Retraining as a teacher.

[WhiteCat1704]

I'm a qualified professional with years of experience in my industry. I have a job that pays well and, at the moment, is flexibile. Unfortunately my business is getting sold and there will be a round of voluntary redundancies. I'm considering taking it and training to be a chemistry teacher (worked as industrial chemist for several years and my diploma is over 50% chemistry).

The 26/28k tax free bursary makes retraining an attractive prospect.

I have a young child and if I stay in my industry and want to mantain my level of pay I will have to travel extensively. 10-15 weeks of travel within a year used to be my pre-child average.

I don't want to do that. My child will start school in couple of years and I want to be there. Prospect of long holidays at the same time as DC makes it very attractive too.

My question is..would you do it?
I would be looking at over 40% pay cut and that's really putting me off..On the other hand the salary would likely build up so it could be temporary..

I have read a range of opinions..some people say it's long hours and not a family friendly career but coming from a job where so much travel is required I find it hard to believe..

But, obviously, no one os going to die if they don't get a 'specialist' teacher...

Come on now - it's not 'very low pay' and the conditions, in the right school, aren't 'horrible' : demanding, yes, tough, yes.. Teaching requires a level of flexibility (and probably obedieince to higher orders) than many other jobs. This isn't about being sheep (although the profession can be a bit passive, despite what the DM suggests), this is about being public servants.
I agree.
But obviously as teachers (even teachers who have career changed and worked in other sectors), we mustn't get it and need out sector explaining to us by someone from industry because that's the real world.

OP
For the millionth time, a science teacher teaching science is nothing like a Music teacher teaching English or a PE teacher teaching geography or other such comparisons. Yes those situations can occur, no it's not ideal but primary staff teach to y6 without being a subject specialist in every subject so someone teaching a bit of y7/8 out of specialism is hardly the end of the world for a reasonably intelligent person and a qualified teacher.

A biology specialsit science teacher teaching chemistry is like a linguistics specialist English teacher teaching GCSE literature or a politics graduate teaching history to GCSE and politics at a level... a perfectly reasonable part of the job.

If you want to consider a career in teaching, science teachers teach all 3 sciences until a level where specialist courses kick in and then you get to do your specialism. If you don't want to do the job of teaching science then perhaps it's not for you.

I have noticed on quite a few threads recently MNsplaining.

*For the millionth time, a science teacher teaching science is nothing like a Music teacher teaching English or a PE teacher teaching geography or other such comparisons. Yes those situations can occur, no it's not ideal but primary staff teach to y6 without being a subject specialist in every subject so someone teaching a bit of y7/8 out of specialism is hardly the end of the world for a reasonably intelligent person and a qualified teacher.

A biology specialsit science teacher teaching chemistry is like a linguistics specialist English teacher teaching GCSE literature or a politics graduate teaching history to GCSE and politics at a level... a perfectly reasonable part of the job*

I disagree with that.
"Science" includes a lot of branches- mathematics, statistics, astronomy and computer science to name a few extra ones.

I would say your "linguistics specialist English teacher teaching GCSE literature" is like a zoologist teaching biology not a physicist teachig chemistry. Yes there is some overlap between biology, chemistry and physics at a very very basic level but children older then 11 should be thought more than a bare minimum..
Might be the reason why your current trainees lack "basic knowledge" actually..

What are your A Levels in OP?

Piggywaspushed
I agree.

See the reply from the OP where I've explained how being a specialist under an umbrella school subject happens in lots of subjects and is a reasonable part of the job. I've just had my own subject and link to the curriculum (incorrectly) explained to me.

I would say your "linguistics specialist English teacher teaching GCSE literature" is like a zoologist teaching biology not a physicist teachig chemistry. Yes there is some overlap between biology, chemistry and physics at a very very basic level but children older then 11 should be thought more than a bare minimum.
Except there isn't the link between linguistics and literature that there is between biology and zoology, so it is comparable to a physicist teaching chemistry.
Nowhere in a literature degree do you study articulatory phonetics or sociolinguistics because it's a different subject. They are grouped in the curriculum but they are separate specialisms. Obviously subjects outside of STEM couldn't possibly be distinct disciplines.

Children of secondary age don't get taught the minimum because they have teachers who understand that developing subject and curriculum knowledge is a reasonable part of the job. And to be frank, if someone with a science degree can't (or won't) brush up to GCSE standard in science (or any other subject with different disciplines) then I'm afraid they probably shouldn't be a teacher because they're either incompetent or arrogant.

