Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If it's done in the right way it will be a good thing, but merely going to a better university doesn't guarantee being a better teacher. What I worry about though is that class sizes could be made bigger, that they've been reduced under Labour is one thing they are to be credited for.
    I think it makes sense to start thinking about alternative ways of measuring progress to examinations, from my experience it has a negative effect on the teaching quality and content.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the only thing i don't like about this policy is that they are going to put all the money and special attention on the most deprived areas of the uk, why not try and raise everyones standards?

    It doesn't seem a very fair way to distribute resources imo, why should clever kids in good schools get the least funding?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    the only thing i don't like about this policy is that they are going to put all the money and special attention on the most deprived areas of the uk, why not try and raise everyones standards?

    It doesn't seem a very fair way to distribute resources imo, why should clever kids in good schools get the least funding?
    Admittedly I haven't looked at the specifics but the reason seems to be inherent in your own text, because they are at good schools already, is it not fairer to try to bring up the failing schools to standard?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    Admittedly I haven't looked at the specifics but the reason seems to be inherent in your own text, because they are at good schools already, is it not fairer to try to bring up the failing schools to standard?
    Well perhaps, but surely 'fair' means equal input not equal outcomes.

    Only targeting bad schools seems to imply that they are only bad because of the school, when in reality they are bad schools because of the kids in them, which is due to culture, upbringing, wealth etc which is something you can't fix by better teachers or more money on the school.

    Other schools could benefit just as much from these extra resources.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arminius)
    Well perhaps, but surely 'fair' means equal input not equal outcomes.

    Only targeting bad schools seems to imply that they are only bad because of the school, when in reality they are bad schools because of the kids in them, which is due to culture, upbringing, wealth etc which is something you can't fix by better teachers or more money on the school.

    Other schools could benefit just as much from these extra resources.
    I think that's the question isn't it. I think it's hard to say whether the schools are bad because of the pupils or whether the school is bad and therefore can't attract the pupils, they are co-relevant. Also of course funding and attracting good teachers are part and parcel of the school's reputation. I think done in the right way it could be beneficial for society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Very good idea. From my experience, teachers who enter teaching after a different career are so much better than the usual, if I'm honest, retarded teachers I've had to put up with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    Very good idea. From my experience, teachers who enter teaching after a different career are so much better than the usual, if I'm honest, retarded teachers I've had to put up with.
    Not my experience tbh but if thats the case

    How do you suggest teachers are recruited after doing another career?

    A year after graduation my wage is 40% higher than the starting salary of a teacher. What encourages me to take a year out to do a PGCE and restart a career in education?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    Very good idea. From my experience, teachers who enter teaching after a different career are so much better than the usual, if I'm honest, retarded teachers I've had to put up with.
    Have you considered the possability that this may have something to do with the fact that they actively want to go into teaching? Rather than the fact that they are good because they have experience from other careers.

    Huge difference between the two.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tombola)
    Have you considered the possability that this may have something to do with the fact that they actively want to go into teaching? Rather than the fact that they are good because they have experience from other careers.

    Huge difference between the two.
    I wouldn't say it was the experience in other careers that makes these teachers better, I would say that generally people who didn't choose teaching as their first career, but instead, 'retired' into teaching are usually of a higher standard. You may say that this is bad because these teachers might be going into teaching for the wrong reasons, but you have to consider the likelihood that these individuals are more driven anyway. For example, in the A level maths department at my school we have one teacher who achieved a grade B at GCSE maths, and went to a **** uni, and tbh, struggles to teach his subject. We then have a much older man who has retired into teaching from a successful engineering career, who achieved all A's at A level, and can explain any concept you ask about.

    The goal then, as Cameron outligned, is to give an incentive for the older man in my example to have entered teaching in the first place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Not my experience tbh but if thats the case

    How do you suggest teachers are recruited after doing another career?

