Teach First -- Religious Studies far easier?
For the past six or seven years I've been tutoring, and I'm currently considered doing the Teach First route into classroom teaching. My academic background is in philosophy and theology, along with Classics, and what I have mainly been tutoring is IB-level English literature and Theory of Knowledge, along with some GCSE level English.
I want to teach secondary, and Teach First have told me that I can apply for either Religious Studies or English. They indicated that they'd rather I apply for the former due to demand.
I hadn't earlier considered at all that I might apply for Religious Studies. It's true that I'd entertained the idea of later teaching philosophy A-level, say (I've done some undergraduate-level philosophy tutoring) but, perhaps narrow-mindedly, it hadn't occurred to me that I'd maybe start with RS.
What now occurs to me, though, (and this is where I'd love input) is that surely RS is a much more straightforward subject to do Teach First in. The huge difference has got to be to do with how sets and period are allocated, right? Because surely if an average English teacher has, I don't know, three classes of students that they see four or five times a week, an average RS teacher presumably might have ten classes of students (or twelve, I don't know) that they see just a couple of times of week.
So, anyhow, it must be so much easier to be seeing a set of students just once or twice a week. Because you're preparing that lesson and then you're delivering it to a number of other students in the same week. If my thinking is correct, RS teachers must have as little as half or perhaps less of the preparation to do compared with an English teacher.
Now if I was making job decisions based on how little work something would be, I obviously wouldn't choose to go into teacher training. But I'd love to have thoughts on whether it would indeed be far easier for me if I chose to do RS with Teach First compared with English. (The other side of my observation re an RS teacher having more children to teach that they see less frequently is, I concede, that there may be more marking to do. There would at least be more separate books to mark.)
I'm also imagining that, aside from my main point above to do with the number of lessons per week, RS is fairly easy to teach due to things such as the syllabus not changing dramatically and frequently. And the subject is, well, pretty simple, right. Please don't any RS teachers jump defensively at me for suggesting this.
Something I can't quite picture is how engaged or not students tend to be. Part of me imagines that kids must really love being invited to share their thoughts on a lot of the big issues that RS touches on, but then I can easily imagine a consistent "who cares?" response to all these things. Am I right (hopefully) that this depends on the teacher (Yo kids! Who's down for some Barthian eschatology today, dudes?) , or is it simply the case that there are classes where teaching RS is just like trying to get blood out of a stone in terms of student interest?
RS may not be the subject for me to teach long term, but I'd be interested in any thoughts, whether from RS teachers or perhaps envious teachers of other subjects, on its strategic value while doing Teach First.
I want to teach secondary, and Teach First have told me that I can apply for either Religious Studies or English. They indicated that they'd rather I apply for the former due to demand.
I hadn't earlier considered at all that I might apply for Religious Studies. It's true that I'd entertained the idea of later teaching philosophy A-level, say (I've done some undergraduate-level philosophy tutoring) but, perhaps narrow-mindedly, it hadn't occurred to me that I'd maybe start with RS.
What now occurs to me, though, (and this is where I'd love input) is that surely RS is a much more straightforward subject to do Teach First in. The huge difference has got to be to do with how sets and period are allocated, right? Because surely if an average English teacher has, I don't know, three classes of students that they see four or five times a week, an average RS teacher presumably might have ten classes of students (or twelve, I don't know) that they see just a couple of times of week.
So, anyhow, it must be so much easier to be seeing a set of students just once or twice a week. Because you're preparing that lesson and then you're delivering it to a number of other students in the same week. If my thinking is correct, RS teachers must have as little as half or perhaps less of the preparation to do compared with an English teacher.
Now if I was making job decisions based on how little work something would be, I obviously wouldn't choose to go into teacher training. But I'd love to have thoughts on whether it would indeed be far easier for me if I chose to do RS with Teach First compared with English. (The other side of my observation re an RS teacher having more children to teach that they see less frequently is, I concede, that there may be more marking to do. There would at least be more separate books to mark.)
