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?

Schools Direct are not all salaried. DS pays £9k tuition fees for his place. He is a Maths graduate doing secondary maths training. At 21 he is extremely concious of being only 3 years older than the sixth formers.
Incidentally many maths teachers don't have a maths degree.

Gres maths trainees are advised against salaried Schools Direct because they then wouldn't be eligible for the huge bursaries and scholarships available for unsalaried maths trainees.

Nope tis madness!
I believe no-one under 25 should be allowed to be a teacher. Going from school to university back to school can be a bit of a protected bubble.

Plenty of primaries will be part of academy chains which will have a £3m salary bill.

Why wouldn't a Level 7 apprenticeship which requires apprentices to have a degree in a national curriculum subject work in a secondary school? (Plenty of secondaries will have a £3m payroll.)

Where has any proposal said that secondary teaching Apprenticeships will be open to 18 year olds?

I understand objections based on a general objections to school based training, but other than that what's the issue with a Level 7 apprenticeship?

From the article in the OP But her position is clear: teaching will no longer be the sole preserve of university graduates.

This is clearly not a suggestion for an apprenticeship for graduates, which isn't needed anyway because there are already salaried on-the-job training routes for graduates. An apprenticeship would be superfluous.

It would be better to fund the students ins Bed or pgce..

An apprenticeship would be superfluous.

But a good way for schools to spend their levy.

titchy

But a good way for schools to spend their levy

but only if the apprenticeship was worth while.

I read her position point as teachers no longer have to do their degree first before they enter the profession, they can do it alongside working in a school - which as I've said before could work really well at primary level for staff such as TAs. They'd still have to gain a degree before they got qts so Teaching would remain a graduate profession, just with another route, very similar to the existing routes, but funded through another mechanism that benefits both parties.

It leads to the same qualification that teachers get now so how wouldn't it be worthwhile?

It's not very similar to existing routes. Existing routes require you to have a degree before you enter the classroom.

That is entirely different to teaching and doing a degree on the side.

Is forcing budget starved schools, who are already having to cut staff to make ends meet, to pay 0.5% of their wage bill for not having an apprentice supposed to make the idea less ridiculous or more?

I'm sure it does work in businesses who can afford to pay their apprentices extra but I doubt it's going to lead to a high quality of staff in the public sector in general or teaching.It's basically only open to people who have no or very few living costs.

titchy

More work for qualified teachers. (mentoring, checking apprentices work, double marking books, ensuring (pushing) 18 year olds to learn the entire curriculum, teachers having to spend time learning and meeting the apprenticeships requirements)
Poor quality lessons.
more money from school budgets.
less money and time to be spent on the pupils.
Training the teachers to do this (You were thinking of at least training us?)
and real time less money for more work.

That is entirely different to teaching and doing a degree on the side.

Except as the standard hasn't even been written yet you don't know that - at least for secondary they probably will require a degree first.

All employers have to pay the levy if their salary bill is high enough. It's not a punishment for not having an apprentice. The levy is then available for school to use to pay for the qualification their staff need.

titchy so you're saying that Justine Greening is lying when she says teaching will no longer be a graduate entry profession?

It might not be designed as a punishment but surely you can see the issue when budgets are as squeezed as they are?

The option not to have an apprentice isn't there if you are going to have to pay for it anyway.

If the government want to do it this way they should fund it themselves from a budget that doesn't come from the school's own.

Great idea for Reception-Y2/3 but after that a bit more is required I think.
I cannot see how that would be the case ever for secondary. Here's hoping at least!

So a class of 30, 4 year olds is easier? Les and an 18 year old without teaching experience would be able to ensure all children make progress across all 17 aspects of learning? Have you ever spent a day in a room, leading learning for 30 4 year olds? Clearly not!

titchy - Plenty of primaries will be part of academy chains which will have a £3m salary bill.

What % of primaries are currently in an adademy chain?

Why wouldn't a Level 7 apprenticeship which requires apprentices to have a degree in a national curriculum subject work in a secondary school?

Would the person with this qualification be able to teach up to the standard of L9 Maths, English or a MFL etc.?

Nearly 1 in 5 primaries are in a MAT.

Terrible idea.

There is a route into primary teaching like an apprenticeship from college: a 3 year BEd degree with placements over that time and academic study.

OR
People get a degree and then choose any number of routes:

• pgce
• gtp / scitt
• assessment only
• teach first

Etc.

Children have no right to a qualified teacher and haven't for years.
Academies have been free to employ staff with only 5 gcses for years.

All that's happening here is the formalising of an agenda to deprofessionalise teaching that is well under way.

Maybe realising that this affects their chikdren we'll get a bit more backing from parents to challenge this.

I've taught out of specialism and it's tough as a degree level specialist and qualified teacher. How the hell a new teacher with no degree and limited pedagogical knowledge will be able to plan schemes of learning etc is beyond me. (But the cynic in my thinks that some friend of a minister probably has preplanned curricula that they can sell as a ready made colour by numbers approach to eb delivered unthinkingly for a hefty price)

Great idea for Reception-Y2/3 but after that a bit more is required I think.

As a KS1/KS2 teacher, I am appalled that anyone would think it's not 'ok' to have an unqualified apprentice in KS2 or higher, but that anything goes in EYFS or KS1!

Do people really think that any old fool can pitch up and teach a class of thirty-odd five year olds and ensure every one makes progress across the board?

You wouldn't want a degree-educated person in charge in there? One who knows about child development perhaps?

The Scandinavian education systems we so admire and envy make sure their early years teachers are extremely well qualified.

Depends on where noblegiraffe. In areas where there is still a very strong LA the numbers of primaries in a MAT are much less. In my large LA 87% of primaries are not in a MAT and remain as maintained schools. ( large LA with over 350 primary schools).

For information in a small primary the apprenticeship levy is just less than £1000.

This is just going back to the situation we had a few generations ago when teachers didn't usually go to university, and nor did many other people from ordinary backgrounds. Given that university is prohibitively expensive and state schooling (in my personal experience) is mostly low quality babysitting, this probably won't make too much difference. If you're bothered, home school.