Teacher in 6 months, Head teacher in 4 years

LydiaJ

How long do you think it usually takes to become a head? IME most people spend at least two years (ie twice through all the different things that happen on an annual basis) on each level, and more on some. The progession (in secondary schools) goes something like...
Teacher
Second in department
Head of department
Head of something else (sixth form, careers, pastoral care etc) - or longer as head of dept
Deputy head
Head
This is just as true of mature entrants to the teaching profession (of which there are many) as of those who go straight from first degree to PGCE.

I've already explained why I think experience in a business dealing with free adult customers isn't terribly relevant to dealing with children and adolescents who can't just decide to "ditch and switch" to the school down the road if they don't like what the head is up to. In this post I am merely explaining to ninky that making arrangements for unemployed "recession victims" to miss out some of the usual career stages because of their business experience certainly constitutes special favourable treatment.

Large schools do also employ operations directors and finance directors and HR people etc. People with business experience might be able to go straight into those jobs without working their way up the ladder. But in schools those people are classed as ancillary staff, not the main focus of the place.

poet123

I think this also raises the question of how Heads are now seen as business managers not teachers. They need to be both,and have the empathy that comes with experience of schools, not corporate bodies.

pandora205

I think 6 months training is woefully inadequate, as is the current PGCE.

Many teachers I have worked with over the years struggle with the complexities of the role. It is rarely subject knowledge that is the problem. It is understanding how to manage large groups of children and young people of varying abilities and levels of motivation, some of whom have significant special educational needs, others may be second language learners. To handle conflict and non-compliance in the classroom requires a set of social skills that are rarely required in adult life.

Often NQTs report they have had just a day or so on classroom management on their courses and less on child development.

As for headteachers, that is a different matter. Having a commercial background could be helpful, though a headteacher isn't just a person/business manager. They need to have a clear vision as to what the school is seeking to achieve and how to get there. The plethora of government initiatives, guidance and legislation (from curriculum to exclusions to child protection) need someone who can assimilate and translate them into practice. It's not a job that would appeal to many.

Kenny4315

nomoneytoday wrote: »

True.

Despite not being in a class room for 20 odd years, I managed to score 94% on last year's GCSE paper

What happened to the other 6%, you ought to be ashamed of yourself....

Off to the heads office for the ruler/cane/belt for you !! :rotfl:

lostinrates

pandora205 wrote: »

I think 6 months training is woefully inadequate, as is the current PGCE.

Many teachers I have worked with over the years struggle with the complexities of the role. It is rarely subject knowledge that is the problem. It is understanding how to manage large groups of children and young people of varying abilities and levels of motivation, some of whom have significant special educational needs, others may be second language learners. To handle conflict and non-compliance in the classroom requires a set of social skills that are rarely required in adult life.

Often NQTs report they have had just a day or so on classroom management on their courses and less on child development.

As for headteachers, that is a different matter. Having a commercial background could be helpful, though a headteacher isn't just a person/business manager. They need to have a clear vision as to what the school is seeking to achieve and how to get there. The plethora of government initiatives, guidance and legislation (from curriculum to exclusions to child protection) need someone who can assimilate and translate them into practice. It's not a job that would appeal to many.

I've been thinking about this thread and it occured to me there is a vast different between any raw graduate doing a post grad qualification of ANY sort and someone who has aquired transferable skills though experience.

It seems to me a teacher would similarly acquire transferable skills?

Thus, while current training might not be enough for some raw grads, it might also be overkill for some mature applicants of any sort with suitable transferable skills. I don't see this as an indictment on teachers' skills, in the least.

poet123

I dont think it is about mature applicants being fast tracked per se,rather that SOME of those applicants haven't exactly made a roaring sucess of their previous careers. So would seem to be lacking in some areas which are vital for teaching,judgement,ability or common sense, come to mind.

LydiaJ

Lostinrates,

Usually you post very thoughtful comments and talk a lot of sense. I mostly agree with what you write, and you make me feel that I like you.

In this case, however, you don't seem to have heard what those of us with teaching experience are saying - there is a lot more to teaching (and to running a school) than transferrable skills. Yes, you need transferrable skills. You need lots of organisational, administrative and management skills, and if you've learnt those in business, then those are certainly transferrable to education.

