Rejected for PGCE

[Needadoughnut]

I just got rejected. It didn't even take them 20mins to say no. The feedback implies that I'm almost need to be a "semi" teacher to be successful next time. I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on my part as I would have thought that was the point of the degree.

The thing is, no-one here can say whether

1. the SCITT provider was being completely unreasonable
2. you were just unlucky and they had slightly 'better' (more experienced or whatever) candidate(s) who got the place(s) but you are really capable of doing the job and would have got it another time or with another school with different priorities
3. you had a significant gap that means you're not ready yet
4. you're just not cut out for teaching at all (some people aren't IMO)

You could try asking for more specific feedback, "what would you recommend I prepare for my next teaching interview?" if they reply, you might get something a bit more concrete than just 'rapport'

I will say that like PPs, your tone on here comes across quite indignant that they didn't jump on you as a candidate because you're trilingual and MFL teachers are a target group for recruitment, which makes me wonder if you'd be suited a secondary classroom, or if this is a back up option that you're not really passionate about.

However that's just an impression from a few lines of text so I'm offering it as a suggestion- feel free to disregard

It sounds like you’re starting to reflect and identify areas where you could have known more. It sounds like you have been quite badly advised by those who were supposed to support you but you now know a bit more about what is looked for in these interviews. I agree they are very different to most corporate ones. Please don’t give up on being a teacher if it’s what you want to do but take a bit of time to read around current issues. It has changed so much since I did my PGCE 20 years ago, then you didn’t need much experience and it really was just based on subject knowledge but I think getting you to prove a bit more before you go in is probably ultimately beneficial to both sides. You are more likely to stay and be successful if you have really considered what you’re letting yourself in for. Best of luck!

I think, having read through the thread OP, that your interviewers expected you to 'eat a little more humble pie' and just be 'oh so ever so grateful' for them deigning to interview you in the first place.

Need, why should the course provider have told you to prepare for it better. Especially if you come from a corporate background you must be used to being a self starter and so it should be self evident that for any job interview you need to do a considerable amount of research.

I'm inclined to agree with Rosieposy4 if I'm honest.
If I were interviewing, and the candidate hadn't taken the initiative to do some research about the role, and the expectations, then that wouldn't go down that well with me. It gives the impression of someone applying on a whim, not someone who really, really wants it. If I were committing to spending a year putting a lot of work into training and supporting someone, then I'd want someone who really wanted it, not someone who thought they had the skills to walk in and just be given it. It is a hard year - it needs dedication.

Was it a salaried Scitt? Those are often more competitive.

I'm surprised at the 3 days work experience. When I did my SCITT we needed 3 weeks of work experience I think? And everyone who made it on to the course had a lot more than that. We had to be involved in a lesson (not teach it completely) and have an interview with 3 teachers / lecturers on the panel. If you didn't have a good rapport with them then I'm not surprised you wouldn't get through because they would have to spend a lot of time lecturing / tutoring you.

No it wasn't a salaried SCITT. The humble pie situation I get it too. Of what I've know (from a Facebook group dedicated to getting people into teaching) some of them do get a lot more "this is what to expect and how to prepare for interview'. I know I should have prepared more, especially considering my curriculum/system was fairly different when I went to secondary school. I was also very candid, about why now... There's a bursary without it I wouldn't be able to afford it. I think they didn't like that either. So in a nutshell, I was open about the bursary, corrected them.about geography, and questioned the Eurocentric teaching of Spanish. None of that went well.

You sound very skilled and obviously knowledge is at the core of good teaching. My first instinct was to think you rubbed them up the wrong way by being slightly arrogant. I remember my pgce and part of the process seems to be having the ability to accept criticism for something you haven’t learned to do yet and it’s incredibly difficult. You generally can’t argue your corner and it is the same with ofsted when qualified.
However it does bring to light an element of teaching that is massive and thats behaviour management. You could be an oxford professor and trilingual and still not manage to get teenagers to benefit from you knowledge. It can be soul destroying. I would look at putting your skill set into a better paid job to be honest, where you interact with adults, because to tone of your posts makes me think you’d get very frustrated by teenagers.

Quite possibly. The ones I saw in my three days were fairly well behaved. If anything I would have given more time to the special needs boy, but his teacher seemed completely dismiss him. They also thought that I studied languages outside of school was odd and couldn't understand how I got to a trilingual level. I do think I rubbed them the wrong way and just because of that, it was probably for the best that I got rejected. It would have been misery for me.

“Special needs boy”? Please don’t refer to children like that.

I'm just calling him the way they called him. I'd rather use "on the spectrum" to be fair.

questioned the Eurocentric teaching of Spanish

How did this come about?

Second question-
What do you mean by trilingual? Just a question. I’m a languages teacher with two extra languages but would never describe myself in that term. Trilingual says to me learnt from childhood. (This has nothing to do with your thread, I’m just intrigued)

I went to a bilingual school (thus the French). My mum is Latin American and always spoke to me in Spanish. She was a secondary school teacher so always made the point of teaching me like if I was one of her students. When I was living in France I could swap between the three no problem. Because I don't use french daily apart from reading the news and the odd film it's the one that has become rusty in spoken form.

Thanks for replying.

Do you think there’s another provider you would want to do teacher training with at some point? We do need MFL teachers.

Loads of teachers will teach Spanish and French. I’d drop the “trilingual” label. It sounds a bit wanky.

Unfortunately they're the only provider within a commutable distance that offer both languages. The rest are one or the other with German. I know some people do that and just enroll in a SKE but it puzzles me why would I teach a language that I've only been exposed to for no more than 50hrs (the length of the course).

You wouldn’t had to teach German afterwards. QTS is not subject specific. You’d look for a job teaching French and/or Spanish instead.

Thanks Purple for both points. I never saw that as wanky, just a statement of facts that would be beneficial for teaching, but obviously not! I'll look at the other two options and see what they say.

No problem! If you really want to do it, there are ways around it. I had to train in mainstream primary before specialising. Lots of teachers end up teaching outside their area of expertise these days.

Good luck

I asked about the "Eurocentric teaching of Spanish" when they asked me if I had any questions. I said that I understood for the most part we're teaching them to pass a GCSE but I wondered how much freedom I had to expose students to how the majority of Spanish speakers in the world more or less speak. I know there's no standard Spanish, but if there was to be one it would go beyond Spain.

I think that’s a question best kept for teachers when you’re on work experience or on a forum...

if I were interviewing that would show me you hadn’t understood the curriculum or how Spanish was taught in schools.

I did a school based teacher training course 16 or so years ago and they definitely wanted a cheap teacher - I had my own classes (reduced timetable though, but sole responsibility for 4 core subject KS3 and one bottom set KS4 classes) and tutor group from day one and no input at all for the first two weeks. I had 2 years full time experience teaching EFL in classroom settings.

Perhaps that's what they wanted.

Thanks again Purple I think curiosity killed the cat in this stance ha!

I think that question implies that you don’t think that the teachers in the school already do that. Also the phrase ‘ for the most part we're teaching them to pass a GCSE ’- I know we ARE teaching them to pass a GCSE but as an MFL teacher when interviewing I would want to hear that you understood that we all want them to learn a language for all sorts of reasons and not just to pass GCSE. It sounds like you’re minimising what the school is trying to do in MFL and I’m sure that’s not what you meant.