Is 6 months long enough to train to be a teacher?

I'm coming to the end of my final training year, where I have been trained on the job at a Secondary school. This is different to a PGCE route as you get far more experience on the job and you pretty much teach from day one. This has been an incredibly intense year for me and I'm certainly not shy of hard work, but I often find my day begins at 8 in the morning and even though school technically finishes around 3.30/4 (depending on detentions!) I often don't finish planning my lessons until 12 at night.

To do all this in a mere six months seems not only ridiculous but near enough impossible. It's not a question of whether they could prepare people for the job in that time, more the fact that any sane person would pull out half their hair whilst doing so. I personally don't see how you could complete the course.

Many people I know quit teaching in the first year of their training as they haven't been prepared for the amount of time you need in order to be on top of your work and be a successful teacher, so surely decreasing the amount of preparation/training time is a recipe for increasing the chances of failing your training period?

I think it's a bad idea. It targets people who just want work not people who want to be teachers. Some of my worst teachers are those most qualified, they find it difficult to understand how to explain something they find so simple to someone who finds it very difficult.

For example, for some of these people it could be the equivelant of explaining the word 'the' it's so hard to do because you find it so easy, but on a higher scale. We're just going to end up with a large amount of bad teachers.

With Teach First although you only train for 6 weeks, you then start a 2 year hands on teachers training course in a school before you are treated as fully qualified. 6 months would not be enough.

The best thing about Teach First is that it encourages people that have already been in the work place and who can go 'back to school' by paying them a basic wage over the two year training.

If your not up to teach first because your to young etc then do it the traditional way and study it for two years, cos you can.

IT DEPENDS ON THE GRADE- AND THE PERSON. I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD HAVE A LONG BACKGROUND CHECK AS WELL BUT I KNOW TEACHERS(@ LEAST 3) AND THEY PARTY PRETTY HARD- THEY ALL TEACH ELEMENTARY AND ARE IN THERE 20'S. SO I WILL SAY IT DEPENDS. I WILL TELL U DONT THINK YOUR KIDS 2ND OR 4TH GRADE TEACHER WASNT DOING "E" OR GOD KNOWS WHAT THE WEEKEND OR EVEN NIGHT BEFORE CLASS- CAUSE LOTS OF THEM ARE. I PERSONALLY THINK YOU SHOULD BE IN YOUR 30'S @ LEAST TO TEACH BUT THAT WOULD SERIOUSLY LIMIT OUR TEACHER NUMBERS MORE THAN THEY ARE ALREADY. I FEEL A LOT OF TEACHERS AREN'T FIT - BUT CHEERS TO THE ONES THAT ARE- WE NEED YOU :)

The main difference between the TeachFirst programme and the PGCE route into teaching is that one is by selection and the other remains largely open to all who meet certain basic academic criteria such as gaining a Bachelors degree. If a selection process is employed for this 'fast-track' PGCE, similar to corporate selection processes, which focus on key competancies such as: Empathy, resilience and self-evaluation amongst others, then it seems a logical evolution in teacher training that picks up on a social trend of people from the private sector seeking a more fulfilling career after gaining some initial work experience. In addition, this shortened PGCE is actually only a fuller recognition of the significant time in the classroom already involved in the standard PGCE and therefore the adaptation is actually minimal and seems practical as the pedagogical learning that a PGCE focuses on only becomes pertinent to the prospective teacher once they are immersed in the classroom - teaching is definately a hands on job.

I agree. It depends heavily on the candidates background and experience. Just because you've done glorified data entry in Canary Wharf for 5 years, doesn't make you the right person to inspire and lead kids, particularly those in inner city under-funded schools, often who speak English as a second or third language and who may have a difficult home life. Don't get me wrong, with the right training, some of these people changing careers might make great teachers but we shouldn't think its a simple one-size-fits-all solution to Britain's looming unemployment crisis. As Bob Talbert said, "good teachers are costly, but bad teachers cost more".

I think it depends on your previous education and employment. I would say for someone who's completed a degree or two and worked in a professional field for a couple of years, then yes, six months is enough time to train to teach. But for someone just out of school who has only worked for McDonald's or something, then no way. Also, I think teacher training should be ongoing, and teachers should take courses throughout their careers to brush up on skills, new teaching methods, etc.