Forum Topic

Sara,Although I am very keen on encouraging talented graduates into teaching, I am sceptical of both the methods used and effectiveness of Teach First.  They do recruit graduates with academic backgrounds.  However, according to their website, they also take people qualified in DT, Citizenship, Business Studies and ICT which are not particularly academic disciplines.  It is not the largest employer of Oxford graduates according to Oxford University website: (http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/why_oxford/graduate_destinations/index.html).  Although teaching is a popular graduate destination I would have thought the numbers recruited onto the Teach First scheme are far less than the number of students that went onto PGCE courses, including those run by Oxbridge and Russel Group Universities. I am glad that Teach First graduates get support, mentoring and CPD throughout their two years.  However, PGCE and GTP students also get lots of CPD, INSET, mentoring and support.  This carries on into their NQT year and beyond.  There is also a National College for School Leadership which provides leadership training and support for senior managers, middle managers and aspirant managers. I am not sure what makes the Teach First different or better.  I just spoke to a colleague who works as a supply teacher.  He told me that he gets a lot of work from schools and academies with Teach First graduates.  He is paid to cover their lessons (often exam groups in core subjects) whilst they ‘swan off’ (his words) to attend another course.I do not think that a 50% drop out rate is successful from the schools’ point of view.  For them it sounds like an utter failure.  It seems to me that a huge amount of resources are wasted on a very short-term return.  I completed my PGCE course in 2001, of the 11 people on the course 10 are still in teaching.  Of the six people I did my NQT year, with 5 are still practicing teachers.  I also think that after two years graduates, even exceptional ones, do not have the experience or maturity necessary to take up a middle management position, particularly in the challenging inner-city school environments that Teach First places them.I think this scheme is a neat way both of reducing the figures for graduate unemployment and of masking the problems of recruitment and retention in inner-city schools.  I notice most of the data on the Teach First website about the success of the scheme is anecdotal.  I would be interested to see if there are any quantitative figures published. I think the money would be far better spent on funding existing routes into the profession and expanding current provision for CPD rather than recruiting unqualified teachers and promoting inexperienced ones.  If your daughter is serious about joining the teaching profession I would strongly recommend she gets herself onto one of the excellent PGCE courses being run up and down the country.  We desperately need talented, hardworking graduates who are passionate about their subject to join the profession as a career not as a stop gap for a few terms.

Andy Magee ● 5798d

Sara,I understand what you are saying but I still think there are fundamental weaknesses with this scheme.  There are lots of schemes already in place where graduates can use their energy, motivation and skills to help schools and contribute to society:  mentoring / role modelling, volunteering for learning support work, providing work experience, giving careers / university talks or contributing to enterprise or citizenship education.  There are also overseas schemes such as VSO.  Surely involvement with any of these would provide a young graduate with a good insight into how people live and are educated.  If somebody then felt they had something to contribute to the profession they could enter it in a properly supported and structured way.I don’t like the sink or swim philosophy.  It is not fair on teachers or pupils.  All new entrants to the profession are going to make lots of mistakes at the beginning.  These mistakes should be made in a controlled environment as part of a training course.  A 21 year old with six weeks training should not have sole responsibility for a class. You seem to imply that the enthusiasm, passion and expertise are all going one way.  When I started teaching I received excellent mentoring, advice and support.  In return I have provided mentoring, support and training for new entrants to the profession and PGCE students.  Most of the mentoring is unpaid or underpaid.  We do it because we see it as giving something back to the profession and because we want to help to develop the next generation of teachers.  It also helps to make a department and a staff better.  It seems stupid to me to have a system that involves investing heavily in new members of staff for two years and then, just as they start to develop and gain experience, to lose 50% of them.  I also don’t want to give up my time to help somebody stand a better chance of becoming a hedge fund manager.  I really wish I new what the answer was.  I don’t.  However, I think that initiatives like Teach First and the WLFS and the spin they are given by the government and elements of the media are a distraction and not a solution.

