The end of the B.Ed: one step forward or two steps back?

Anastasia De Waal, 2 March 2009

Rumour has it that the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) is facing the axe. According to the Times Educational Supplement, university education departments are claiming that the government is planning to ‘kill off’ undergraduate teacher training. Whilst the claim has yet to be confirmed, it has brought a pressing matter to the fore. Since the inceptions of the graduate training routes – the Postgraduate Certificate in Education, Teach First and the Graduate Teacher Programme – the B.Ed has been in decline. Criticisms of the three-four year-long B.Ed revolve around three perceived weaknesses, the first arguably more valid than the others. Firstly, that their current failure to attract the most able students; secondly the perception that they are not cost effective; and thirdly, that the B.Ed ‘only qualifies you to teach’. Given that it is a teaching qualification, this latter criticism in particular, seems somewhat misguided, writes Emily Dew.

Axing the B.Ed might be something to consider if other qualifications offered sufficient training, skills and knowledge to all aspiring teachers. Unfortunately however, this is clearly not the case. More than ever, to give just one example, teachers are working with children whose first language is not English, without having received training on how to teach, the already pressured curriculum, to foreign language students. Children are extremely adaptable and can learn fast with the correct help, but the prerequisite for that help is adequate teacher training.
‘Inclusion’ has also brought many challenges to teachers who for the most part are not equipped to deal with Special Educational Needs (SEN) children and often feel helpless and frustrated. There are many types of SEN and the spectrums are vast; knowledge and understanding of these are essential if inclusion is to work.  Research shows that when identified and supported early, many learning and developmental difficulties can have a very limited impact on a child’s life. How though, can we expect teachers who do not have the relevant training to diagnose and assist correctly, and thereby minimise potential damage?
These are just some of the hurdles our teachers face daily which the graduate teacher training programmes tend not to cover, or if they do only very superficially. With this in mind it would seem that the B.Ed still has a crucial role to play. Given the potential of this qualification to attract not only those who are dedicated and passionate about education, it also offers an opportunity to go deeper into a greater variety of pedagogical topics, perhaps even as a pathway into educational planning and policy rooted in practice. 

Rather than being withdrawn the B.Ed needs to be updated, expanded and improved in order to keep abreast of current social and educational developments, as well as attract a high calibre of students. Without high quality and in depth training, we risk both children’s education and losing excellent teachers who feel they cannot cope.  Raising the entry requirements as well as the quality of content is crucial.