I'm also imagining that, aside from my main point above to do with the number of lessons per week, RS is fairly easy to teach due to things such as the syllabus not changing dramatically and frequently. And the subject is, well, pretty simple, right. Please don't any RS teachers jump defensively at me for suggesting this.
Something I can't quite picture is how engaged or not students tend to be. Part of me imagines that kids must really love being invited to share their thoughts on a lot of the big issues that RS touches on, but then I can easily imagine a consistent "who cares?" response to all these things. Am I right (hopefully) that this depends on the teacher (Yo kids! Who's down for some Barthian eschatology today, dudes?) , or is it simply the case that there are classes where teaching RS is just like trying to get blood out of a stone in terms of student interest?
RS may not be the subject for me to teach long term, but I'd be interested in any thoughts, whether from RS teachers or perhaps envious teachers of other subjects, on its strategic value while doing Teach First.
@gjd800 might be able to offer some insight? 
There's a few misconceptions here, really. It can differ but on the whole as an RS specialist, you will be expected to teach RS and probably most of what we used to call PSE and citizenship. You will be busy, as busy as an English teacher.
The other thing is that the locally agreed syllabus set by the regional SACRE changes relatively often (more often than you think), and whilst schools have leeway on what they teach and when (because the locally-agreed usually mandates only that you give a balanced education of religions encounteted in local areas), planning etc also takes shape based on class type and ability etc, updating dated lessons, meeting new standards. GCSE syllabi are these days more involved and can/do involve analysis of religious texts, praxis, teachings. There's significant crossover in terms of the mechanics of what you teach and how it is assessed relative to other humanities subjects.
Further, in many places, the SACRE syllabi are effectively now religion and philosophy, especially phil of religion. So pure philosophy, no. But heavy phil influence, in many places, yes. As a specialist, you will be expected to collaborate with staff and design these courses likely for the entire school and across all key stages.
Interested k8ds are interested and your problems will usually be with the chronically disinterested, who are Almost always disinteretested in school generally. A lot rides on a school's discipline and its behaviour management systems.
It can be really hard to build a rapport and set consistent expectations with groups you see so infrequently, so that can make it harder rather than easier. You can offset this, but it takes a bit of work and is easier if you teach the other stuff too (like citizenship etc).
Me: Philosophy PhD, Religion PGCE, 10+ years teaching across all levels, current academic.
The other thing is that the locally agreed syllabus set by the regional SACRE changes relatively often (more often than you think), and whilst schools have leeway on what they teach and when (because the locally-agreed usually mandates only that you give a balanced education of religions encounteted in local areas), planning etc also takes shape based on class type and ability etc, updating dated lessons, meeting new standards. GCSE syllabi are these days more involved and can/do involve analysis of religious texts, praxis, teachings. There's significant crossover in terms of the mechanics of what you teach and how it is assessed relative to other humanities subjects.
Further, in many places, the SACRE syllabi are effectively now religion and philosophy, especially phil of religion. So pure philosophy, no. But heavy phil influence, in many places, yes. As a specialist, you will be expected to collaborate with staff and design these courses likely for the entire school and across all key stages.
Interested k8ds are interested and your problems will usually be with the chronically disinterested, who are Almost always disinteretested in school generally. A lot rides on a school's discipline and its behaviour management systems.
It can be really hard to build a rapport and set consistent expectations with groups you see so infrequently, so that can make it harder rather than easier. You can offset this, but it takes a bit of work and is easier if you teach the other stuff too (like citizenship etc).
Me: Philosophy PhD, Religion PGCE, 10+ years teaching across all levels, current academic.
(edited 3 weeks ago)
Original post by gjd800
There's a few misconceptions here, really. It can differ but on the whole as an RS specialist, you will be expected to teach RS and probably most of what we used to call PSE and citizenship. You will be busy, as busy as an English teacher.
