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.

Now you see , this is where I very well may be wrong. I think the analytical skills required for an English degree could pretty much get you where you could be with a History degree ( if you had a mind to) - and an assumption that it leads to teaching I think is false.

It's my opinion that if you are in receipt of a bursary, then you should work in a state school for a minimum number of years. In reality I don't know how that would work if you couldn't find a job! But when I trained, we got bursaries and in my subject (mfl) the majority of trainees had been recruited from a partner university abroad. They were encouraged to take a year out of their MA degrees and spend a year teacher training, which would give them MA credits and they would get a bursary. The vast majority of these students came and trained with us and then returned to their university and did not become teachers in the UK (although a small cohort of them loved it enough to stay!). Similarly, a number of the UK based trainees never taught in the UK, or taught here very briefly, and instead went abroad to teach. So what was the purpose of everyone getting 15k? How did that help education? Just throwing money at a situation is not solving the teacher crisis.
Also, as I said before, I got a bursary and now 6 years later my subject is barely taught here. So that was a waste of time! Wish I had trained in a core subject.

Came across this this morning:

schoolsweek.co.uk/public-accounts-committee-report-on-teacher-supply-the-7-recommendations/

Headline comment :

the department “does not understand why more teachers are leaving the profession, and does not have a coherent plan to tackle teacher retention and development”.

This from the Public Accounts Committee!

I agree Rowena although others might argue that it delays a problem rather than solves it. Let's say you 'had to stay' for 5 years. Unless, in that time, teaching proved to be a great and fulfilling career and/or rapid promotion was secured then staff will leave then. This is what has been found with TeachFirst. I think hollow promises are often made to these excellent and ambitious graduates about career progression (see the ads!) and again this suggests the wrong motivations for going into teaching are being pitched at graduates.

And, as the article I have pasted above, points out the DfE has no coherent plans about retention and workload. CPD (found to increase job satisfaction when of a high quality) will be the new thing going forward but how this marries with funding cuts is anyone's guess!

It marries perfectly well with a good and creative and forward thinking SLT Piggy and it's the SLTs who are the main drivers - and indeed should have the main responsibility - for retention and workload. That's not in the remit of the DfE.

Individual SLTs should have responsibility for the national issues facing schools in recruitment and retention? Retention possibly to an extent - but recruitment?

Goodness.

I think you will find it is squarely within the remit of Nick Gibb!

And that the report from a bona fide group above and a cross party group in parliament - also released yesterday - does not agree with you.

I misread you and saw you only mentioned retention. But still, the report also lays blame at the DfE for not having a coherent strategy as regards workload. .

Individual SLTs will not change much while there is still no pressure from the DfE to face up to things and change. That is what has really changed over my years of teaching. The how high would you like us to jump? culture is endemic.

and I think you will find that people like me - who want to change things for the better - are viewed (in schools) as moaners or somehow disruptive and don't get promoted....

Yes, some of this is SLT but a lot of it is external factors which affect their 'safety first' attitudes.

You sound underwhelmed by your own SLT Piggy. Perhaps that's where the problem chiefly lies? It doesn't sound great, on the other hand I suppose the reaction might well depend on how you moan - how frequently, about what, and with what constructive suggestions.

'Safety first' is a terrible plan! But perhaps I'm in a minority.

God, that report is pretty damning, isn't it Piggy? I mean, how long has retention been a problem and they don't know why teachers are leaving? They could just pop over to the MN Staffroom section and find out! We had that long thread full of ideas for improving retention too...

What have they done to make SLT reduce workload? They added that question to the Ofsted teacher questionnaire. But then you weren't even asked to fill it in. Useless. Oh, and they produced a poster.

What have they done in the meantime to increase workload? Overhauling the entire curriculum and exam structure at the same time, getting rid of levels and demanding that schools come up with their own systems, endless tinkering with school league table measures, school funding cuts (no good telling us to use textbook when we can't afford them), redundancies so higher workload for remaining teachers, increased class sizes....SLT's fault, my arse.

Should add, this has all been done to the backdrop of year-on-year pay cuts, performance-related pay (so stunted pay progression) and being told we're workshy whiners in the national press.

This is Gove's legacy.

yes, my SLT have their foibles - but they are also better than some in that they don't impose facile marking policies on us or treat us like In understand some colleague sin the primary sector are treated. My SLT are by no means the worst.

The last time anyone beyond SLTs really cared publicly about teachers was when the Teacher's Workload Agreement was introduced. That has been undergoing a process of erosion ever since, to the extent that you really are barely allowed to utter the words!

Perhaps I need lessons on how to moan constructively.

