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.

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.

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.

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

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.