The other thing is that the locally agreed syllabus set by the regional SACRE changes relatively often (more often than you think), and whilst schools have leeway on what they teach and when (because the locally-agreed usually mandates only that you give a balanced education of religions encounteted in local areas), planning etc also takes shape based on class type and ability etc, updating dated lessons, meeting new standards. GCSE syllabi are these days more involved and can/do involve analysis of religious texts, praxis, teachings. There's significant crossover in terms of the mechanics of what you teach and how it is assessed relative to other humanities subjects.
Further, in many places, the SACRE syllabi are effectively now religion and philosophy, especially phil of religion. So pure philosophy, no. But heavy phil influence, in many places, yes. As a specialist, you will be expected to collaborate with staff and design these courses likely for the entire school and across all key stages.
Interested k8ds are interested and your problems will usually be with the chronically disinterested, who are Almost always disinteretested in school generally. A lot rides on a school's discipline and its behaviour management systems.
It can be really hard to build a rapport and set consistent expectations with groups you see so infrequently, so that can make it harder rather than easier. You can offset this, but it takes a bit of work and is easier if you teach the other stuff too (like citizenship etc).
Me: Philosophy PhD, Religion PGCE, 10+ years teaching across all levels, current academic.
The other thing is that the locally agreed syllabus set by the regional SACRE changes relatively often (more often than you think), and whilst schools have leeway on what they teach and when (because the locally-agreed usually mandates only that you give a balanced education of religions encounteted in local areas), planning etc also takes shape based on class type and ability etc, updating dated lessons, meeting new standards. GCSE syllabi are these days more involved and can/do involve analysis of religious texts, praxis, teachings. There's significant crossover in terms of the mechanics of what you teach and how it is assessed relative to other humanities subjects.
Further, in many places, the SACRE syllabi are effectively now religion and philosophy, especially phil of religion. So pure philosophy, no. But heavy phil influence, in many places, yes. As a specialist, you will be expected to collaborate with staff and design these courses likely for the entire school and across all key stages.
Interested k8ds are interested and your problems will usually be with the chronically disinterested, who are Almost always disinteretested in school generally. A lot rides on a school's discipline and its behaviour management systems.
It can be really hard to build a rapport and set consistent expectations with groups you see so infrequently, so that can make it harder rather than easier. You can offset this, but it takes a bit of work and is easier if you teach the other stuff too (like citizenship etc).
Me: Philosophy PhD, Religion PGCE, 10+ years teaching across all levels, current academic.
Thanks a lot for this.
Yes, I can definitely see how it would be harder to establish a rapport with kids that one only sees infrequently and that this would be a disadvantage.
Maybe I should do English on the basis that presumably it’s not hard to then shift into some RS teaching? My concern is that maybe if RS teachers are seen as hard to get then once a school has you doing RS they might not give the opportunity for somebody to also do English or whatever.
I noticed on one school website they offered A-level philosophy but within the English department. It would be galling as an RS teacher with a philosophy degree to be locked out of teaching that, but I’m sure this can’t be common.
A good friend of mine is head of RS at a very good school and while it’s interesting to hear about her A-level cohort and so on, it feels as if it just isn’t relevant to what I’d likely be throwing myself into if I do Teach First.
You note that, “interested kids are interested and your problems will usually be with the chronically disinterested, who are almost always disinterested in school generally.” — I guess this is my worry. With English, there’s the extra motivation of really wanting to get kids to pass, since it’s so vital for them. I wonder whether with RS, the fact that it ultimately doesn’t matter as much for them makes it a somewhat more quixotic endeavour.
My tutoring experience has largely been with relatively able kids who are more or less engaged. And, as mentioned, most of it has been IB.
I’m just trying to picture the relative merits of dragging low-ability kids through Of Mice and Men and all that vs through the pillars of Islam and various religious holidays… It sounds facetious, I know. And indeed, I wonder whether PSHE is something that, really, I’d be fighting to find any interest in.
