It should have been a sign of things to come. In a gauche attempt to persuade my partner to become a teacher, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) sent him a little cardboard box that made the sound of breaking glass when opened. "By this time of the year," ran the motto inside, "most resolutions are broken. Do something meaningful in 2009. Turn your talent to teaching." Spool forward to January 2011 and my partner's resolution to turn his talents to teaching lies broken, like so much shattered glass.

It was, said my partner, as he quit the PGCE course he started in September last year, a case of "death by paperwork". Had he persisted, he believes he would have qualified merely to become a dull bureaucrat.

Far from giving him the tools to become an inspirational educator, three months of a PGCE course and six weeks' teaching practice in a local school reduced him to a workaholic, glorified activity organiser whose waking hours were filled with lesson plans and mealy-mouthed eduspeak. His experience of teacher training may be unique – or it may suggest wider problems with the system.

As parents, we recognise the importance of teaching. As professionals, we probably want to do something else. I certainly never aspired to be a teacher when I was at school in the 1980s. Despite the fact that the education bill published on 27 January seeks to abolish the TDA, the agency did try to tackle the demeaning motto "Those who can do, and those who can't teach" with its campaigns to "turn your talent to teaching".

The white paper that heralded the new education bill identified a particular problem with attracting people to teach sciences in schools. As evidence, it cited a 2007 Secondary School Curriculum and Staffing Survey conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). But the survey showed that teachers of chemistry, biology and physics had the highest level of post-A Level qualifications among all teachers. There may be a relative dearth of new science teachers, but the existing ones have good qualifications.

There are significant grants available to those willing to train as science teachers. My partner was eligible for £16,000, consisting of a £9,000 bursary for learning to teach chemistry and a £7,000 maintenance grant for living expenses. But is £16,000 enough to sustain either the main or secondary breadwinner in a family of four during re-training?

There were other problems, too. Teaching is indisputably about effective communication and inspiration, yet much of the PGCE course literature is opaque and littered with jargon. A "critical reflective practitioner" has to be redefined as "a teacher who can reflect on and analyse your own practice". The same doublespeak applies to much school literature. What is a "competency curriculum"? Am I alone in thinking there is something wrong with the phrase "persuasive writing assessment task"? It's as if too many ideas are being packed into each phrase and this poor communication filters down to the way teachers and pupils speak to one another.

Then there is teacher training. Some people required to be professional mentors cannot put competitive rivalries and schadenfreude aside to support newcomers, particularly second-careerists. The attitude can be: "You'll have to pick up the pace, you should be knocking these lesson plans out by now." Not: "What seems to be the problem with lesson plans?"

A friend doing a PGCE course to get qualified teacher status, despite having already taught for 11 years, says her course "is not very well taught. We might as well be doing it at home as we're not learning much – we just have photocopied handouts sometimes. I have to go home and read the blurb to gain some understanding." Teaching styles obviously differ. While that particular friend is bored by her weekly lectures, my partner was told "You will never be a teacher if you only use chalk and talk." Lengthy lecturing in front of a whiteboard will not wash in the modern-day classroom. The emphasis now is entirely on interactivity, to cater to all forms of learners. That is a good thing, but it is not reflected in all teacher training courses.

Clearly, my partner's failed attempt to retrain as a teacher is partly his own fault. He would be the first to admit that he can be disorganised and paperwork is not his strong point. But if teaching today is largely about shuffling paper, he does not wish to join the profession.