    A year after graduation my wage is 40% higher than the starting salary of a teacher. What encourages me to take a year out to do a PGCE and restart a career in education?
    Well the article suggests bonuses and the payment of your student loan, whether or not this will entice the more financially driven amongst us, it won't, but I would hope that it would entice some.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    Well the article suggests bonuses and the payment of your student loan, whether or not this will entice the more financially driven amongst us, it won't, but I would hope that it would entice some.
    Increase the teaching budget when the Govt has a 13% budget deficient to GDP? I wouldn't hold your breath that'll happen
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    I wouldn't say it was the experience in other careers that makes these teachers better, I would say that generally people who didn't choose teaching as their first career, but instead, 'retired' into teaching are usually of a higher standard. You may say that this is bad because these teachers might be going into teaching for the wrong reasons, but you have to consider the likelihood that these individuals are more driven anyway. For example, in the A level maths department at my school we have one teacher who achieved a grade B at GCSE maths, and went to a **** uni, and tbh, struggles to teach his subject. We then have a much older man who has retired into teaching from a successful engineering career, who achieved all A's at A level, and can explain any concept you ask about.

    The goal then, as Cameron outligned, is to give an incentive for the older man in my example to have entered teaching in the first place.
    No. The whole point I was making was that these people are changing careers because they want to 'teach' as opposed to the individuals that go into teaching because they need to earn money. With the former category, you know these individuals are going into teaching for the right reasons.

    I'm claiming that academic ability is only a smart part. The more important part is the motivation to teach, which is what retired individuals possess as they have no real need to work otherwise.

    Raising the pay of teachers, while good, will also make it harder to diffrentiate between those whose life ambition was to teach, and those who are just in for the pay. As many have mentioned before, teaching isn't really a job but a career. Those who don't possess the desire to teach will essentially crumble under the pressure, or do jobs that could be so much more effective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tombola)
    No. The whole point I was making was that these people are changing careers because they want to 'teach' as opposed to the individuals that go into teaching because they need to earn money. With the former category, you know these individuals are going into teaching for the right reasons.
    This is exactly what I said you would say. Let's be real, teaching = less hours, less stress, better job security, and an overall more cushty feel. For people who have had a stressful, high powered career for years you could see why 'retiring' into the teaching profession would be appealing. You say that people going into teaching for these 'selfish' reasons is bad, well, I would much rather have a teacher who is extremely knowledgeable about his subject, but goes into teaching because he needs an income and thinks a cushty job as a teacher would be ok. Do you think this teacher isn't going to do his job properly? Do you think that because he went into teaching for these 'selfish' reasons he will break his contract, and not bother to mark his students' work, or purposefully not explain concepts that he knows because he can't be bothered? Compare this to you average inner city school teacher who performed averagely in the GCSEs and A levels she/he's supposed to be helping me achieve A*'s A's in, went on to Thames Valley, when she/he is supposed to be preparing me for my Oxbridge interviews, do you see the problem? And anyway, any previous passion a teacher has, in the majority of cases, will wither away after a few years of abuse from year 8 kids.

    (Original post by Tombola)
    I'm claiming that academic ability is only a smart part. The more important part is the motivation to teach, which is what retired individuals possess as they have no real need to work otherwise.
    Firstly, when I say 'retiring into teaching' I'm not talking about individuals who are retired and have no reason to work becoming teachers, but people in their late 40s/50s moving into teaching. Secondly, if you've ever had a teacher actually struggle to explain a concept or even display an understanding of it themselves, you wouldn't think that academic ability 'is only a small part'. Regarding their motivation to teach, how do you think people who have achieved in more competitive careers did so? Most probably through ability and a large amount of motivation? Tbh, I think what I've said above refutes the point that these teachers would purposefully not complete their job to their full abilities.

