Since 2002 Teach First, an independent charity, has brought many people who had never considered teaching before into schools across the England (the scheme, to the best of my knowledge, has not extended North of the border). Generally, these people were placed directly into challenging secondary schools.
The overarching mission behind TeachFirst is to address the various disadvantages that some schools and pupils have by bringing exceptional graduates into their schools. These graduates, usually from the Russell Group universities, are trained to become teachers very quickly. These young graduates are intended to lead and inspire their pupils and, furthermore, help break down social barriers. Now, we can all pick holes in this but, by and large, this is a pretty good idea.
Teach First teachers have some initial teacher training combined with volunteer coaching. This gives graduates the chance to teach for two years before going into a profession or into business (or, indeed, stay in teaching). The whole point of Teach First is to raise educational standards and to instil, in a generation of graduates, a motivation to understand, and desire to end, educational disadvantage. A second benefit is that many of these graduates would not normally consider a career in teaching and Teach First networking power can help them into business after a two-year stint.
Everyone benefits in TeachFirst – the teachers, the schools and the pupils.
I think this system can be twisted and improved. In the same way that talented young people can inspire school pupils, I am convinced there is some way that experience can do the same thing: Teach Last.
At present, it is very difficult for someone with a lifetime of experience in a given subject to teach that subject. Indeed, as the General Teaching Council makes it harder and harder for people who do not have a teaching qualification to teach in Scottish schools. I can understand their reasoning for doing this but believe that a slightly more flexible policy would be beneficial.
Each year, thousands of people across the UK and across Scotland retire in their 50s and early 60s. Many of these people have been massively successful within their own careers. I think that society should seek to utilise their experience where it is most needed – in our schools.
I also believe that many (although not all, obviously) of these people would like to put something back into society after a career. TeachLast gives them the opportunity to do so. Like Teach First, everyone benefits.
The idea behind TeachLast is very simple. Upon retirement, those retiring in certain fields should be given the option to teach in challenging secondary schools for one to two years.
Why is this good?
It connects subjects to the real world and all too often maths and science are taught in the abstract. Quite simply, not enough young people are studying maths and science. We aren’t producing enough engineers, scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, there are shortages in science and mathematics teachers largely because the graduate salaries graduates of these subjects can command will mean teaching is well off their radar. This has a huge detrimental effect on our society over the long-run. Gordon Brown, in a speech at Oxford University:
We all understand that science is fundamental to the future of our society and that disciplines where an understanding of science is important (engineering, energy) are equally important. At present, there are many science teachers teaching a subject with no degree in that subject or even if they do no real world knowledge of application.
I do not agree with Brown on many issues but the idea that people are teaching science with no real world knowledge of it is bad, the idea that people are teaching science with no degree in a science-subject is totally bonkers.
I think retiring engineers, pharmacists, chemists or physicists could show pupils in challenging areas that the sciences can lead to real-world careers and real-world success in fields like energy, engineering, pharmaceuticals and myriad others. In business studies, people who have run businesses would be of huge use. In maths, those who have used maths in their daily business – as economists, for example, again would be massively useful.
These people would (a) bring a level of expertise that is lacking (b) link academic subjects to the real world (c) give retirees the opportunity to put something back into society.
Now, of course, there are problems with this scheme:
a) Long time away from classroom/classroom has changed – yes, but I think this can be gotten around with Fast Track training or by watering down the scheme and having them in the class with other teachers.
b) Classroom teaching isn’t easy and people need training – see above.
c) Money is an issue. Will this calibre of people want to earn £23,000 per annum? Sure, some wouldn’t want to do this. Some would. If it was linked to a pension boost maybe more would.
d) Just because…. Just because some people are great at their jobs doesn’t mean they’ll be great teachers. I’m not saying just because someone has excellent subject knowledge they will be an excellent teacher… however, many will be and this can be assessed.
There are many strong teachers in the private sector with no formal Teacher Training – this doesn’t undermine teachers and neither should it. Obviously, the vast majority of teachers would still be those who have undertaken an undergraduate degree and then a PGCE or PGDE. That’s good.
I can’t see Teach Last doing any harm and can see it doing some good. So why not do it?
Great post Rob, love the idea and think it should be incorporated as part of a more liberal system of regulating teaching and learning in Scotland.
You are correct in saying that the GTCS is a body which makes it increasingly difficult for teachers to teach – and here is an example: you cannot currently teach Economics in Scotland unless you have a degree in . . . BUSINESS STUDIES! This is despite the fact that the Scottish Government voiced serious concern about this only two years ago http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-07/pa07-088.htm.
Whilst i can appreciate the benefits of teacher training, if it is to be compulsory then the GTCS need to work in conjunction with the Universities to ensure that there are courses for potential teachers in all subjects to attend.
The problem with the system is the top-down edict that all teachers must have a PGDE as this would mean they are qualified. Qualified, however, is a term open to interpretation and should really mean something like “fit and able to teach”. Unless we assume a homogeneity of labour then we accept that different people will need different levels of training in order to achieve the necessary standard in the areas of classroom management; child protection and exam preparation. If this is so then why should a potentially outstanding teacher from another profession not be able to shadow a department for a month, have two weeks of observed teaching and then be declared fit (providing he/she undergoes the necessary child protection CPD)?
Apologies for monopolising the comments, but what do people think about adopting the academy schools scheme in Scotland.
Involving the private sector, targeting problems at a local level and engaging parents and successful businessmen (large employers) in the education process is surely a good idea. The finance arguments carry little weight, but individuals in the private sector are surely in a better position to identify the skills young people need to find a job than local authorities who are not subject to the pressures of competition
Rob/Will
I have grave reservation sbaout any scheme which looks to attract ‘an older generation’ directly into school. Aside from the issues over their energy/enthusiasm levels (on average) being a little lower there is also the greater difficulty relating to young children given an increased age gap.
Younger teachers tend to find it much easier to earn pupil respect, hence the Teach First success!
Also I disagree Will that bringing experts into the classroom actually work every time. Teaching requires characteristics which many successful individuals may not possess.
I don’t deny there are problems or potential problems with the scheme, Ian. I think, however, they could be worked around.
For example, my former boss had no formal teaching experience, was in his mid-50s and delivered knock-out Outreach sessions to pupils all over Scotland – to all levels of social background and acdemic ability. It is possible. Furthermore, I’m not saying this should be done massively across the board but something that could be done where needed – indeed,
Of course, some experts don’t work every time but the system isn’t working. Do I want a Maths teacher who doesn’t have a Maths degree or formal application of maths? No but we tolerate that. Do I want a Science teacher with no Science degree or formal application of science? No, but we tolerate that. If we can get round these problems, we can get round some with this scheme.
If the current system could be beefed up with some talent from various sectors I don’t see the harm – if we vet it properly.
One could easily say that ‘posh’ Oxbridge types couldn’t relate to kids from inner city areas – some people will bomb at Teach First, some won’t.
RCM
Interesting post, Rob. There is certainly something to be said for bringing people in, at least in a part-time, adjunct basis. The other thing that has crossed my mind more than once is the need to teach students to acquire some kind of financial literacy- about mortgages, loans, pension plans etc. One of the reasons that we have a mountain of debt is that people were using the housing market as their only savings plan.