On the calibre of English graduates - historically teaching was popular, yes, but that doesn't mean it was (or is) one of the few options for an English graduate. The English graduates I knew who went into teaching did it because they loved the subject. Some of them probably liked kids...
I worked in business journalism for years alongside loads of other English graduates. There was the occasional one who couldn't do percentages, I admit, but they had to learn pretty fast or leave! English graduates are sought after. I teach now, and enjoy it, but if I had just graduated the £15k bursary would be too low for me to train in London and I'd be pretty annoyed that the classics graduate got £26k for what would be a less challenging teaching role - Latin is offered to brighter students. Everyone has to do English! Most do two GCSEs in it. (Whether they want to or not!) So, while I totally understand it's not a big amount and I completely agree Classics is a great subject, I fear we won't attract high calibre graduates to teach English if there's an assumption there'll always be loads of them wanting to teach.

This is what I guess I was trying to say. It is a bit demeaning to suggest that somehow a classics graduate is superior to an English one , when so many of the skills are essentially the same (with possibly a wider knowledge base and more up to date literary exploration for the English grads : I also have Anglo Saxon and German literature in my degree!)

English graduates can really do anything, and they do : law, journalism, publishing, advertising, writing academia and teaching were the most common ones when I graduated.

I went into teaching because I wanted to : there were no inducements offered then.

The two classicists I trained into went into teaching because they had classics degrees and it seemed a natural progression. They both also said they chose classics , rather than history, because they wanted to teach in private schools, having been to those schools themselves. The university did send them on placements to state grammar schools. One of the students left the course (didn't turn out to be Utopia after all!)

I know classics is great : but I do think your typical* classics graduate might have a rather narrow experience of and view of education : and I really don't think the bursaries are intended to exist to prop up any teaching shortages in the non state sector. or even the grammar school sector as the stated aim to raise achievement for all children.

• note, not true of all.

Piggy I've just posted a thread about that shortage report because I didn't want the news to be lost in a thread about Classics teachers
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/3155364-Government-slammed-for-sluggish-and-incoherent-response-to-teacher-shortage-crisis
Thanks for the heads-up :)

My pleasure.

If Classics suits a political agenda then money for Classics will be found

Interesting - these London based politicians:

Michael Gove, Tony Blair, Emily Thornberry, Jeremy Corbyn, Lord Adonis and even Ed Balls/Yvette Cooper send/sent one or more dc to the following state schools (in no particular order):

Holland Park School, The Grey Coat Hospital, Stoke Newington School, Dame Alice Owen's, The London Oratory, Queen Elizabeth's Barnet - 6 state schools and no prizes for guessing which subject they all offer to at least GCSE. A 7th school also used by one Politician mentioned above only offers Latin as an after-school club.

Sam Freedman, the often quoted director of Teach First says we don't need grammar schools if we follow the model of schools such as Mossbourne (A level Latin), Ark Burlington Danes (GCSE Latin), various Harris Academies (Latin and Classics School Direct Programme) and King Solomon Academy (set up a Latin club last year).

Very interesting indeed.

Piggy how interesting is it exactly in the context of 'money always being found if it suits a political agenda'? As in: how many years since Labour was in power and how many of those politicians are Tory? You say very interesting indeed but can you explain what aspect you find so interesting?

Eh?
I find the metropolitan bias angle interesting. The huge swathe of underachievement ta the moment is in coastal towns. All these schools offering classics in London sets an agenda that is not relevant- or even helpful- to the rest of the country.

What clavinova posted was just interesting!! I haven't once mentioned a political party!

Perhaps I should have written very interesting, indeed

The political agenda comment wasn't mine, in case you think it was...

Ah I see. It's just that Clavinova linked it to the political agenda comment and so I assumed you'd found some synthesis that I'd missed, with only one politician being part of the current government. It wasn't clear that you were off on a frolic of your own.

Yes, I live in a coastal area. Not much Latin hereabouts sadly, not even at our grammar.

Clavinova, there does appear to be more schools in London offering Classis than other areas of the country:

www.arlt.co.uk/counties.html

However, in fully selective areas like Bucks & Kent there don't appear to be any vacancies for Classic teachers.

jobs.buckscc.gov.uk/job-search/
www.kent-teach.com/Recruitment/Vacancy/SearchResults.aspx?VacancyType=Teaching&Phase=Secondary

In fact, even in London there only appears to be a small number of Classics jobs currently available. I am a little curious as to where this massive shortage of Classics teachers is, geographically speaking.

MumTryingHerBest the idea is to re-introduce Classics in more schools than offer it now, obviously.