Cycling UK Forum

tanglewood wrote:

pete75 wrote:

tanglewood wrote:
Instead of being rude, why not just look it up?

https://getintoteaching.education.gov.u ... ing-routes

You need a degree to get on a course. To get a degree you need other qualifications too. None of these are anything to do with teacher training. If you qualify for training, the training is 1 year, or two years part time. If school-led, it is two terms.

I know, because I am a qualified teacher, as posted earlier.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I'm not being rude merely pointing out that to qualify to teach most subjects a prospective teacher needs to spend three or four years on a degree course training in the subject they are to teach and then a year on a teacher training course. Four or five years training to be say a history teacher.

But the entry requirement can't be called part of the training!. To get on a degree course you need other qualifications - why not add 2 more years for A levels or equivalent, and some GCSE time too, to the training period for teachers?

By your reckoning anyone with a degree (half of school leavers now, hurrah!) can say they are 75% of the way through their teacher training...


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

If they want to be a teacher then they are 75% of the way through the required training or don't you regard gaining the knowledge to teach a subject as part of the training to teach it Then there are teachers who spend three years learning to teach on a B Ed course, the modern equivalent of the old teacher training courses.

mjr wrote:And my point which seems to be being wilfully ignored is that all transport is tax funded in some way, or whatever you want to call it. That alone doesn't make it a bad idea, contrary to the earlier claim.

Who is saying it isn't and lots of tax is raised through taxes directly related to motor vehicles.

pete75 wrote:

tanglewood wrote:

pete75 wrote:
I'm not being rude merely pointing out that to qualify to teach most subjects a prospective teacher needs to spend three or four years on a degree course training in the subject they are to teach and then a year on a teacher training course. Four or five years training to be say a history teacher.

But the entry requirement can't be called part of the training!. To get on a degree course you need other qualifications - why not add 2 more years for A levels or equivalent, and some GCSE time too, to the training period for teachers?

By your reckoning anyone with a degree (half of school leavers now, hurrah!) can say they are 75% of the way through their teacher training...


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

If they want to be a teacher then they are 75% of the way through the required training or don't you regard gaining the knowledge to teach a subject as part of the training to teach it Then there are teachers who spend three years learning to teach on a B Ed course, the modern equivalent of the old teacher training courses.

The B.Ed is not the modern equivalent. If anything, it's the out-going old fashioned route. The most used route now must be the PGCE school-led training.

The amount of knowledge you need to teach to years 7 to 11 is limited. Knowledge is easy to get now, and anyway the curriculum is well known and focussed. In all your history degree you may never study Victorian medicine, yet that is the dominant topic for my daughters GCSE History.

When I was involved in recruiting teachers, we never asked them what they knew about the curriculum topics. Usually irrelevant. What we asked about was teaching skills. That's what the training is about, and that's what really matters.

Trust me, I learned absolutely nothing useful to teaching on my degree!

After all, whilst I trained as a geography teacher, I ended up teaching KS2 maths as well with great results. Nothing wrong with that, if you have good teaching skills.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

tanglewood wrote:

pete75 wrote:

tanglewood wrote:
But the entry requirement can't be called part of the training!. To get on a degree course you need other qualifications - why not add 2 more years for A levels or equivalent, and some GCSE time too, to the training period for teachers?

By your reckoning anyone with a degree (half of school leavers now, hurrah!) can say they are 75% of the way through their teacher training...


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

If they want to be a teacher then they are 75% of the way through the required training or don't you regard gaining the knowledge to teach a subject as part of the training to teach it Then there are teachers who spend three years learning to teach on a B Ed course, the modern equivalent of the old teacher training courses.

The B.Ed is not the modern equivalent. If anything, it's the out-going old fashioned route. The most used route now must be the PGCE school-led training.

The amount of knowledge you need to teach to years 7 to 11 is limited. Knowledge is easy to get now, and anyway the curriculum is well known and focussed. In all your history degree you may never study Victorian medicine, yet that is the dominant topic for my daughters GCSE History.

When I was involved in recruiting teachers, we never asked them what they knew about the curriculum topics. Usually irrelevant. What we asked about was teaching skills. That's what the training is about, and that's what really matters.

Trust me, I learned absolutely nothing useful to teaching on my degree!

After all, whilst I trained as a geography teacher, I ended up teaching KS2 maths as well with great results. Nothing wrong with that, if you have good teaching skills.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

At one time a lot of teachers went to teachers training college for three years. These all now seem to have been either closed, become stand alone universities or become part of universities. What I meant was the B. Ed. type course is the modern equivalent to the courses the now defunct teacher training colleges offered.