But you also need a whole lot of other skills and knowledge that are specific to education, and specific to children/adolescents. You don't get those skills or that knowledge in business, so you haven't got them to transfer. That is, unless your business experience comes from a business whose clients are young people who are on your premises in large groups, compulsorily, for 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week ... oh yes, that kind of business is called a school.

Those of us who are teachers see it over and over again. The recent grads come into teaching not knowing much, and they learn on the job. The mature people often come into teaching thinking you can treat kids like mini-adults, and they find their transferable skills don't work. We see them trying to teach a lesson as though they're giving a presentation to adults, expecting teenagers to concentrate like adults, to absorb several complex ideas in one sitting (like adults), to behave politely even if they're bored (like adults) and to remember what happened in last week's lesson (like adults).

It's not just the presentation skills, but the management skills too. In schools, it's not just head and senior management managing the staff. Most of the management that's going on is the staff managing the students. But lots of them don't respond to the same management strategies as adults do, so management skills don't transfer either.

It's OK. Mature entrants to teaching learn on the job just the same as the recent grads do, and those that have got what it takes soon adapt. But they're nothing special, and there's no reason to expect them to climb the career ladder any faster than anyone else.

lostinrates

poet123 wrote: »

I dont think it is about mature applicants being fast tracked per se,rather that SOME of those applicants haven't exactly made a roaring sucess of their previous careers. So would seem to be lacking in some areas which are vital for teaching,judgement,ability or common sense, come to mind.

Maybe these applicants should have been teachers all along but went into the wrong career! Maybe they had too much common sense for the banalities of what they were doing? Maybe they expected too much fairness from the system, etc etc.

FWIW I wish the majority of my school teachers had all those qualities, but they were distinctly lacking in many. some of my very best teachers were not qualified at all in fact, although by no means exclusively. I had some wonderful teachers, and some real stinkers, like most people I imagine.

Another great message to students, particularly older ones might be that they can make cjoices for a levels/gcse, degree and even career, and if things aren't right you can change your mind? Personally, I had real trouble making my A level decisions, the pressure to choice the right subjects, and the right combination of subjects when my interests were still so varied, it all felt ominous and final.

poet123

It is a bit like saying that you can be a nurse because you have looked after your own sick child.

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

Lostinrates,

Usually you post very thoughtful comments and talk a lot of sense. I mostly agree with what you write, and you make me feel that I like you.

Thank you, I also talk a lot of rot though!

In this case, however, you don't seem to have heard what those of us with teaching experience are saying - there is a lot more to teaching (and to running a school) than transferrable skills.

I have heard, and I agree someway, but by no means the whole way
Yes, you need transferrable skills. You need lots of organisational, administrative and management skills, and if you've learnt those in business, then those are certainly transferrable to education.

But you also need a whole lot of other skills and knowledge that are specific to education, and specific to children/adolescents
But they might have them, or the capaacity to devlope them quickly? You might be a parent or have spent time teaching/child related work in gap years or voluntary work
You don't get those skills or that knowledge in business,so you haven't got them to transfer. That is, unless your business experience comes from a business whose clients are young people who are on your premises in large groups, compulsorily, for 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week ... oh yes, that kind of business is called a school.

Those of us who are teachers see it over and over again. The recent grads come into teaching not knowing much, and they learn on the job. The mature people often come into teaching thinking you can treat kids like mini-adults, and they find their transferable skills don't work. We see them trying to teach a lesson as though they're giving a presentation to adults, expecting teenagers to concentrate like adults, to absorb several complex ideas in one sitting (like adults), to behave politely even if they're bored (like adults) and to remember what happened in last week's lesson (like adults).
I'd think all of the above is very likely and true. It also makes me want to highlight the mini-adult thing. Its partly this that makes my DH very unsure about wanting a child educated in UK.
It's not just the presentation skills, but the management skills too. In schools, it's not just head and senior management managing the staff. Most of the management that's going on is the staff managing the students. But lots of them don't respond to the same management strategies as adults do, so management skills don't transfer either.

It's OK. Mature entrants to teaching learn on the job just the same as the recent grads do, and those that have got what it takes soon adapt. But they're nothing special, and there's no reason to expect them to climb the career ladder any faster than anyone else.

No, I don't think they should climb the ladder faster than anybody else, but maybe to jump on with strong arms. Depending on the individual.