Andy Magee ● 5796d

15 November 2010 Last updated at 01:55 Top graduate teacher scheme 'boosts results'By Hannah Richardson BBC News education reporter Teach First teachers tend to work in tough inner city schools Continue reading the main story Related storiesSchool cash worth two extra GCSEsTories back 'Teach First' schemeSchools that employ high-flying graduate teachers through a government-backed educational charity see improved exam results, research has suggested.A study showed schools with Teach First teachers had seen pupils boost their grades by an average of a third of a GCSE in every subject they study.Researchers also found new Teach First teachers were at least as good as their more experienced colleagues.The scheme is funded by schools, sponsors and the government.The findings are particularly interesting because the Teach First scheme is one of the few projects into which the coalition government has invested more since coming into office.Improvements Teach First trains graduates who obtain a 2:1 or higher at degree level - who may not normally consider a career in teaching - and places them in schools in deprived areas.Ministers have mooted plans to require all teachers to have a 2:2 at degree level.Researchers from Manchester University were commissioned by the charity to look at how well the programme was doing and how it could be improved.They analysed data and conducted interviews in 87 Teach First schools and 87 comparable secondary schools, and with 848 teachers across England.They found a significant correlation between participation in Teach First and improved pupil achievement, one to two years after the teachers start at the school.Researchers used a complicated points system to measure this and concluded the average improvement equated to a third of a GCSE per pupil per subject. They added that the more Teach First teachers in a school, the greater the improvements.'Dedicated leaders' But the impact of the programme is limited by the relatively small number of teachers the charity recruits and trains.Since 2003 there have been more than 2,000 Teach First teachers placed in schools in challenging circumstances.Click to playClick to playTeach First graduate Charlotte Fox says the scheme is a 'good service'This compares to the 37,000 that England's official recruitment body, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA), recruits into teacher training each year.However, the charity is hoping to expand from the 552 teachers it recruited this year to 1,140 per year by 2013.Teach First chief executive Brett Wigdortz said he commissioned the research to discover what his charity was doing well and how it could improve."We are committed to continually improving our programme to ensure our teachers are equipped to transform the life chances of pupils affected by educational disadvantage. "Teach First's belief is that with a dedicated and focused classroom leader, all pupils can realise academic success."Schools minister Nick Gibb said Teach First did an excellent job bringing academic highfliers with real leadership potential into teaching and that he was committed to expanding it."It is teachers and heads who are the most important people in driving school improvement and, as this research shows, Teach First teachers are producing impressive results."A TDA spokesman said it shared the same aims as the charity, adding: "Getting the best quality teachers into the classroom is what matters most, and 92% of those people who started training in 2008/09 had a 2:2 or better UK degree."

Sara Nathan ● 5786d

Sara,Interesting article:‘Researchers used a complicated points system to measure this and concluded the average improvement equated to a third of a GCSE per pupil per subject.’I think in most GCSEs you need a uniform mark of about 45% to get a Grade C and roughly 78% to get an A*.  If I have read the article properly this would mean that after one to two years of having a Teach First teacher a pupil might get an extra 3% in their final result.  Technically, I suppose this is a boost.  Could you not equally argue that after two years an exceptional and highly motivated graduate is only getting slightly better results than the non-subject specialist,  long-term supply that they have replaced.‘Ministers have mooted plans to require all teachers to have a 2:2 at degree level.’I do remember training with somebody who had a 3rd from Middlesex University.  At the time I quite snobbishly thought I would not like him teaching my children.  He is now an excellent Head of Department who consistently gets excellent results.  Thousand of pupils would have suffered had he not been admitted to an initial teacher training course and I would be over the moon to have a teacher of his calibre in my child’s school.  Academic intelligence is not the only requirement for a good teacher.Similarly, I would assume that you have to be more academic to get a 3rd Class degree from Oxford in Natural Sciences than you would have to be to get a 2:2 from the University of Paisley in Sports Science.  What about people who do not do as well because they have disadvantaged circumstances and have had to work or provide child care or caring during their degree? There is a lot of interesting educational research about the contextualisation of results. I think this is spin.I should point out to Mr Phil Taylor that I am speaking in a private capacity, not as a MillarTool©.  I would further clarify, lest others are confused, that I am an Acton resident, a qualified teacher and a member of a teaching trade union. 

Andy Magee ● 5785d

Without getting involved in the detail of the debate about the West London Free School, I had to laugh at the remark made earlier by one of the Tory Councillors for Northield. He insults another forum member because he's a trade unionist and attacks the wife of Alistair Campbell as an "extremist" simply because she wants equality in education.The term "extremist" most certainly applies to a lot of the people in Phil Taylor's own party. One of my former Tory acquaintances (a member of "Conservative Future") made a joke about the Pakistani bloke who was allegedly beaten up by two former Leeds United football stars. He and other young Tories I've met continue to regard the great world stateman Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist" (simply because he wanted the right to vote) and hate the late Sir Edward Heath because he (rightly) sacked the odious Enoch Powell.Some years ago, Tory party members ran a campaign of threats and intimidation against the building of a mosque in Northolt. Mandeville's then Tory councillors joined an anti-mosque demo which included far right activists carrying NF placards. In the 1990s, one Tory member used his chairmanship of the local residents association to edit and distribute inflammatory material about the projected mosque, and in 2002 the Tories stood him as a candidate in a neighbouring ward. According to his inlaws, he was an admirer of Adolf Hitler - and I believe his Tory Party colleagues knew that when they selected him.So don't talk to us about extremists, Mr Taylor. Your party is full of them. Still the "nasty party".

