6 Months Teacher Training Plan

[kinky j]

Considering the government has just issued new proposals promising better awareness of of autism for all ages, how exactly do they plan on implementing this if they cut teacher training "for the most able candidates" to just 6 months? That's without taking into account giving them a decent level of awareness of all the other SEN possibilities too. I find this truely laughable, our teachers need more training, not less!

 

What worries me the most is how will they judge who is most able? Will this be judged on academic ability, life skills, experience with children or maybe something else entirely? I have plenty of friends who a very talented at what they do but get that glazed look of fear when asked to keep an eye on the kids while i pop up the road to get some milk, and thats only 2 children! Is six months really going to be enough to learn how to manage a group of 30 all with individual needs and abilities?

 

 

6 Month Teacher Training Plan

 

Does anyone else think this is crazy?

 

(okay, rant over. I'll go put the kettle on and calm down now)

[Karen A]

Hi.A very personal opinion.I think the idea is motivated more by the need to find jobs for people than anything else.

I think it says a lot about how the profession is regarded.I am a qualified nurse and have considered returning to work.I would have to take a one year course /experience on the wards to return to work.Karen.

[purplehaze]

 

 

I totally agree-I actually laughed out load when I watched this this morning.

 

I am a SENCO and early years practitioner and have been training for years to get where I am now and know I will continue to train every year to keep updated.

 

Someone who works in a bank and who is good with numbers and maths is made reduntant and guess what the government pay them loads of money to become a teacher in six weeks (oh yes if you watched what I watched a conservative MP said it may be done in 6 wks). It's a bit like the Early years professional status- if people had a degree (in anything) they got paid up to �5000 to do the free course over 12-18 mths with little practice in a setting and then expected to lead/manage at level 7-nursery, pre-school etc. This should have been aimed at people working in early years already. Sorry it makes me MAD.

 

[ScienceGeek]

I don't think it is realistic at all. Just because someone is proficient in their field doesn't necessarily make them a good teaching candidate. I'm sure there probably are some people who would make good teachers out there, but surely providing adequate training and support will be better in the long run, but the government are all about the short term gains and gimmicks. Ugh. At the end of the day the education of the children is at stake and I don't think we should be running crazy schemes like this that could ruin some of the good work that is going on.

[Moll]

I'm in two minds about this as a teacher, who qualified for adult education I find this would appeal for me to retrain to work with primary or secondary, but on the other hand if it was for some one who had just graduated then I'd worry.

 

I have skills that can be adapted, I can do lesson plans, schemes of work, assessments, IEP's with my eyes shut (well not quite) but lack the relevant age group experience. But at age 22 just graduated then I would not of had the skills and I would of let my students down.

[chris54]

If these people want to become teachers they should go through the normal teacher training.

Just because they have had a over payed job in the past wont make them good teachers.

 

[Kathryn]

Sore point.

 

I am a qualified teacher - in South Africa. I have the equivalent of a PGCE, but when I went through the very complicated process of applying for qualified teacher status when I emigrated to the UK, I was told I couldn't have it. The reason they gave to me and many people in a similar position was that the teaching practice part of our course was slightly shorter than UK courses.

 

Although I was actually teaching as an unqualified teacher in a UK school when I applied, I was offered no information or advice on how I could make up the shortfall - which was only a couple of weeks as I remember - just a flat refusal.

 

I had L fairly soon afterwards and became a full time parent so did not pursue it further at the time. About 6 years ago I again made tentative enquiries about entering the profession here and was told, because of my foreign qualifications I wasn't eligible for any of the "return to teaching" programmes currently being offered. I did get a phone call from someone interested in enrolling me on their teacher training course for graduates. He asked me about my background and when I said I came from Zimbabwe congratulated me on my "very good standard of English". I was so stunned I didn't remind the berk that it was actually my first language. I then decided I'd had enough of being patronised and gave up the idea of teaching in a school.

 

My point is that I was turned down because I apparently hadn't trained for long enough - so the news that they are now thinking of shortening courses to 6 months rankles ever so slightly. If they go through with it, I might just write and ask if they will now consider giving me qualified teacher status.

 

K x

 

 

[isme]

Things like this make me furious! I left school after my A levels and went to university to do a 4 year course in music and QTS which qualified me as a teacher. There was NO SEN covered at all, it was just all done to an "average" primary age child..

I then chose to work in a Special School and loved it, its what I had always wanted to do, but I certainly wasn't anywhere near ready.. SO how on earth do they expect people to be able to do it in 6 months???? Ridiculous!!!

[chris54]

A Conservative spokesperson has said they would shorten it to 6 weeks!