The latest initiative for tricking gullible fools into ruining their lives by becoming teachers* is called “Teach First”. It is based on an American scheme and is a bit different to what has gone before. Firstly, it is run by a charity and has specific social purposes. It only works in “challenging” schools and is focused on “making a difference” to the underprivileged. Secondly, it is aimed at “top graduates” and is quite explicit that it wants to shape future leaders, whether they stay in teaching or not. This is made particularly clear by the following blurb from their website:
“Teach First unashamedly expects many of its participants to become the future Ministers, CEOs, and serial entrepreneurs of our age.”
The agenda is clear: what challenging schools need are bright, academically able, young people with a social conscience who want to make a difference to the lives of children from deprived backgrounds.
Now, I was once a bright, academically able young person with a social conscience who wanted to make a difference to the lives of children from deprived backgrounds. In fact, except for the “young” bit, I just about still fit that description (although I think the term “sucker” sums such people up a bit more accurately). I therefore feel qualified to comment on the little flaw in this scheme: challenging schools don’t actually want bright, academically able teachers who want to make a difference.
Now, there might be a few well run schools that count as challenging, but schools that are well run soon improve. Any school that has been “challenging” for a considerable length of time will be run, or have been run, by idiots, those too stupid to either improve the school or to leave. The last thing they want is anyone with even half a brain asking questions or pointing out when something they are told makes no sense. There is an anti-academic, anti-intellectual, anti-thinking culture in these schools. If you are academically well qualified you will be repeatedly told that you must be mainly interested in A-level classes or top sets. If you have a good memory of what people say then you will be resented for knowing how many promises those who manage you have broken. If you are alert enough to point out problems before they happen, then you will be considered responsible for creating those problems. If you use long words then you will confuse members of SMT who have a more limited vocabulary (I still cringe with embarrassment about the time I identified the “most egregious offenders” in a class to an Assistant Head at Woodrow Wilson School) . On top of that many teachers with good qualifications will have gone to good schools themselves and know immediately that what is going on around them is a tragic betrayal of the disadvantaged rather than a triumph of heroic school managers over difficult circumstances.
Wanting to make a difference is also a real handicap for an aspiring teacher. It leads you to try to teach your classes, even year 11 bottom groups. It might make you point out when students are in the wrong sets. It can cause you to resent doing glorified baby-sitting and make you unsympathetic to the dumbing down of the curriculum. It might make you disagree with the endless lowering of expectations on the grounds that nobody can expect much from “kids like these”. It might even make you suggest avoiding the easy option when you know that students are going to lose out. Most of all, it might make you an unbearable cynic who whinges ceaselessly about the terribly disregard for the children’s future that is an every day reality in sink schools.
Because of this I genuinely believe that those who Teach First will be shocked, not just at the state of these schools, but the extent to which their talents and good intentions will not be appreciated. The scheme presumably has been a success in America, which is a reminder of the differences in our cultures. The British class system is enforced from above and below and anybody trying to change society will not be welcome. All I can say to anyone who is prepared to Teach First is good luck. It would be great if you can prove me wrong. There are a number of graduates from the scheme starting at my school next year, filling the vacancies where we simply couldn’t get qualified staff. I’ll do my best to return to this subject when I’ve seen how they get on. That is assuming, of course, that I don’t give up trying to make a difference before they do.
*It’s been a long year. I’ve earned the right to be that cynical. I’ll be alright after the summer holidays. If I survive that long.
Entries (RSS)
July 9th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I applied to the teachfirst scheme and was rejected. Now on my way to Glasgow instead, I hope it works out better for me in the end. Hope you enjoy the summer!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Equivalent programs have not been any more successful in the US, as far as I’m aware of. Of course I’m a Californian, and we suffer some of the most problematic schools in the nation.
I personally would love to teach, specifically math and science. I will not be going into teaching however, because I object to mandatory union membership that will use my money to support causes I disagree with. Along with our abysmal situation where teachers must buy their own classroom supplies while bloated administrations make six figures per desk.
I figure I will concentrate on making ridiculously amounts of money in the private sector, use that to create schools that will compete with the current system, and hire only people like you to teach in them.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I can point you to Teach for America http://www.teachforamerica.org - they put in college grads from the top schools into public schools. Research has shown conflicting evidence, but 3 major points of view are accepted:
1. These teachers do make a difference to results as measured by standardised tests. Not a great difference, but yes a slight difference.
2. There is high attrition- after 5 years of entering a program like this, only 15% of the cohort is still teaching.
3. There is a greater appreciation of development issues amongst the cohort and a continued interest/involvement in these issues much after the fellowship.
Also, research - most recently by the hamilton project (dr. thomas kane at harvard) showed that certified, alternately certified or uncertified teachers have little difference in impact in the classroom.
Cheers,
Vivek
I blog at theredpencil.wordpress.com
May 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Interesting post.
I was a teachfirst particpant. I lasted about a term, but handed my notice in much sooner than that.
I’m not sure I agree with you about the difficulty of being accepted as a ‘bright young thing’ in a failing school, but I totally agree with your point that ‘wanting to make a difference is a real handicap for aspiring teachers’. As the new member of the department I was shafted with four years worth of bottom set Maths classes, I was told by my department head that I ’shouldn’t try to teach them anything, just keep them busy’. This was babysitting pure and simple, not even ‘glorified’. Disappointing, demotivating and shocking.
It is interesting to see that your school only got teachfirst students as it could not fill posts any other way, as participants we are told that schools are crying out for our genious!
Another great teachfirst myth is that the participants are the brightest and the best; after leaving I took a more typical graduate role and the people I deal with now make my fellow teachfirsters appear average at best. About 50% of those who apply for teachfirst are offered a job, this compares to an average of about 5% of those who apply to milkround firms…
I would be interested to hear how your schools new teachfirsters got on this year.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
one thing I missed out:
The central conceit of the programme, that bright young things can do their time teaching before taking those skills to get a ‘proper job’ is both insulting and flawed.
Flawed: skills aren’t that transferrable, the best way to get business skills from Uni is to…join a business. Becoming a teacher so that you can get your dream graduate role in a city firm in two years time is the same as becoming an accountant in order to land a job as a lawyer.
Insulting: It doesn’t give a great message to your fellow staff that you are (sold as being) only here for a few years before you move off to better things while they are still stuck in their rut. Other teachers pre-conceptions will justifiably be that you are a tw*t.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Because of the high staff turnover I was never quite sure exactly who the Teach-Firsters were and how many we still have. I will try and find out and report back but I am a bit worried that it might give away which school I’m working at.
Despite my cynicism above I do welcome anything that gets academic high-fliers into the classroom. I just feel that, as ever in teaching, schemes/initiatives/gimmicks are used to address a problem instead of looking at the fundamental issue: teaching does not reward academic excellence.