(Obviously actually teaching out of specialism is a different issue)

The subject knowledge I speak of trainees lacking at times included:

1. basic GCSE knowledge (the sort of thing that anyone training to teach with a degree should know from their own school days) 2. Lack of preparation e.g they are told they will be teaching Of Mice and Men so need to read the text and find out about it before teaching (just like any other teacher who has to prepare teaching a new text or a new spec at gcse/a level)
2. The belief/misplaced arrogance that they don't have to improve their subject knowledge because they only want to teach X/Y/Z anyway and as a __ specialist it's unreasonable to expect them to improve their subject knowledge up to GCSE level in a relevant field

If they can't or won't develop their subject knowledge then that's a failure on one of the teacher standards and possibly two of the standards depending on their professional conduct towards it

So really, you only feel drawn to teaching your subject and enthusing about the real life application of it? So that’s a handful of students in a cohort of 150 who will study chemistry at A Level....you, as the qualified chemistry teacher, don’t need to try and teach a general science pathway to the kind of classes where students are literally struggling to put capital letters at the start of a sentence and who still use finger spaces to help them manage their writing? So if not you, which teacher should it be?

Let alone how well a non-subject specialist, forced to teach biology when they are actually a chemist, will cope with a class of hormomally-charged 14 year olds who don’t want to be doing any sort of science at all. And are prepared to make that point loudly and defiantly.

OP, I'm going to say it loud and clear.

You aren't going to cut it in a classroom, with your attitude.

You will have to teach other areas of science. You just will, unless you get into working in an independent school.

And slagging off teachers who DO THEIR JOB that you aren't prepared to stoop to just makes you look like an arrogant tosser.

Oh, and you'll also probably have to teach PHSE/life skills based stuff too. Sorry it's not chemistry, do you don't want to, but there it is.

You don't want to teach children. You want to pontificate and show lesser brings how clever you are.

The kids will sense your disdain...and eat you for breakfast. And you'll have pissed off your colleagues enough that they will let you sink with bottom set year 9.

Lesser beings. Not brings. Been a long day!

In the meantime should I ever have to cover Chemistry in the first week of term with the typical lesson plan left being an ECI (educational colouring in) lesson to make Safety in the lab posters....I am so playing this before we make them

[Edited by MNHQ at posters request]

Noooo! WRONG LINK SORRY ahem

Current Science subjects secondary vacancies on Tes, vast majority 'Teacher of Science'.
www.tes.com/jobs/browse?subjects=Science&locations=Europe%3AUnited%20Kingdom&workplaces=Secondary&currentpage=1

I think you're getting a bit of a bashing OP, you've already said you've decided it's not fot you and that's fair enough. But I don't think you know what Linguistics actually is if you think it is in any way linked to Literature. Maybe in the same way that as a non-scientist I don't appreciate how different Biology and Chemistry are.

I was a physics teacher. Knowledge of chemistry helped my physics teacher (structure of the atom anyone?). That is a topic covered in both Chem and phys gcse. It's basic stuff, really. It's really only a few of the 'triple science' topics that need more specialisation in order to better prepare pupils for what comes next in a level. Honestly, gcse is NOT rocket science.

I did work at one state school where I only taught physics (except at ks3 where it was science). It was a terrible school with only two of us physics teachers out of about 15 teachers.

I taught at indies for most of my teaching years and always had ks3 science. When I had to learn new science, it kept things interesting!! Ks3 is often more of an exploration (and I always enjoyed teaching it) - I viewed it as getting kids prepared for gcse, both with attitude and basic knowledge - some primary schools have amazing science and some kids come saying, 'what do you mean, science?' So ks3 should be a chance for those who haven't been exposed to science catch up.

I am a Head of Science and am in school from 7am - 4pm most days (4.30 one day a week).

I started off in industry and took a step down salarywise to get into teaching. I found the PGCE a lot easier than working for a blue chip, especially in things like time management, communication and conflict resolution (I had done all the course and accumulated many tee-shirts).

It has been an awesome career, however. I have prioritised family, so took a rather large career break. It was a doddle to get back into teaching.

It is so easy as a science teacher to set your own terms and conditions. I would never stay at a school where I was unhappy, or where I was treated poorly. There is no need - other schools are gagging for you.

As a new science teacher, you will need to be able to teach all three sciences to KS3, and two to KS4, at a minimum. It’s for your own good career-wise to do this for your PGCE and NQT years.

I love my job - go for it!

I am a teacher with a 3 year and and trying for a second. I am currently looking at changing careers as well to have more time with my son. I went into teaching because I love kids and I thought I would have more time with my family but the reality is you can literally never stop working and kids and their parents are worse then ever before. The "time off" is an illusion people use to get teachers into teaching. The truth is I spend my summers "off" preparing for the following year. Even though I spent most of my summer preparing for my school year, I am still swamped and putting in 10-15 more hours a week. It would be much much more if I were single with no kid.

If you chose to go into teaching know that you will not have that much more QUALITY time with your family then you have with your current travalling gig.

Good luck.

WhiteCat1704 did you take the plunge? I’m looking at applying to start a PGCE in September.

Unemployed Airline Captain with an Engineering Degree.

Under no illusions as dsis is HOD in secondary science, she specialises in Biology, where as I will be Physics, need to seriously brush up my subject knowledge as its over 25 years since I was at school.