If your view that knowledge of the subject to be taught is usually irrelevant is a prevalent in the teaching profession it explains a lot about our schools.

pete75 wrote:

mjr wrote:And my point which seems to be being wilfully ignored is that all transport is tax funded in some way, or whatever you want to call it. That alone doesn't make it a bad idea, contrary to the earlier claim.

Who is saying it isn't and lots of tax is raised through taxes directly related to motor vehicles.

viewtopic.php?p=1099561#p1099561 and yes, but less than spent supporting them.

pete75 wrote:

tanglewood wrote:

pete75 wrote:
If they want to be a teacher then they are 75% of the way through the required training or don't you regard gaining the knowledge to teach a subject as part of the training to teach it Then there are teachers who spend three years learning to teach on a B Ed course, the modern equivalent of the old teacher training courses.

The B.Ed is not the modern equivalent. If anything, it's the out-going old fashioned route. The most used route now must be the PGCE school-led training.

The amount of knowledge you need to teach to years 7 to 11 is limited. Knowledge is easy to get now, and anyway the curriculum is well known and focussed. In all your history degree you may never study Victorian medicine, yet that is the dominant topic for my daughters GCSE History.

When I was involved in recruiting teachers, we never asked them what they knew about the curriculum topics. Usually irrelevant. What we asked about was teaching skills. That's what the training is about, and that's what really matters.

Trust me, I learned absolutely nothing useful to teaching on my degree!

After all, whilst I trained as a geography teacher, I ended up teaching KS2 maths as well with great results. Nothing wrong with that, if you have good teaching skills.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

At one time a lot of teachers went to teachers training college for three years. These all now seem to have been either closed, become stand alone universities or become part of universities. What I meant was the B. Ed. type course is the modern equivalent to the courses the now defunct teacher training colleges offered.

If your view that knowledge of the subject to be taught is usually irrelevant is a prevalent in the teaching profession it explains a lot about our schools.

You must remember, as a pupil or parent, the frequent lament "s/he knows their stuff, but just can't teach it"?

And it may explain a lot - record school attainment, 4th best European country in teaching science, best universities in the world outside the private ones in the USA, thousands moving here for a British education, more graduates than ever before...


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

tanglewood wrote:

pete75 wrote:

tanglewood wrote:
The B.Ed is not the modern equivalent. If anything, it's the out-going old fashioned route. The most used route now must be the PGCE school-led training.

The amount of knowledge you need to teach to years 7 to 11 is limited. Knowledge is easy to get now, and anyway the curriculum is well known and focussed. In all your history degree you may never study Victorian medicine, yet that is the dominant topic for my daughters GCSE History.

When I was involved in recruiting teachers, we never asked them what they knew about the curriculum topics. Usually irrelevant. What we asked about was teaching skills. That's what the training is about, and that's what really matters.

Trust me, I learned absolutely nothing useful to teaching on my degree!

After all, whilst I trained as a geography teacher, I ended up teaching KS2 maths as well with great results. Nothing wrong with that, if you have good teaching skills.


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

At one time a lot of teachers went to teachers training college for three years. These all now seem to have been either closed, become stand alone universities or become part of universities. What I meant was the B. Ed. type course is the modern equivalent to the courses the now defunct teacher training colleges offered.

If your view that knowledge of the subject to be taught is usually irrelevant is a prevalent in the teaching profession it explains a lot about our schools.

You must remember, as a pupil or parent, the frequent lament "s/he knows their stuff, but just can't teach it"?

And it may explain a lot - record school attainment, 4th best European country in teaching science, best universities in the world outside the private ones in the USA, thousands moving here for a British education, more graduates than ever before...


It's a composting toilet -> my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

I very much doubt university staff regard subject knowledge as usually irrelevant.

Fourth best country in teaching science maybe but don't try and say subject knowledge is irrelevant for a science teacher.

mjr wrote:

pete75 wrote:

mjr wrote:And my point which seems to be being wilfully ignored is that all transport is tax funded in some way, or whatever you want to call it. That alone doesn't make it a bad idea, contrary to the earlier claim.

Who is saying it isn't and lots of tax is raised through taxes directly related to motor vehicles.

viewtopic.php?p=1099561#p1099561 and yes, but less than spent supporting them.

So some say.