    (Original post by Tombola)
    Raising the pay of teachers, while good, will also make it harder to diffrentiate between those whose life ambition was to teach, and those who are just in for the pay. As many have mentioned before, teaching isn't really a job but a career. Those who don't possess the desire to teach will essentially crumble under the pressure, or do jobs that could be so much more effective.
    A life ambition to teach is laughable, I'm sorry but it is. If you can't walk into teaching without the need for any ambition whatsover, you shouldn't teach, which is the crux of my point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Increase the teaching budget when the Govt has a 13% budget deficient to GDP? I wouldn't hold your breath that'll happen
    Fair point, privatisation is what I say!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    This is exactly what I said you would say. Let's be real, teaching = less hours, less stress, better job security, and an overall more cushty feel. For people who have had a stressful, high powered career for years you could see why 'retiring' into the teaching profession would be appealing. You say that people going into teaching for these 'selfish' reasons is bad, well, I would much rather have a teacher who is extremely knowledgeable about his subject, but goes into teaching because he needs an income and thinks a cushty job as a teacher would be ok. Do you think this teacher isn't going to do his job properly? Do you think that because he went into teaching for these 'selfish' reasons he will break his contract, and not bother to mark his students' work, or purposefully not explain concepts that he knows because he can't be bothered? Compare this to you average inner city school teacher who performed averagely in the GCSEs and A levels she/he's supposed to be helping me achieve A*'s A's in, went on to Thames Valley, when she/he is supposed to be preparing me for my Oxbridge interviews, do you see the problem? And anyway, any previous passion a teacher has, in the majority of cases, will wither away after a few years of abuse from year 8 kids.
    1. Teaching is a not a comfortable job. Have you actually looked into the career? You'd quickly realise that there is an extremely high drop-out rate from the pressure.

    2. Teaching doesn't not require that much knowledge about the subject. We're not teaching degree level mathematics or physics. There are much more important factors.

    3. I mentioned this to another individual who brought up the argument that his rubbish teachers were stupid. Where's the damn statistics/proof? You guys claim that these teachers with average GCSE/A-Levels are rubbish teachers, but qualified teachers themselves in the actual field suggest otherwise.

    4. It's more likely that the teachers you had. You don't actually know what degree qualification they gained from their schools and the marks. I've never asked my teachers, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for you as well.


    Firstly, when I say 'retiring into teaching' I'm not talking about individuals who are retired and have no reason to work becoming teachers, but people in their late 40s/50s moving into teaching. Secondly, if you've ever had a teacher actually struggle to explain a concept or even display an understanding of it themselves, you wouldn't think that academic ability 'is only a small part'. Regarding their motivation to teach, how do you think people who have achieved in more competitive careers did so? Most probably through ability and a large amount of motivation? Tbh, I think what I've said above refutes the point that these teachers would purposefully not complete their job to their full abilities.
    There's a difference between being motivated to do well in one skill and to do well in another. This is shown by the fact that lots of people can perform superbly in their field of career, but would fail at teaching for simple reasons such as 'hating kids'. Motivation to hard work is not enough to compensate for enthusiasm for actual teaching. Yeah, someone can be motivated to do a good job, but it's not the same thing.

    Example: University students.
    Plenty can be motivated to do extremely well. But no matter how motivated an individual is in succeeding, they are unlikely to be able to match those who are motivated and enthusiastic about the course. The former do OK, the latter become the PhD students or whatever.

    A life ambition to teach is laughable, I'm sorry but it is. If you can't walk into teaching without the need for any ambition whatsover, you shouldn't teach, which is the crux of my point.
    Life ambition to teach is laughable?

    There are plenty of people who feel that it is one of the most respectful/humanitarian career in the world. People that desire social changes, will identify themselves as teachers/guiders.

    I'm sure there are many that will agree with me that teaching should primary be about passing on knowledge and secondary reason: supporting a comfortable life style.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D R E A M Z)
    Fair point, privatisation is what I say!
    And then the average salary will go up? Really?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meagz)
    Except he will, so poor you.


    I think it's a brilliant idea, most primary/secondary school teachers are idiots
    True. When I went to do my work experience in a primary school, they told me I had more GCSEs than the rest of them put together. I've got 3A* 6A 1B which is good but hardly exceptional or outstanding, and they were talking like I was a level of genius that had never previously crossed their threshold. And my boss at the gymnastics club where I coached was primary school teacher, and she didn't even know the difference between 'its' and 'it's'
    It would be funny if they weren't doing such an important job.

    Edit: I forgot the time I had to go and help out (community service kind of thing) at another primary school where about 2/3 of the pupils were from South Asia and spoke English as a second language. The teacher was Indian and had such a strong accent I could barely understand her. She wrote a sentence on the board for the children to copy and it was something like 'The frog are in the pond'.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,161

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.