Back in Year 12, I asked my History teacher Mr. Liston, "Did any Nobles join the middle classes during the French Revolution?" This, I thought, was a simple enough question, particularly as the lesson was focused on what the Nobles stood to lose if the revolution was successful. However, Mr Liston was unable to provide an answer. Instead, the next day he asked me to stay behind after the lesson. This was much to my horror, as I could not for the life of me think what I could have done to warrant this. Of course, the reason for me staying behind was not to be told off but to answer the question he had not been able to answer the previous day. He not only gave me a rather extensive answer to the question, but also some advice on where I could found out more about Nobles during the French Revolution if I was interested.
My point is that the best teachers are not always the cleverest. In my opinion the skill of teaching is not what knowledge you have, but how you impart that knowledge. Mr. Liston’s willingness to help, enthusiasm, ability to make the topic accessible and knack of relating to students ensured that we all excelled in history, and drove me on to apply to read history at university. It didn’t matter that he did not know the answer to every question asked of him, or that perhaps he wasn’t the smartest teacher I ever had. Speaking to friends recently I have heard similar tales of the best teachers not always being the best educated and we came to the (perhaps obvious) conclusion that teaching requires a completely different skill set to academia.
This leads on me on to my predominant qualm with the Education White Paper that has just been announced by Education Secretary Michael Gove. Gove is suggesting that the state will no longer help fund aspiring teachers who received less than a 2.2 in their degree.
It is my prediction that this bill will mean that many potentially great teachers who receive thirds will be put off going into teaching due to financial constraints, as they are hit by high fees magnified by the loss of earnings through a year out of work. This is particularly ironic considering that Carol Voderman, the head of the Coalition’s 'Maths Teaching Taskforce', graduated with a third. You may have thought that being such a maths ‘whizz’ Voderman may have been able to make this calculation, but apparently not.
In most schools in this country teaching is not only about delivering knowledge, but it is also an ongoing battle to inspire children to want to be educated. If a teacher cannot inspire young people to learn then it doesn’t matter how academically bright they are, the students will not be interested.
Even if you were to argue that quality of teaching is directly related to academic achievement, being able to inspire young people and the ability to be a positive role model has nothing to do with whether someone received a first from university.
The coalition seem to be showing a complete misunderstanding of what teaching involves in 90% of the country's schools; perhaps unsurprisingly considering well over half of them went to very privileged fee-paying schools, in which different skills are required by teachers.
The merits and downsides of cutting EMA, increasing teachers’ ability to lay their hands on pupils, and ensuring anonymity to staff accused of harassment (all of which, by the way, I also vehemently oppose) are all measures that could be argued either way. However, it is indisputable that how well someone did at university does not correlate to how well they teach.
The basis of improving schools undoubtedly comes from having a better standard of teaching. This new measure of only funding teacher training for those who receive certain degrees will only serve to discourage people who would make excellent teachers from entering the profession.
Commentators are calling this White Paper 'the biggest overhaul of education in decades'. However, by depriving Britain's schools of a whole generation of potentially great teachers, I fear that the Coalition are falling at the first hurdle in what is a long road towards driving up standards in education.
Tom Bateman
My point is that the best teachers are not always the cleverest. In my opinion the skill of teaching is not what knowledge you have, but how you impart that knowledge. Mr. Liston’s willingness to help, enthusiasm, ability to make the topic accessible and knack of relating to students ensured that we all excelled in history, and drove me on to apply to read history at university. It didn’t matter that he did not know the answer to every question asked of him, or that perhaps he wasn’t the smartest teacher I ever had. Speaking to friends recently I have heard similar tales of the best teachers not always being the best educated and we came to the (perhaps obvious) conclusion that teaching requires a completely different skill set to academia.
This leads on me on to my predominant qualm with the Education White Paper that has just been announced by Education Secretary Michael Gove. Gove is suggesting that the state will no longer help fund aspiring teachers who received less than a 2.2 in their degree.
It is my prediction that this bill will mean that many potentially great teachers who receive thirds will be put off going into teaching due to financial constraints, as they are hit by high fees magnified by the loss of earnings through a year out of work. This is particularly ironic considering that Carol Voderman, the head of the Coalition’s 'Maths Teaching Taskforce', graduated with a third. You may have thought that being such a maths ‘whizz’ Voderman may have been able to make this calculation, but apparently not.
In most schools in this country teaching is not only about delivering knowledge, but it is also an ongoing battle to inspire children to want to be educated. If a teacher cannot inspire young people to learn then it doesn’t matter how academically bright they are, the students will not be interested.
Even if you were to argue that quality of teaching is directly related to academic achievement, being able to inspire young people and the ability to be a positive role model has nothing to do with whether someone received a first from university.
The coalition seem to be showing a complete misunderstanding of what teaching involves in 90% of the country's schools; perhaps unsurprisingly considering well over half of them went to very privileged fee-paying schools, in which different skills are required by teachers.
The merits and downsides of cutting EMA, increasing teachers’ ability to lay their hands on pupils, and ensuring anonymity to staff accused of harassment (all of which, by the way, I also vehemently oppose) are all measures that could be argued either way. However, it is indisputable that how well someone did at university does not correlate to how well they teach.
The basis of improving schools undoubtedly comes from having a better standard of teaching. This new measure of only funding teacher training for those who receive certain degrees will only serve to discourage people who would make excellent teachers from entering the profession.
Commentators are calling this White Paper 'the biggest overhaul of education in decades'. However, by depriving Britain's schools of a whole generation of potentially great teachers, I fear that the Coalition are falling at the first hurdle in what is a long road towards driving up standards in education.
Tom Bateman
No comments:
Post a Comment