Teachers to have Masters in Teaching and Learning

[Mike]

The Government in the UK thinks that all teachers should have this masters degree. I see this as being a fabulous way of them increasing student debt (and therefore the hidden Tax) but I don't quite see how it would benefit in the classroom.

[BarcelonAl]

What's the point? As you say, just seems to be a way of making more money from students. I seriously can't see any advantage to any teacher having had 2-3 years more in academia...you need to get out there and get experience of teaching surely?

I await Claire's take on all this...

[liz.brownlloyd]

I'm glad Clair and Andy are English teachers and not you Mike (read the title of the discussion).

[BarcelonAl]

Clair

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Andy]

We've talked about this just recently in the staffroom. Our theory is that more and more people are being encouraged to get degrees whereas before they would have gone into a job after college (if indeed they had gone there). One of the reasons for this high increase in my opinion is the desire for University leaders to gain a person's tuition fee so people are getting into Uni easier than before. In many ways, I believe it is beginning to rapidly devalue the degree. What we are now finding with the majority of PGCE students is not a desire to do the job properly in terms of pastoral care, etc, rather a desire for a job that they think finishes early which irritates me tremendously. Surely there should be a desire to do a job if you are actually going to train for it!

In some ways I think it would be a good idea as the more knowledge you possess the more you can pass on, etc. It would certainly be currently useful in terms of moving up the career ladder. However, having randomly observed and heard tales of woe about our previous Dr I don't think supreme intelligence is the only skill that is necessary to do this job because if you can't get them to behave you can't get them to learn. For anyone who actually cares a masters is probably something that I am going to do. I would like to do it in English but I think it is best for my career if I did it in Education and I will have access to all the resources as well so funds won't be such an issue. I will not become a Dr until the Simpsons has finished and nobody can remember it because the comments would just piss me off.

Anyway, I've no doubt the government will spin a web of fabrication that they are doing this to improve the learning of every youngster and that every child matters, etc which will also irritate me tremendously. The initial months of my NQT year were the hardest I have ever gone through because I was creating everything from scratch and the learning curve was very steep. People said to me the PGCE was hard but I thought it was a box ticking exercise compared to my first term. The classes I have now are much harder but I have acquired skills and tougher skin thanks to being plunged in at the deep end and I believe that I am the better for it. I personally think it is something that should come after that year and be optional.

[Mike]

Thanks for pointing that one out Liz! It's pretty typical of me to be honest!

[Mike]

Andy. There must be a limit on the knowledge you can pass on at school. If, for example, you had a phd in Physics then you would not be able to give 12 year olds the full benefit of 15 years of study. It's purely because of the way we need to learn. I my humble opinion if I was to represent a lifetime of learning it would be like a pyramid - extensive knowlege but over a broad base is required to start with the focus narrowing as you specialise in one part. I suppose that the effort required to reach the progress to the top of the subject would look inverted pyramid!

High standard degrees (Medicine, Maths, English, Sciences, Architecture(?)) will always be more valuable than the plethera of 'new style' degrees available (General Studies?!). I suppose it is part of snobbery to be honest which seems to go hand in hand with the whole Red Brick University thing.

[Andy]

Andy. There must be a limit on the knowledge you can pass on at school. If, for example, you had a phd in Physics then you would not be able to give 12 year olds the full benefit of 15 years of study.

Of course there is a limit to the knowledge that you can pass on at school but you should be able to move a child on in terms of its initial understanding. Many factors come into play such as their IQ and yours, the time you have, the course content you have to plough your way through, etc. However, there are also the random questions that you get asked that have nothing to do with your lesson plan/scheme of work that you should be able to at least answer and pass knowledge on. Lessons on poetry are a bugger for this and one of the reasons why you can't leave Other Cultures work set for a Cover Supervisor.

I believe a large part of my job is being able to recognise a person's talent and to be able to show them the way forward so that they do independent study/further reading at home, which sadly I did when I was at school (mainly because I was bored). FYI, Philpot showed me how to do this and it is probably the main reason why she is so well liked by kids at Bedford. This is also one of the reasons why I hold Mrs. Morris in such high regard and the main reason as to why I am nervous about starting at Freddies because I rate her so highly and have to tell her what to do for the new syllablus in the 2011-12 academic year. Eeeek!

Also, for obvious reasons there are some children that you teach that are brighter than you but do not possess as much knowledge in your subject and want to. When that happens, in my limited experience, you need to have a plethora of knowledge and be able to discuss your subject's theories/ideas, etc, with them but also make sure they 'tick the boxes' in the exam. In many ways these children are harder to teach than your ADHD/ESBD children because they are constantly testing your knowledge. I just don't see how this new Masters that they are promoting will make a difference to this area.

It's purely because of the way we need to learn.

The sad thing is Mike that with the majority of children it isn't making them learn it to love it, it is making them learn it to pass an exam. In my opinion there is far too much testing and far too much emphasis placed on exams when children are younger.

[mr_e]

The intention seems to be that the MTL degree is done part-time whilst teaching. I'm hesitant to comment as I have a limited idea of what pressures teachers face, but if it's focused on providing teachers with more practical and analytical skills that let them teach better, then that's great. Just as long as it doesn't mean an unsustainable workload for new teachers who feel they have to do it as soon as possible to get anywhere in the profession.

[liz.brownlloyd]

Thanks for pointing that one out Liz! It's pretty typical of me to be honest!

Sorry facitious mood on Sunday when I wrote that! No I can't spell facitious.

[Andy]

but if it's focused on providing teachers with more practical and analytical skills that let them teach better, then that's great.

Then why have a 3 year QTS course in it? Or for that matter why have a 1 year intensive training course in it?

Oh wait, it could be because
a)They want to cut short the training to 6 months.
b)There's a general election coming up and they want to make up for the horrific balls up that was the literacy hour. The Conservatives can rip them to shreds with that one because, IMHO, it has made children weaker at grammar.
c)They have made catastrophic errors with the economy and are going to cover it up by saying that under them everyone's child is going to succeed and be better taught with one-to-one tuition - How? The cost will be insane.
d)It was a prelude to Ed Balls' White paper which just irritates me from the little I have read of it. How can a man be in charge of the children's future and the direction of a workforce when he never was actually at the chalk face?

I'm not being cynical here but if you look at when the majority of Labour's educational reforms have occurred during Blair's reign they all were either in the first year of office or around a year before a general election. Seemingly, it is the same with Brown as it no doubt would be with Cameron.

Anyway, to be honest, I feel that most of them have been completely calamitious in creating progress and they have done nothing other than create administrative tasks that have no bearing on children's future - the amount of paperwork/records I have to keep is ridiculous and most of it is highly irrelevant until Ofsted come. I actually love being in a classroom, I feel comfortable there like most teachers I know and I enjoy teaching and working with a class who you can have fun with but most of these educational strategies take you away from there and away from doing things for the classroom which is why there are such a bugbear. Also, the amount of extra people who are not teachers or LSAs/HLTAs that a school now employs is ridiculous to cope with their strategies. This money could be better spent on resources/enrichment trips, etc. Certain advances have happened that I believe will be really good - the VLE, for example - but I think that is because of technological advances rather than Labour's initiative.

If I am being really cynical then this to me smells like a propoganda technique that Labour will use to attempt to salvage the next general election because they will say that are doing it for ''you'' and ''your child matters to us'' when all that matters to them is that they win the next general election

[stimpsonslostson]

On a slightly related topic...
Teaching standards at Hogwarts are assessed. Would you send your child to the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?

[Mike]

Deffo I would. There are a few deaths and maimings in a term but lets be honest, Magic is a dangerous business!