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

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.

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

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)?