Teacher in 6 months, Head teacher in 4 years

ninky_2

LydiaJ wrote: »

Well, that's exactly my point. The important thing is experience in schools. I would certainly count that kind of previous experience as relevant.

Certainly a big difference. Who's to say which world is most real, though? Schools, academia, business, civil service, charitable sector, etc etc. All different, all real IMO.

But unfortunately far too many teachers at the moment only have experience in the first two (schools and academia). Whilst this might be great for giving an academic education, is it enough to help prepare children for the workplace? I would certainly have liked more variety of background from my teachers and guidance as to the skills I might need to pursue careers as well as a better idea of how to go about selecting a career.

I'd be really interested to hear what policies you think would improve the education system (other than throwing more money at it). What are some pro-active solutions rather than complaints about the problems?

Davesnave

elisebutt65 wrote: »

Could have been me last year on my teaching placement - Started on the Wednesday and observed 3 lessons and was teaching 32 students on my own on Thursday morning!!! I was one of the first in my year to complete my 150 hours - most of it the first 3 months as they just used me as sick cover! Got inspected by Ofsted whilst I was there and I got a 1 :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Probably cos I was doing it properly then!

Baptism by fire! That's how it was usually done in ye olde days. You either survived and succeeded, or you left to become a vicar, joined the Foreign Legion to forget, or whatever.

As the Head who initially employed me said at the door of my classroom: 'Well, David, I'll leave you now to get on with it.' That was my first day, and I don't think I saw him or any other staff member in my class (outdoor hut) for ages! It was exciting, in a scary way. I'd been in a factory for some time and I'd forgotten most of what I thought I knew.

A year or so later I'd figured-out most of it, but those were different times and the pupils were very forgiving.

exprog

ninky wrote: »

But unfortunately far too many teachers at the moment only have experience in the first two (schools and academia). Whilst this might be great for giving an academic education, is it enough to help prepare children for the workplace? I would certainly have liked more variety of background from my teachers

What's all that got to do with this loony fast-tracking scheme?

Mature entrants have always been welcomed into teaching and may bring valuable skills and life experience. Many existing teachers are committed to teaching and not particularly suited to headship. Effectively, any teacher good at their job and seeming to have the right skills and experience can already expect fairly rapid career advancement. Dumping penniless financiers into school leaderships will do nothing for the education of the children.

Pont

ninky wrote: »

I'd be really interested to hear what policies you think would improve the education system (other than throwing more money at it). What are some pro-active solutions rather than complaints about the problems?

As a teacher myself, here's a somewhat controversial idea. One examination board throughout the country. The maths papers, for example, with some examination boards are far easier than with others. The result is that more and more schools are opting for the 'easy' boards hence the dumbing down of standards. The same applies in all subjects.

lostinrates

Pont wrote: »

As a teacher myself, here's a somewhat controversial idea. One examination board throughout the country. The maths papers, for example, with some examination boards are far easier than with others. The result is that more and more schools are opting for the 'easy' boards hence the dumbing down of standards. The same applies in all subjects.

Couldn't agree more! If we have standardised tests, we should standardise them!

I understand the baccalaureate is increasing in popularity too? Are these produced by multiple boards too?

Kez100

My first reaction is that an ex-banker/manager - assuming they are suited - is actually more suited to headship than teaching. Hence why the three and a half years difference in training? I would think they could be heads easier than teachers. I don't mean to undermine headship - I am more standing up for teaching which I feel, given a six month training period, is really undermining good teachers.

I suspect the Bacc is becoming more popular due to international recognition and high standards and so appeals to the more able children.

amcluesent

TBH, most go-getters from the private sector will go mad in 'jobsworth' environments liking teaching, police, NHS, whatever. The endless pointless rules and back-stabbing by time-served numpties will drive ex-private sector people away in 12 months.

Cleaver

amcluesent wrote: »

TBH, most go-getters from the private sector will go mad in 'jobsworth' environments liking teaching, police, NHS, whatever. The endless pointless rules and back-stabbing by time-served numpties will drive ex-private sector people away in 12 months.

Having spent half my career in the private sector and half in the public sector I can report, predictably, that some organisations have good practice and some have bad practice. There's no real difference any more between the two in terms of calibre of people, when looked at on the whole.

Sure, there are certain public sector departments that are old fashioned, need modernising and are full of people that would 'sink' in the private sector. On the flip side I had to work with a team of people in one of Britain's biggest and most well respected companies who couldn't keep up with the pace and complexity of a mixed public / private sector project they were meant to work in partnership with.

I used to work for as a Project Manager in the public sector and worked with private sector suppliers. You'd work with excellent people, but still work with many who were utter garbage. In two years of doing one role I can think of three private sector employees that were sent to us as business / implementation consultants who I had to send back as they were simply not up to the job. Completely useless. Two of my public sector guys, who had never worked in the private sector, were poached by private sector companies we were working with because they could perform.

Swings and roudabouts really.

ninky_2

Pont wrote: »

As a teacher myself, here's a somewhat controversial idea. One examination board throughout the country. The maths papers, for example, with some examination boards are far easier than with others. The result is that more and more schools are opting for the 'easy' boards hence the dumbing down of standards. The same applies in all subjects.

Thanks Pont. This sounds like an excellent idea. However, it's hardly going to reinvigorate the entire education system on its own.

Any more suggestions from any of the teachers? Or even those just ready to sling mud at Gordon's plans? It is not enough to criticize without offering workable alternatives. Unless, of course, you think the system is perfect as it is.

LydiaJ

No, the system isn't perfect as it is. However, I'm not arrogant enough to think I know how it could be fixed - which is why I'm not slinging mud at all of Gordon's plans, just this one specific issue.

In any case, most of my teaching experience has been in independent schools, where we teachers get plenty of resources, and small class sizes, which makes things a lot easier for us. We don't have to spend hours and hours on government box ticking exercises, and if we think something's fundamentally flawed (SATs for example) we can opt out of them.

It works well in independent schools, so maybe we should try to copy some of that to all schools. I'm sure it would help, if we could afford it (and the class size thing alone would be prohibitively expensive). But would it turn all schools into the same success stories, regardless of the backgrounds of their students? I doubt it.

It's easy to identify strategies that work with selective schools (maintained or independent) full of kids with higher-than average intelligence, and families that believe that education is important and will support what the school is trying to do. But that's the easy option, and I'm well aware of that.

How do you provide a really great education for the less able, the less advantaged, the demotivated, the behaviourally challenged? How do you enthuse and inspire those who know nobody in their family who's ever had a better-than-dead-end job, or even any job at all? How do you provide for the bright conscientious students in a class alongside those who are neither bright nor conscientious?

All these young people are human beings like the rest of us, and as a society we are failing if we discard any of them. There do exist very special and talented teachers (and indeed heads) who have the skills and gifts and drive to make a real difference to the challenging kids while still stretching the most able. I admire them enormously but I know I'm not one of them. They are the people who should be answering ninky's question, not me.