Robin Taylor ● 5784d

Interesting opinions Vlad.  Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good posting!  Please let me address the issues you raise:Personalising the argumentThis discussion started on the 30th of October.  Between then and the 15th of November I posted several times.  I don’t think I personalised the argument at any time other than to include a couple of anecdotal observations and opinions.  After 16 days of discussion, your erstwhile colleague, Phil Taylor got involved in the discussion.  He accused me of having some sort of hidden agenda and questioned my right to post on this forum.  This is when the discussion got personal!  After that I made some personal comments, (as did you).  These included accusing you of having a lickspittle attitude.  Perhaps it was just a coincidence that two ‘snarling Govist/Tobyite attack dogs’ chose to independently comment in a deconstructive way on a discussion that had been running for 15 days within 31 minutes of each other.  I also thought from your self-deprecating reply that you took the accusation in the tongue-in-cheek style in which it was intended.  However, if this comment caused you any offence I apologise.    The ‘love the rants’ comment was in reply to the previous poster that had intoned us to love our neighbours.  It was not addressed to you.  I am sure I have many faults but I very much hope that self-pity is not one of them.Misquoting Rachel Wolf and the New Schools Network about teachers having QTS.I think the more serious accusation was regarding my misquoting of Ms Wolf.  I have listened to the article again and I think she clearly claims that unqualified teachers will be allowed to work in free schools (2 minutes and 25 seconds into the interview).  The gist meaning of what she says throughout about QTS is virtually identical to my original post.  However, in order to ensure that I am not misrepresenting Ms Wolf I sent an email to the Free Schools Network asking what their position is on employing unqualified teachers in Free Schools.  They replied that there was no requirement in relation to QTS for teachers’ in free schools.  Does this back up my argument sufficiently? If not what else would you like, if so can we please return to debating the policy of free schools?I think that there are a number of serious flaws in the free school policy and the recruitment and retention of teachers is one of them.  I think that to be a good inner-London teacher in a challenging school is extremely difficult.  I think that having good, qualified and experienced teachers in a school is extremely important.  I also think that for a variety of reasons there is a severe shortage of suitably qualified and experienced good teachers in inner-London schools, particularly in shortage subjects and this is one of the challenges to raising attainment.  If a new school is going to be opened in Hammersmith and Fulham it is important to know how they are going to staff it.  Will it be by paying more or offering more favourable conditions than existing schools to entice their teachers and thus make a pre-existing problem worse or will it be by removing the requirement for teachers to have the necessary skills, qualification and experience to do their job effectively, if so this has serious implications for the pupils that will attend the school.  I do not think there is a third way.

Andy Magee ● 5779d

Well I have to leap to the defence of Andy Magee (and myself) at this point. All of this is just a bit of slightly robust political debate – a tickling contest by comparison with what you get on chiswickw4.com.  And I also agree with Colin Carroll’s sentiments (that won’t happen again); if one’s going to be upset by a couple of people disagreeing on this forum, you shouldn’t be reading it. There’s no dispute that free schools are leaving themselves the option of employing people as teacher who are not QTS registered. However, how one chooses to present this illustrate one’s political prejudices; ‘freedom to be unqualified’ is clearly pejorative, just as no doubt the free school movement can find ways to present it positively. To say no QTS equals ‘unqualified’ makes presumptions about the value of QTS, which is contentious. QTS is not as simple and rigorous as might be supposed from reading this thread. Teachers qualified before 2000 do not have to take the QTS tests for numeracy, literacy and ICT. And state schools are allowed to employ ‘instructors’, people without QTS registration ‘where special qualifications or experience or both are required, in order to give such instruction’ (quote from the teachernet website); this could be, for example, a linguist or an interpreter as an instructor to teach one or more foreign languages, an artist to teach art, a musician to teach music, a carpenter to teach woodwork, an actor to teach drama. This seems to be no different from what Rachel Wolf was suggesting when she talking about having skills or experience from outside teaching. Ultimately parents, who will pay for free schools through their taxes, can make a decision on the value of QTS registered teachers and they can do this before sending their children to a free school by asking three questions: what is the school’s policy on employing teachers without QTS registration? Are there any teachers on the staff without QTS registration? Who are they, what subjects do they teach and what skills do they possess that warrant them teaching their subject without QTS registration?  I am enjoying the bit of the thread name after me – somebody should stop it in case it goes to my head.

Vlod Barchuk ● 5778d

I certainly agree with Vlod’s first paragraph!  However, I have a number of issues with the rest of his post.I think there is a massive difference between using instructors to carry out certain roles such as the ones outlined in Vlod’s post and the wholesale removal of the requirement for QTS in an inner-London, comprehensive state secondary school as Gove has decreed and Wolf has welcomed. What are the ‘presumptions’ about the value of QTS?  If a teacher has full QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) it means they have successfully completed a relevant post-graduate teaching qualification.  This qualification includes a practical training for at least 20 weeks leading to two satisfactory reports from teacher mentors.  It also means that they have attained at least a satisfactory level of theoretical knowledge about education issues and pedagogy.  Finally, it is confirmed by the successful completion of a one year probationary period as a Newly Qualified Teacher.  If a teacher is unqualified, i.e. they don’t have QTS, unless they are undertaking an on-the-job qualification it means that for all the useful and desirable qualities they may offer they are highly unlikely to have the any of the skills or knowledge mentioned above.  There are teachers that go through this process and turn out not to be good.  However, having people slip through a net is an argument for tightening it not removing it.  It is also worth mentioning that unqualified teachers are paid on a separate and cheaper scale than qualified ones.  I think the desire to increase the amount of unqualified teachers in our schools is a neat way of saving money on wages and the funding of teacher training and presenting it as a way of improving standards.

Andy Magee ● 5778d