of 5 years I felt very well equipped to do the job. And on day 1 I wasn't representing clients in court. It's not a cheap route or a quick route so I guess it won't happen if the government is looking for a cheap quick fix.

It's a shame as I think secondary teachers could get better teacher training on top of their degree. And I'm not convinced the PCGE or SCITT route to primary education gives enough support either. It's a hard job with real skills needed.

Last years NQT needed both more experience, grass, and some specialist training which the school couldn't afford. The school had lost a very experienced teacher because of burn-out/wage dip which is really at the heart of the problem. The governmental response of bringing in cheaper younger and younger teachers, rather than looking after the great ones they've got is a large part of the time.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation
Doesn't anyone here know how an apprenticeship works (Pestilentialone.)

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

sorry for the double quote.

I know full well how the apprenticeship system works. I also know that I had a dedicated (as in paid for part of the job) mentor, who had time to give me the training that the job required.

Given that any teacher that becomes an apprenticeship mentor will also have classes of their own, preparation, marking and all the other stuff that goes with it. It is just another draw on the goodwill of teachers to fuck up their own mental health.

I work in utilities. We have apprentinces and grads across the business. No one lets them loose on any of our assets from day one. They learn the business in a structured programme of on the job experience, mentoring and accredited training. It is great for us to have them as part of our succession planning. Not just in my business but in previous organisations i know a few former YTS trainees who are now in senior leadership with huge responsibilties. Done properly i don't see why teaching should be any different.

Degree level apprenticeships work in some careers but not in all. Teaching is one it won't work in as the 'customer' is in a constant state of change. It is not a job where you can start with the simple things and move on to bigger as you get more experiences. The bigger thing is there from day one. It's not a circuit board or an engine - it is a human child.
I have been teaching for twenty years and a mentor for trainee teachers for the last six. It is the life experience that makes the teacher ... an 18 year old does not have this. Some of my colleagues who did school/university/school struggle with aspects of teaching. It is not just about the subject - we are carers/social workers/parents/secretaries/mental health spotters ... I just don't think at 18 there is enough experience (quite a lot don't have it at 22).
Most of the trainees from teach first etc are older.
My final point is that students don't have any respect for teachers - we are told weekly that we earn less than bin men/train drivers and therefore don't have the right to tell pupils what to do, told to fuck off, called names, argued with and shouted at. I know how to handle this - would an 18 year old?

Temporaryanonymity

Done properly i don't see why teaching should be any different

1. Teachers are cynical based on years of being fucked around. I don't believe it will be done properly.

2. As I said previously in teaching the job you do on day 1 is the same as the job you do on day 100,001. The class will need to be double staffed to give proper support to the apprentice. They won't pay for this.

3. If you make a mistake in other jobs it can be checked before going public in teaching the damage is done. The damage is done to 'children' not a business therefore the stakes are higher.

4. At 6th form level you haven't got the required skills as mentioned by pp

5. Especially, but not exclusively, at secondary you would get eaten alive by the kids.

Can I just point out for all the naysayers, next year your dcs at university will be taught by apprentices...

What mickey mouse uni do you go to titchy?

2) As I said previously in teaching the job you do on day 1 is the same as the job you do on day 100,001. The class will need to be double staffed to give proper support to the apprentice. They won't pay for this.

Yup-therein lies the problem.

They are taught by graduates, are they not? Overseen by experienced university lecturers. My dc's are in taught in seminars by respected historians. Not people who left school last year.

titchy

You have never needed a teaching qual to teach at a university. Which is why the actual teaching at universities can be poor.

You must realise the classroom management issues are significantly more challenging in a school along with the differentiation being more complex.

If it were done properly, as an alternative route then it could be a great idea. Observing an experienced teacher and working alongside them would be a great way of acquiring skills, before going on to a career where degree level subject knowledge isn't required, i.e primary.

However we all know that it won't go that way. They'll be left unsupported and given roles that should be limited to experienced teachers. Not to mention that there are already teachers in secondary teaching subjects they have no degree level knowledge in, so no reason to think the title of apprentice would prevent them teaching a subject they know nothing about at secondary either.

