The Problem With Top Graduates...

The government has been on about attracting more top graduates into teaching for a while now. They've offered bursaries (see here), expanded the remit of the teaching recruitment charity Teach First to allow it to recruit greater numbers (see here), and made various announcements that have been lapped up by the media of varying quality (Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Daily Mail to link just a few). A simple search online will unearth hundreds more articles I have no doubt, if you can be bothered that is.

The requirement to actually have a qualification to teach in the state schools of England has been relaxed in the most favoured types of school for the Department for Education, namely academies and free schools. The qualification requirement has never been compulsory in private/public schools, the type of school that a high proportion of MPs attended, or in the case of my local MP, wish they'd attended. Now you may say that if it's worked in private and public schools, what's the problem? They get great results that state schools could get after all. It's a question of intake, student motivation and support from home that is a major difference my friends. Anyway, that's a separate point; what I wanted to cover is the myth regarding top graduates.

There are a few subjects that have been highlighted by DfE ministers and other MPs on programmes like Question Time that really ought to have top graduates teaching the youth of today; namely mathematics and science. You could throw "new subject" computer science into that mix too, as you are either very good at it and therefore probably did it at university; there is no middle ground with computer science: either you're brilliant or you're crap. I'm the latter.

At A Level and Degree I couldn't agree more that maths and science could do with being taught by top graduates, although they need not be the be all and end all. Teaching of those courses is to children who have chosen to take those subjects and already have an deep-seated interest in the subject. They not only want to know how to do something, they want to know why it works that way; something that a top graduate can explain with ease, whilst others would possibly have to do a little research. So, dear DfE and those in expensive suits in Westminster, feel free to attract top graduates for those posts, but don't disregard others. You will have to dangle numerous carrots in front of these high flyers to divert their attention from the lucrative careers that top mathematicians and scientists have traditionally entered. It might help if DfE press releases and various Ofsted employees didn't consistently criticise teachers in the media too. I digress again...

My main query is whether a top graduate really is the best type of person to teach maths and science to disinterested children who have no choice but to be there and just want to get the minimum grade in order to never have to sit through a lesson again? Unfortunately with a total lack of interest in the subject, the likelihood of achieving that grade is minimal. These students need to be taught in a different way. Empathy with the inability to understand a concept first time around is hugely helpful. A top graduate in their subject will invariably have found most, if not all of their subject pretty straightforward. The trouble is this means that our much lauded top graduates will get increasingly frustrated as their charges fail to grasp covalent bonds or simultaneous equations. A teacher who was not a top graduate probably won't have found everything easy, and can therefore understand the frustrations.

If you couple this lack of empathy for a  student's woes with a lack of any teacher training or qualification then the recipe is potentially disastrous. If there's one thing that my PGCE did teach me it was different strategies for dealing with classes, mainly through teaching placements admittedly, but without it I would have floundered even more than I actually did in my NQT year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that top graduates couldn't empathise, they are just less likely to understand. So Mr Gove, DfE, Sir Michael and the various other political types who drone on and on about top graduates, they may not actually be the answer to all your problems!

Come and have a go if you think you're clever enough

Making sixth formers trying teaching to encourage the high achieving students of the UK to join the teaching profession is the latest plan from those in Westminster. I can see the logic, sort of, the only problem being that those sixth formers will only see a rose-tinted version of what teaching is, not the day in, day out abuse that teachers put up with.

It seems a remarkable change of tack from the Department for Education to start saying things along the lines of "Schools Minister Nick Gibb said the government valued teachers highly, but many top graduates chose other careers." The government has been slating the profession ever since it got into power, but just after figures stating that there are 10,000 less teachers than a few years ago come out, panic buttons are being pulverised in Whitehall.

What is reassuring is that many people who commented on the story on the BBC website (see the article here) seem to agree that teaching really isn't the way forward for anyone who wishes to have any form of job satisfaction. I am a mentor for trainee teachers at my school and always ask new student teachers whether they are absolutely sure that they have made the correct career choice. Many teaching posts are inundated with applications, certainly in certain subjects, but the quality of the applicants is questionable. The culture of allowing almost anyone to undertake a teacher training course has been disasterous for the profession, but can you blame the universities as bums on seats equals more money?

Top graduates can demand a far higher wages in other professions, and even if they did feel that they could sacrifice the financial benefits of working in industry, top graduates often make very poor teachers due to the fact that they find their subject easy and therefore have trouble explaining concepts that are simple for them, to others who aren't as gifted in that area.

The policy is also insulting because politicians are implying that anyone can do it. If anyone could do it surely they would take the opportunity to claim their 13 weeks holiday per year by signing up; or perhaps not.

Every time a politician speaks I just want to shout "idiot" - they are totally clueless about how any of the public services actually work, whether it be teaching, nursing, policing or whatever. They are only interested in winning votes at whatever cost they deem necessary.

No-one wants to become a teacher these days because it is a terrible job, with increasingly poor pay and awful conditions of service, alongside continual public derision, a lack of social discipline and zero public or parental support due to political interference as well as derisory portrayals of the profession through the media.

The profession is dead, and no amount of sucking up by an inconsequential politician will change that.