What were your feelings about your time teaching to KS3 and KS4 (since that’s the age I’d have through my two years of Teach First)? Was it frustration with the classroom that led you to go back into academia. Though, that said, you did it for ten years, so it couldn’t have been too bad…
Thanks for your thoughts.
No, I only taught in schools for about 2 years, the training year, and then for a bit after that. I've taught in several universities both before and since then, undergrad and postgrad, community sessions etc.
The workload in schools is very high and the pay not great (it is getting better) - I moved back north and got a job for 15k more with 50% off the workload, not to mention the assorted freedoms working and teaching in tertiary ed brings. Ultimately my skillset is better used where I am now, but I loved teaching in schools.
With that said, I despised the GCSE and A Level curricula and was in constant 'dialogue' with exam boards because of mistakes in their materials, especially with Sanskrit and Pali terminology in the Hindu and Buddhist stuff - the cost of being a specialist, in some ways. But the kids were great and the whole experience did make me a much better teacher.
I use the experiences gained every day. I loved the kids despite the exam specs, and teaching y7-9 was a total joy. The kids are by far the best part of the job and the only part of schools that I miss.
It can be really disheartening if/when you get some kids that aren't interested but it's not necessarily a Sisyphean task. I enjoyed trying to find ways through to challenging kids and it forms part of my role at the university now, so it was useful in a pragmatic sense, too. You can't win every battle, though, and you have to be kind to yourself about that.
I really liked the drug, drink, sex ed stuff, too, but it's definitely not suited to everyone. I have a thing about educating rounded young people so it married my values well, but lots of my colleagues disliked it and found it hard/uncomfortable.
A lot of the time RS specialists are unicorns, such is their rarity in schools. You end up with teachers from other disciplines making do. Because of this, I wonder if it's better for you to sorta follow your nose here and go I to English, knowing that you can step across to RS as required or if desired. Going the other way is more unusual in my experience.
The workload in schools is very high and the pay not great (it is getting better) - I moved back north and got a job for 15k more with 50% off the workload, not to mention the assorted freedoms working and teaching in tertiary ed brings. Ultimately my skillset is better used where I am now, but I loved teaching in schools.
With that said, I despised the GCSE and A Level curricula and was in constant 'dialogue' with exam boards because of mistakes in their materials, especially with Sanskrit and Pali terminology in the Hindu and Buddhist stuff - the cost of being a specialist, in some ways. But the kids were great and the whole experience did make me a much better teacher.
I use the experiences gained every day. I loved the kids despite the exam specs, and teaching y7-9 was a total joy. The kids are by far the best part of the job and the only part of schools that I miss.
It can be really disheartening if/when you get some kids that aren't interested but it's not necessarily a Sisyphean task. I enjoyed trying to find ways through to challenging kids and it forms part of my role at the university now, so it was useful in a pragmatic sense, too. You can't win every battle, though, and you have to be kind to yourself about that.
I really liked the drug, drink, sex ed stuff, too, but it's definitely not suited to everyone. I have a thing about educating rounded young people so it married my values well, but lots of my colleagues disliked it and found it hard/uncomfortable.
A lot of the time RS specialists are unicorns, such is their rarity in schools. You end up with teachers from other disciplines making do. Because of this, I wonder if it's better for you to sorta follow your nose here and go I to English, knowing that you can step across to RS as required or if desired. Going the other way is more unusual in my experience.
Original post by gjd800
No, I only taught in schools for about 2 years, the training year, and then for a bit after that. I've taught in several universities both before and since then, undergrad and postgrad, community sessions etc.
The workload in schools is very high and the pay not great (it is getting better) - I moved back north and got a job for 15k more with 50% off the workload, not to mention the assorted freedoms working and teaching in tertiary ed brings. Ultimately my skillset is better used where I am now, but I loved teaching in schools.
With that said, I despised the GCSE and A Level curricula and was in constant 'dialogue' with exam boards because of mistakes in their materials, especially with Sanskrit and Pali terminology in the Hindu and Buddhist stuff - the cost of being a specialist, in some ways. But the kids were great and the whole experience did make me a much better teacher.