I'm not surprised by this, disappointed and saddened but not surprised. I think it's a disaster for state education and for those who have no choice other than to use state education. Therefore a disaster for us all in the end.

It says everything about what this government thinks about state teaching, that it can be done by unqualified 18 year olds.

I should have said 'paid properly'. Apprentices do get paid but nowhere near as much as they would under a training scheme that isn't an apprenticeship.

I'm sure many companies do pay above minimum, I doubt the public sector do. I know that our 15-17k a year training positions are all now apprenticeships paid at 6k a year for a full time position involving the same work.

And it's not like teaching doesn't have a huge amount of additional work done out of hours in addition to the university work.

If they do want this to work the government will have to pay the apprentice wages. Otherwise I can't see schools offering it or those that do will be taking advantage and using the apprentice as an unofficial class teacher.

When I trained a few years ago, we were told that there was a drive for teaching to be a Master's level profession
This will be a disaster and just add to an already bonkers workload for existing teachers.

There was a drive for it to be a masters level profession because that's the level required in high performing countries.

Then they realised that nobody with qualifications was stupid enough to go into teaching.

There's also the problem of retention, which will remain however you recruit people into teaching.

Lowering the standards to start down the teaching route might increase the numbers, but all that will happen is those who don't have many other options, and don't really have what it takes to be a teacher either will take it up because it's all they can access, and then remain in a job they aren't cut out for.

Those that have the potential to be good teachers will still leave for the same reasons good newly qualified and experienced teachers are leaving. Probably more so if their training is being thrown in at the deep end.

Those who are truly dedicated and see it as a vocation will remain in teaching as long as they can stand it, just like they do now.

But overall there won't be any more retention/increase in good teachers, we'll just have more less suitable candidates working alongside those good teachers.

This country isn't lacking people with the potential to teach, or with subject degrees alongside that potential. We aren't even lacking people who want to teach. We just can't interest, or retain all those people in state education. Which is hardly surprising.

Can you imagine the posts on here from parents whose PFB children are about to start school and the two choices are Mrs X who has been teaching for ten years and has a wealth of experience and Kelley who got her (not quite good enough to go to university) A level results last month. Would you really be happy if you got Kelley?!

The big question is-who would be mentoring, supporting and training Kelley and whose teaching their their class whilst it happens!

In secondary schools poor behaviour can be 'infectious'. A bad lesson impacts on the lesson after it. Too many young inexperienced teachers can lead to a climate of poor behaviour that even the most experienced teachers struggle with.

It is NOT like other professions where a mistake can be checked and remedied. Teaching does not happen in isolation like writing a report, or mending a circuit where there is time to review and improve. Once the damage is done it's done.

I don't go to a university, let alone a Micky mouse one

I'm just pointing out that there is in development a Higher Education Teaching apprenticeship. Universities' apprentice levies are huge and once developed this will be a great way of spending it. Virtually all universities in England have had a hand in developing this so it's not just Micky mouse HEIs (whatever one of those is).

I'm well aware you don't need a teaching qualification to lecture, but most universities will require their new lecturers to do some sort of qualifications and membership of the HEA.

Pestilentialone - Most of them get paid more than the minimum allowed... I think most teachers probably know a couple of TAs who would be more than suitable for an apprenticeship

So how many of those TAs will be up for doing it for £3.50 p.h.

I know a couple of TAs who are qualified teachers. I think I can safely say that they wouldn't be interested in this opportunity.

As a parent I would like to know what the entry requirements will be/are. I’m not keen on the idea of my DC (yr8) being taught maths and/or English by someone with a L4 GCSE. I can’t see that working well with DCs who are predicted L9s either.

It will be interesting to see, if this goes ahead, if there will be a high churn rate with DCs being taught by a new apprentice every few weeks/months. Something I would not be happy about at all.

If this goes ahead, is there not a risk of there being a large number of people who have completed their apprentiship but can’t get a teaching job? Could this not lead to Schools retaining a small number of qualified teachers to oversee the apprentices which are simply replaced by new apprentices, thereby limiting the advancement opportunities?

, and Kelley who got her (not quite good enough to go to university) A level results last month. Would you really be happy if you got Kelley?!*

Jesus