Should the DfE be offering £26k bursaries to train as a Classics teacher?

[noblegiraffe]

Given the recruitment and retention crisis and the school funding crisis, is it really the best use of funds to be paying £26k for teachers to train in Classics (and then presumably sod straight off to the private sector)?

Although I doubt they're expecting many takers, it does seem to display completely messed up priorities.

I'm half wondering if Toby Young has said he needs more Latin teachers for his WLFS and the DfE has, as ever, pandered to his whims.

Nothing to spoil and certainly nothing I'd recognize as sport :)

The DfE don't pluck stuff out of thin air.

The total payout for Classics will be tiny compared to the payout for Maths. It's really quite surprising (or is it?) that that isn't recognised in the OP.

It's incredibly narrow minded just to promote STEM.

Or even just STEM and English.

In the OP I said Although I doubt they're expecting many takers which recognises that they’re not expecting to pay that much out.

The DfE don’t pluck stuff out of thin air

I watched Nick Gibb give a speech the day after Theresa May unexpectedly announced the return of grammar schools. Political agendas overrule evidence-based policy-making (Nick Gibb’s speech was about evidence-based policy-making; the questions at the end where he had to then defend grammars were pretty funny). If Classics suits a political agenda then money for Classics will be found. Classics was not funded by Labour.

No problem with the funding for music, languages, geography, history, English. This isn’t a STEM thing.

Classics was not funded by Labour

Indeed, when Ed Balls was Education Secretary he said 'dance' was a more useful subject than Latin! Doesn't seem to have done Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Martin or J.K.Rowling any harm though - all of whom studied Latin at college or uni.

Since the model will be based on the bursary being sufficient, hopefully, to attract the number of Classics trainees the DFE reckons it wants, and you concede that that won't be a large number and that the payout therefore won't be large, I'm struggling to see your problem.

You're welcome to explain your objection to a modest amount going to Classics!

Yes I agree that money is found when the politicians want it to be.

It is hard to accept that there is no money for basics when money can always be found for what are clearly pet projects.

And a modest total in comparison to English still doesn’t justify the individual amount being so high.

Yes it does completely justify it, by definition. If the bursary works to attract the target number of Classics trainees it justifies the amount because it will be pitched at the minimum level thought to attract Classics graduates away from other jobs.

There are a significant number of English graduates floating around after graduation these days trying to find their way into a job but far fewer Classics graduates and those that there are (presumably because of the rigorous nature of a Classics degree) tend to go for fairly competitive/ lucrative jobs. Not sure how Classics can be written off as a 'pet project'!!!! Try saying that to a decent Classicist and I'm not sure you'd survive the first round :)

Noble - I do think the point about the total amount rather than the headline number for what I assume is a relatively small number of Classics teachers is relevant. If I am honest I think the geography number looks too high, but , then I do not know. Call me naive ( cue " Basilisk - you are very naive " ) but where it is possible then e.g. Latin is a sensible subject to teach IMHO. Not always and not at the expense of some others , but not silly. It reinforces some disciplines.

But the money isn't allocated based on total amount. They haven't said maths gets X amount, English also get X amount, we need more English teachers so individual English teachers get less. They've decided the headline figure based on priority and then allocated the money. And they decided that Classics teachers have the same priority as science and greater priority than English - a subject which can't be dropped if there isn't anyone to teach it because it's compulsory! We need way more maths and English teachers than Classics teachers so of course their total will be higher. We need fewer music teachers but you don't see them getting a correspondingly fatter sum because it would cost less overall.

You can say 'oh the total amount isn't much anyway, drop in the ocean' but this is a DfE that doesn't have money for schools, for teachers, for anything, yet it has prioritised a large headline figure for a niche subject taught mainly in private schools with no guarantee that the teachers will actually stick around. 25 Classics jobs listed in the TES ATM and only 2 of them are state.

And talking about niche subjects that would be good for the economy and that schools would probably like to offer - no bursary for mandarin teachers at all despite a severe shortage (just been recommended to be added to the government occupation shortage list which allows recruitment from outside the EEA). Checked the TES - more adverts for Mandarin teachers in state schools than Classics. Go figure.

Although I suppose Mandarin comes under MFL now I think of it? The website mentions French, German and Spanish but then is vague about others - is there a bursary for Biblical Hebrew?

Bit more digging, Mandarin counts for MFL, but thankfully Biblical Hebrew doesn't.