I use the experiences gained every day. I loved the kids despite the exam specs, and teaching y7-9 was a total joy. The kids are by far the best part of the job and the only part of schools that I miss.
It can be really disheartening if/when you get some kids that aren't interested but it's not necessarily a Sisyphean task. I enjoyed trying to find ways through to challenging kids and it forms part of my role at the university now, so it was useful in a pragmatic sense, too. You can't win every battle, though, and you have to be kind to yourself about that.
I really liked the drug, drink, sex ed stuff, too, but it's definitely not suited to everyone. I have a thing about educating rounded young people so it married my values well, but lots of my colleagues disliked it and found it hard/uncomfortable.
A lot of the time RS specialists are unicorns, such is their rarity in schools. You end up with teachers from other disciplines making do. Because of this, I wonder if it's better for you to sorta follow your nose here and go I to English, knowing that you can step across to RS as required or if desired. Going the other way is more unusual in my experience.
The workload in schools is very high and the pay not great (it is getting better) - I moved back north and got a job for 15k more with 50% off the workload, not to mention the assorted freedoms working and teaching in tertiary ed brings. Ultimately my skillset is better used where I am now, but I loved teaching in schools.
With that said, I despised the GCSE and A Level curricula and was in constant 'dialogue' with exam boards because of mistakes in their materials, especially with Sanskrit and Pali terminology in the Hindu and Buddhist stuff - the cost of being a specialist, in some ways. But the kids were great and the whole experience did make me a much better teacher.
I use the experiences gained every day. I loved the kids despite the exam specs, and teaching y7-9 was a total joy. The kids are by far the best part of the job and the only part of schools that I miss.
It can be really disheartening if/when you get some kids that aren't interested but it's not necessarily a Sisyphean task. I enjoyed trying to find ways through to challenging kids and it forms part of my role at the university now, so it was useful in a pragmatic sense, too. You can't win every battle, though, and you have to be kind to yourself about that.
I really liked the drug, drink, sex ed stuff, too, but it's definitely not suited to everyone. I have a thing about educating rounded young people so it married my values well, but lots of my colleagues disliked it and found it hard/uncomfortable.
A lot of the time RS specialists are unicorns, such is their rarity in schools. You end up with teachers from other disciplines making do. Because of this, I wonder if it's better for you to sorta follow your nose here and go I to English, knowing that you can step across to RS as required or if desired. Going the other way is more unusual in my experience.
Thanks ever so much for your thoughts. Most appreciated.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A Level Choices: English Lit or Philosophy and Ethics
- A Level Philosophy or A level Religious Studies
- What is the scope and future of RE in schools?
- Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 2 (1RA0 2A-2G) - 16th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- WJEC Religious Studies
- OCR Religious studies AS level
- Philosophy A-level Results?
- Picking A levels
- Teaching English and Philosophy at A-levels
- Idk what to pick for my 4th a level
- hey i’m yr 11 and want to pick biology chem and philosophy
- A-level Religious Studies Study Group 2023-2024
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies B Paper 1 (8063/1) - 9th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Which is better? Cambridge or Edexcel for iGCSE?
- sociology or psych alevel
- Aqa rs gcse 2024
- WHICH ONE IS EASIER:Geography OR History
- what's easier Philosophy and Religion or Politics a level
- Can I get in?
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
I’m one week into my secondary SCITT but want to change to primary. Is this possible?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Teach First -- Religious Studies far easier?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Just finished PGCE in Primary - Ask me Anything!Last reply 1 month ago
Uni has unilaterally changed my disseration supervisor twice: Is this acceptable?Last reply 1 month ago
I have been pushed out of PGCE and made to quitLast reply 1 month ago
University of Oxford PGCE intake 2024-2025Last reply 3 months ago
PGCE Blues - Think I made a mistake applying?
