Teachers must be a class apart

I agree with Professor Ebdon's suggestion that David Camerson's proposals show an amazing ignorance of the role of the Quality Assurance Agency, and the significant role post-92 universities have in relation to teacher training. Firstly, why would Cameron 'repay the student loans of applicants with a first or upper second-class degree in “maths or a rigorous science subject from a good university', when STEM applicants already receive the largest financial incentives for PGCE? The relative increase is still disproportionate to the wages graduates are likely to earn in industry (I assume) so it is unlikely to stimulate PGCE recruitment; I think offering to repay the student loans of applications who finish a PGCE programme is a great idea but it should be offered to all applicants/subjects. Secondly, why would Cameron discriminate against students who graduate with a first or upper second-class degree from a post-92 university? You can argue about standards all you want, but a student graduating with a first from a post-92 university is a good student, who has to deal with – in most cases – terrible class-mates and facilities; undergraduate library allocation, for example, is 50% less at a post-92 than at a Russell Group university – 10 books at MMU compared to 20 books at UoM. If they are able to graduate with a first then they have earned it...

This is a policy designed solely to make headlines. Cameron has learned the wrong lesson from Labour.

With grade inflation in universities the number of 3rds awarded each year must be tiny. Cameron is is obviously looking at the Tory Toffs (on his front bench?) who got Gentlemen's 3rds in the good old days rather than at what actually goes on in universities nowadays.

I would like STEM teachers to be good trained practising Scientists, Technologists, Engineers and Mathematicians first, then trained in teaching.

I'd love to see the academics in my department cope in an inner city comprehensive.

Presumably Cameron didn't actually explicitly exclude the newer universities from his list of 'good' ones? Some older institutions may be in for a shock. In any case, it's a harebrained idea to draw up a list like that. The point concerning a minimum entry qualification is fair enough, though. Having said that, it should be a minimum 2:1.

@ Richard Armstrong - I mostly agree with what you say, but I'm not sure that the facilities at new unis are necessarily worse than those at older unis. There are some supposedly 'better' institutions that are still living off their reputations, which, if they don't invest, will soon flake off like the paint off their walls. Also, UGs tend to have enough in the way of library resources even at newer institutions. As much as I prefer actual books, electronic resources have levelled the playing field somewhat.

Daft comment, Daniel. I'd love to see the teachers in the inner city comprehensive cope with questions after an international conference paper. Or the Vicar of Dibley cope in Basra. Horses for courses.

The former Australian Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson put forward a similar proposal in 2008 for entry to undergraduate teacher education courses - setting a minimum entry of a rank of 70 (all of each school leaving cohort are ranked from 99.95 down to 0.05). When asked which careers would be suitable for the remaining 70% of people he rather ducked giving an answer.

The is surely much much more to being a good teacher than academic achievement. What about communication skills, pastoral care, behaviour management.... these are not well covered in most undergraduate qualifications.

There seems to be considerable ignorance on this proposal. Firstly, currently, it is almost impossible to secure a place on a PGCE progamme with a third class degree, and the data would suggest that the vast majority have a 2.1.
Furthermore, ITT is subjected to an Ofsted inspection process which grades the quality of provision across the country.In some cases, the post 92 sector( Million +) scores higher than either Russell Group, 1994, or University Alliance so it would be foolish to simply rule out post 92 institutions from training teachers. Governments should concern themselves more about content of teacher training programmes so that prospective teachers have a post graduate qualification that is truly post graduate, that focuses on educating graduates rather than training them to produce endless portfolios, to meet spurious standards that reflect the current fads and fashions of the school curriculum. Start with a critique of 'constructivism' rather than banning the post 92s and we might get better trained teachers!

Cameron is advocating a policy based on the assumption that people with good degrees (2:2s and up) from good universities (not sure what he means) make better teachers. Might it not make sense to test this assumption first, by say doing some sort of data gathering exercise?

@ Silent Minority:

There is a positive correlation between u/g degree scores and teaching performance, although, at r=.10, its not very strong, according to this meta-review:
http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/1/146

I think the respondents to this are rather confused. I entirely agree that the reference to 'best universities' is worrying, but the statement has two parts to it 1) They only want students with 2.2 or above to apply. 2) Out of those who apply, only those with STEM subjects from a 'good university' will be offered a 'golden handshake' of loans paid off. It's important to note that these are not saying that only those from 'best' universities need apply. The reference to STEM is similar to a Labour effort to offer subsidies to increase applications to STEM subjects, given a perceived shortfall.

'Teachers must be a class apart'... having a 2:2 is being a class apart? There are not many students graduating with less than a 2:2 nowadays...

Isobel, and others who enjoy banging on about 'grade inflation'. It may well be true that there are not many students graduating with less than a 2:2 'these days' (still a fair number, I would suggest - I remember a few people with ordinary degrees at my first graduation ceremony just 5 years ago), but the percentage of students entering HE in the first place is falling behind in the UK in comparison to similar economies elsewhere in the world, and so as a percentage of our society - those with a 2.2 degree and above are still very much 'the elite'. Academics often forget this, but we're talking about the teaching profession here, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Whether or not my 2.1 makes me a better teacher, I wouldn't like to say. Having a good firm subject knowledge certainly helps, but you can quite easily get through an undergrad degree - even at a 'prestigious' institution - without really engaging with the subject on a deeper level, so I rather suspect this misses the point.

There may or may not be grade inflation, but most of my personal tutees see a 2:2 as a failure.

To KD: that is my experience as well.

There are already too many 'ivory tower' teachers in our schools who haven't a clue about the real world of work and how to get our young minds of the future to understand that life is not a free ride.

Academic ability should be secondary to teaching ability. Yes I agree that standards should be higher, but lets look at the teacher training not the academic ability.

As someone who reads an awful lot of CVs the worst ones come from so called graduates, who do not seem to understand the fundamentals of grammar, spelling or how to set something as simple as a CV out. Let alone inspire a young mind.