Alternative routes to teaching profession

Since September 19, when "Ibn Campusino" flew the kite on alternative routes to the teaching profession in this paper, his proposal has received nothing but flak. So last Sunday it was the turn of the deans of the Faculties of Arts and Science to come down into the arena with a twin-sister stance but mainly to cow us non-influential protesters into silence. The message read: you either come to an agreement with us or there is no way forward; the subtext being, we have the necessary alliances where it matters and this is all that counts, not arguments.

Mighty haughty that. And yet what is more disturbing than the tone and the content of their letter is that what they said may very well be a fact. In the face of this situation the Faculty of Education, the one which should have the greatest and last say on teacher formation, can in fact be held to ransom.

As a citizen who has made education the whole reason of his working life, and who has no nest to feather, I think it is even my duty to react to the two deans' letter. With a newspaper allowing me space, I do not feel powerless.

First thing: let us not mix issues. The PGCE issue is a totally different one from the current MA/Ph.D. one; but it could be convenient to some to make a single issue of the two and confuse minds. The former, though not necessarily in its current form, is acceptable, the second is not.

This was also expressed in no uncertain terms by the Dean of the Faculty of Education himself (The Sunday Times, October 10) writing in the name of all his staff and also by the MUT spokesman.

There has been no attempt at confusing or scaring students regarding the future of these two routes; once the kite was flown one was not only entitled but even expected to express an opinion on the matter. The education of the nation is too important an issue to confine to a couple of corridors. After all, we are all paying for it and we all have children for whom we desire the best possible future.

It is also convenient to present the issue of the MA route as one of protecting your students at University from confusion. I and all the other contributors involved in this discussion so far prefer to defend the right of the thousands of students in our secondary schools and their parents not to be assigned 'teachers' who have not had one hour of induction into the profession. Yet, the two deans triumphantly proclaim that this route to the profession is 'guaranteed'.

The deans also gloat over the fact (it must have been some kind of victory on their part) that "as from next year the PGCE will be held even in those subjects where the number of applicants is tiny". How odd that a 'breakthrough' in the PGCE, the exclusive domain of the Faculty of Education, should be announced by the deans of two other faculties!

As a taxpayer, may I ask why this is a breakthrough? And how tiny is 'tiny'? Is it perchance just one student? Are there no regulations on this matter at University? Can a cash-strapped University offer courses to single students? Is this not a very dangerous and costly precedent? The Education Division, for example, does not offer courses unless there are a minimum number of students who apply for them.

But what happens at the Division is of no concern to the deans. They are so distant from the world of schooling that they say, "no changes in connection with the PGCE may be made unless consensus is first reached among the University Faculties, including, besides the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science."

The Education Division, which is ultimately responsible for the education of the people, is not even a small stakeholder in this business. It simply does not figure in the equation. Yet, it is the Division that has to deliver the goods employing these graduates for over 30 years after graduating. It is the Division that prepares syllabi and supervises the schools; it is the Division and the schools which have to bear the brunt when performances are low or below expectations. The University, somehow, disappears in these circumstances.

Still, the Division remains silent. One keeps on hoping that it keeps its voice low because it is very close to the government's ears. Let no one be under any illusion that this is just an ordinary 'turf war'; this concerns the proper preparation of future teachers, that is, the future of education in our country for the next 40 years. Well done to Mr Philip E. Said, single voice from the Division's Curriculum Centre, for his informed contribution (The Sunday Times, October 31) on the absolute necessity of the right professional training for teachers.

The two deans end their letter with what would seem a candid appeal for the discussion to go on, soliciting the "exploration of solutions based on a synthesis of the best elements in the current routes". But then one asks the Dean of the Faculty of Arts whether he considers the move recently made by his Faculty as one in this direction. The BA (Hons.) has been reduced from four years to three. (Has the year become longer at Tal-Qroqq? Do students learn faster these days? Or has the degree been downgraded? To whose gain this move?)

The fact is, that from an Honours degree, students can proceed directly to an MA and hence to teaching. In practically the same time as a B.Ed. (Hons) you can get your MA. An alternative route has been created in direct competition with the B.Ed. (Hons); one in which there is absolutely no professional training and yet brings with it an attractive allowance on top of the salary. But the Education Act allows it. How very distressing.

What is most worrying in this whole issue is that it could seem that it is not just us small fry who are powerless in controlling this manoeuvering and scheming but even the government itself.