Ok thanks - I am one who would vote for more good English teachers. Mandarin ? , DS did it , not sure how much it has ever helped him , I think if you want to do e.g. classics , mandarin , universities ( if that is your aspiration) can test as to languages which do not use the same alphabet. Yes I think Mandarin would count as MFL but the amount you can learn at GCSE , well , I am not a teacher , so I best bite my tongue. Nothing like you can learn with French or German , but yes , possibly trendy. I suppose my point with latin etc is that is teaches skills rather than something you might need in later life. But I would agree with you , were it a choice between a good english teacher and a latin one , I would choose the english teacher every time. Partly because it is a basic skill ( both language and literature and partly because I ( many moons ago ) took a degree in English ( so I expose my bias for the avoidance of doubt)

I do think that Latin teaches a certain logicality - and would sit happily with Maths etc - and it is not necessary but I think it helps. Lets be honest - I shouldn't think anyone ever has wasted a life because they haven't done Latin GCSE but it is a discipline which can help. Prepared to be shot down in flames.

So Noble does that chart imply that English and History teachers are easier to recruit ? Or do we have enough of them ?

Of course the bursaries are calculated with an estimate of the likely total amount! There's some very curious logic flying around here noble. Did you ever study Classics yourself?

Grrrr cross post Basilisk :)

I did .

History teachers are in plentiful supply, English slightly less so.

Piggy you're not noble (well you might be noble obviously I've no idea but you aren't she-noble).

No indeed but I agree with her viewpoint and yet I have classics in my educational background.

English teachers are in anything but plentiful supplyespecially good ones

And the estimated total cost would be lower for Classics with a lower headline figure. That's not hard to understand, is it? That the total wasn't allocated then divided by the number of potential teachers to come up with £26k.

The issue with the chart and whether a subject is easy to recruit for is that it is based on national figures. There may be a surplus of English teachers in London (for example) but that won't help heads recruiting in the North, because the London teachers aren't likely to move (they tried to get them to with the National Challenge which was a total failure).

Piggy good teachers are hard to come by full stop and particularly in certain subject s and that's exacerbated in certain geographical areas. That's not breaking news.

Also, are you agreeing with noble's viewpoint as to how the calculations are made ie that no-one at the DfE has estimated a bottom line? That's just not how it works.

I just saw another of those teacher recruiting adverts (the one with the French teacher going 'oui, oui, ah non' at the kids holding up whiteboards like he'd be able to read their tiny writing from the front of the class) and it strikes me what a complete waste of money it is for these adverts to be promoted on Facebook.
Whenever I've seen a teaching advert on social media, it has been accompanied by a million comments talking about how awful the advert is, how they quit teaching due to workload/behaviour, why anyone would choose a job where they've been given a real terms pay cut for the last 7 years etc. The DfE is paying for their advert to be given a laugh track and a sad trombone.

Cross post again this time with noble.

Of course it isn't hard to understand that a lower bursary would produce a lower bottom line in fact it would probably produce a nil cost bottom line because no Classics graduate would think it worth their while and they'd shoot off to be a fat cat at the Bar instead.

The bursary pitched at the amount the DfE reckons is required to recruit Classics graduates. The DfE might have their calculations wrong we won't know for a while but that's the logic behind the sum settled on.

They have spent huge amounts on these ads. Huuuuuge.

I think the point is that they did calculations goodbye but you yourself said they have also attached a premium to classics because they think otherwise those graduates will toddle off to these jobs that apparently classicists can secure that are attractive and/or lucrative (and English graduates can't).

I think there is a very worrying complacency about recruiting English : lots of people assume English graduates have a view to teaching when they set out on their degrees and that there are so many of us we end up maybe 'falling into ' teaching. Things are changing - there are so many jobs out there now in the creative and media industries, for example- and even the DfE had to adjust its figures for English, admitting they got their estimates wrong.

I am confused by them having a bursary of anything that appears to lead to a pay cut later down the line... but I am sure they think classicists will also be able to demand higher starting salaries?

I just think you and Noble are East is East and West is West.

Surely £26k isn't enough to prevent a person who just did their degree for a high salary shooting off to be a fat cat at the bar??

Schemes like Teach First and Fast track schemes were meat to address this ,too. But lots of them didn't and don't stick it out.

People need to want to teach. That's the key.

The figure is decided by priority and shortage. English has gone up from £4000 in 2015 for a 2:1 to £15,000 and it's not because competing salaries for English graduates have become 4 times higher.