Cambridge trainee teachers in their own words
Jess Landy
This is our latest interview in a series with former Cambridge PGCE trainees in the context of new Government proposals which have put the course under threat. Jess Landy completed the Secondary History PGCE and is currently Head of History at Comberton Village College in Cambridgeshire, a University of Cambridge partnership school. She has also been a mentor for trainees from both the Cambridge course and other university-based programmes. Jess explains why these courses play a vital role in preparing teachers for long careers in the profession, by equipping them to relish the job, even when the going gets tough.
As well as training to teach at Cambridge, the University was also where I did my degree
I grew up near Oxford and did my history degree at Cambridge. Teaching was something that I had always thought about, but I leant towards primary training originally. My love of history, however, made my mind up for me. When I went to do a two-week work experience placement at a secondary school near my home, I found that I was also fascinated by the technical aspects of history teaching: the planning, the assessment, and understanding how children learn.
The Cambridge PGCE was flagged up to me at an early stage
I have always enjoyed working with children in a variety of settings and capacities: at times I’ve been a Brownie leader, a respite break co-ordinator and a volunteer. What I really wanted to do as a teacher was to take on the challenge of imparting not just a knowledge of history, but a love of and enthusiasm for the subject, to students. Part of the reason I chose Cambridge was because I had already studied there, but the main reason was that I was advised by another professional that the PGCE programme would really suit someone like me. They were absolutely right: I found it supportive, intellectually challenging, and completely inspiring.
If I hadn’t done the Cambridge course, I might not still be a teacher now
I would not be the professional I am without the Cambridge course and may not even still be teaching. Not only did it give me a strong understanding of the key aspects of teaching, it also inspired my love of history pedagogy. I had never before understood or thought about my subject as deeply as I did during that course. I learned to think carefully about the specific students in front of me and to adapt my teaching to facilitate their progress, rather than just delivering the same lesson year in, year out, for every class. I also learned about the importance of scholarship, and how using the right stories from historians could enthuse even a lower-attaining class.
The course also taught me to believe in myself as a teacher. My confidence grew exponentially, helped both by my mentors in school and by the fantastic support provided by the university. Without that, I would not have dared explore different aspects of teaching and experiment with methods, which have ultimately helped me to be both a successful classroom teacher and Head of History. I would certainly not have done things like publish an article in Teaching History – which is entirely down to the fact that the Cambridge course constantly encouraged me to probe my own thinking and pedagogy more deeply.
"The reason that I remain committed to the job is unquestionably the way the course taught me to relish the challenge of providing the best possible education for every student in front of me."
Most importantly, I learned to love teaching
Teaching can be very hard. The hours are long, you spend a lot of time worrying about individual students’ welfare and progress, and there is significant pressure to achieve results. It’s no surprise that some teachers give up, but the Cambridge programme equips you to love teaching even when things get tough. For me, this is because it showed me how to constantly experiment and probe different ways to attain the best outcomes for all the students I teach. The reason that I remain committed to the job is unquestionably the way it taught me to relish the challenge of providing the best possible education for every student in front of me.
"It seems counterproductive that such courses would be withdrawn when they are already providing such a high standard of education."
As a mentor, I’ve seen how much these programmes contribute to the sector
I have mentored with three providers and always used the Cambridge course as my model in each, because it is uniquely committed to using pedagogical research and evidence to unlock practical strategies for the most effective history teaching. This inspires trainees not just to become better teachers, but to think and research for themselves. There are some superb history PGCE programmes across the country with similar qualities and the difference that they make is that they create teachers who will teach for their full career and not just a few years.
The reasons for this are both the academic elements of the courses and the individualised programme that they provide. It’s very important, for instance, that students are not mandated to practise specific skills at certain points during the course – unlike the proposals in the Market Review. Instead, the courses can be adapted so that students receive the training that is right for them. Programmes with these qualities produce teachers who have had significantly more experience with planning lessons from scratch and being reflective about their own practice when they start the job.
I’d question any proposals which would force universities to withdraw from teacher education
Fundamentally, it seems to me counterproductive that such courses would be withdrawn when they are already providing such a high standard of education. Perhaps even more worrying is the high proportion of trainee teachers who participate in those courses. We already have a national recruitment crisis in teaching. How are we expected to solve it if courses which have proven themselves to be the most effective available decide that they have to pull out?
Built with Shorthand