DC’s teacher didn’t go to university.

I went to a grammar school that was stuffed full of teachers with PhDs. Some of them were very good, some of them were pretty terrible - a pattern that repeated itself at university. A PhD demonstrates that you can research to a very high level in a very narrow field, that you are intelligent, and that you are persistent. It says nothing about your ability to teach, manage a class, or effectively engage young people. I dare say most of the people on this thread could, with a bit of time, pick up the curriculum for any GCSE, learn the content, develop or find materials, and teach it. A level might be trickier unless you already have an A level in the subject (I could never, no matter how much time I was given, teach A level maths, for example, but I could probably teach three or four once I got to grips with the materials). Provided your teacher is getting decent results, keeps up to date with the curriculum and teaching methods, and is effectively engaging students, then does it matter how they got there? They have received plenty of on the job training and are regularly assessed through peer practice and OFSTED or its equivalent.

I just looked into that and it looks like most of the anti sentiment from current doctors was a mixture of annoyance that some people would be qualifying while working and not accruing huge debt and the belief that the training was going to be different academically - but this apprenticeship has the trainees doing exactly the same degree as the traditional medical students - except they will be getting paid and getting more hands on experience at the same time.

The only worry is if the candidates didn't have to be of a similar standard to qualify but I don't think there's any evidence of that yet.

But this wasn't what I was talking about - I was saying you could create a great doctor without involving a university degree at all - as long as whatever testing and assessment process you put in was stringent and robust.

But there's no point in trying to create a system like that as it would be far too expensive and you couldn't train enough doctors fast enough to meet current needs.

My overall point was we shouldn't be relying on the concept of 'a degree' as some magical qualification that fits people for the working world. A lot of students coast easily through degrees, a lot of degree courses are not particularly rigorous or relevant to the jobs people get.

There are some professions where it works well - those where huge amounts of specific knowledge are needed to progress - doctors, lawyers, engineers for example.

But for most other careers shorter, targeted learning experiences and on-the-job training are far more valuable.

A private prep school called Dalton in the U.S. hired Jeffrey Epstein — he was in his early 20s and had no university degree.
He was called “flamboyant.”

Donald Barr, father of Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr and Dalton’s headmaster, thought Epstein was “promising.”

Yikes.

I'm not in the UK, so I couldn't really tell. But you said she's an English teacher, so I'm guessing she's had some sort of teacher training / certificates like TEFL, or CELTA, or other TTCs.

The answer to that is yes. My Gp needs medical training, nurses never needed one. Pretty sure Isambard Kingdom Brunel never had a degree.
Are you happy to fly on an aircraft that is flown by a pilot that doesn't have a degree or is serviced and kept flying by a technician that hasn't been to uni ?

I wouldn't be bothered about the teacher not having a university degree in this situation. In fact I feel bad for the teacher in this situation (unless I'm misreading the situation).

The teacher seems to be well liked by pupils and parents alike. If they make the children really engaged in the subject and the kids enjoy their class, then they'd be a fabulous teacher. The teachers achieved level of educational attainment wouldn't be important to me in that case.

I should have said the teacher had a degree, but not in physics. It showed me I think you need a physics degree or further study in physics to be a good physics teacher.

People who hadn't studied physics probably wouldn't notice the problems with what the teacher was saying in class or some of the subtleties to the questions being asked because they're unaware with just an A level depth knowledge.

I don't know about other areas so I assume that teachers in those areas would have holes without further study, that I don't know about and the kids wouldn't notice because we're not experts.

Better at teaching isn’t completely subjective. It is also what we should specifically aim for in terms of our teachers.

”Qualified professionals” isn’t the aim from my perspective, the risk of increasing barriers to enter the profession is that some outstanding would be teachers can’t get into the profession and that is a same for the kids.

I am arguing for improved subject knowledge and an ability to teach it, but that is not the same as needing a degree. If what you are simply saying is that teachers need subject knowledge, then we are in agreement.

Private schools don’t have to to recruit those with a degree. But I would assume they would normally look for the kind of experience that would allow someone to excel at teaching, which if her record is correct then she clearly does. If she was shit then that’s a different matter

I don't think this would bother me, although I can see why it's a surprise.

With those grades she absolutely could have gone to university and probably didn't due to finances or a personal crisis of some sort, not because of lack of academic ability.

You don't have to be a particularly high achiever (academically-speaking) to be a teacher anyway, it's not rocket science! Other traits are more important like having energy, patience, crowd control etc.

If she has taught for a number of years and her classes have gotten good grades that's all the proof that you need that she is capable.

When I was a student on a physics degree I helped out at a struggling school where the A level physics teacher asked directly for our help as physics students as he didn't have the knowledge to answer some of the questions.

It was quite sad really.

However upon graduation the jobs available all paid much more than teaching so I can see why they can't recruit qualified physics teachers. It's a difficult subject to take a degree in and the jobs you can get at the end are very well paid. They simply need to pay more.

OP @RabbitWedge , what's your preferred outcome here?

Yabsu who cares if she went to uni? She's clearly capable.

I’ve trained many teachers over the years and the best ones were the “least qualified”. In my experience, those who are academically gifted and breezed through uni with a first are often the least effective teachers as they struggle to get their messages across to pupils, especially those who struggle with their learning.

On that note, the previous Tory goverment has actually started an apprenticeship for being a Doctor and many currently serving Doctors aren't happy at all about it, in fact they're very critical and for very good reason I've read.

It depends on whether you just want an effective teacher of the syllabus with an ability to motivate the class and make what has to be taught as engaging as possible; or also someone with the interest and knowledge to go way beyond the confines of the level that has to be taught, and the connections, knowledge and experience to be a potentially useful source of advice on academic life and specific university subject and destination choices. You could, of course, end up with an ineffective teacher for all but a minority who are already very bright and self-motivated, but with a degree or even PhD, as effective teaching is never guaranteed just because someone with a degree is standing in front of the class and calling themselves a teacher. In fact, it’s probably easier to keep it simple and focused if you don’t have too much knowledge in the subject yourself…

Everyone’s fantasy is a teacher with a PhD who can teach and inspire those of all levels of ability, right up to the most naturally gifted, enabling all to perform way beyond the level that would normally be expected of them. Being interested in teaching and being interested and hugely knowledgeable about English language and literature are different things, however, and do not always overlap.

A teacher with a love of their subject greater than their love of teaching will likely be far less enthusiastic about spending their time helping the less able or more disruptive students if they can instead focus on students who are already bright, motivated and have interesting ideas of their own. So really, you need to think about the needs and interests of your own children and whether you think a teacher relatively unqualified in the subject they are teaching will nevertheless be enough of a springboard for them if they develop a genuine love for the subject.

Back in the 50s, there were still teachers who had started their career without any formal training at all. They were "pupil teachers", who had learned on the job, and very effective most of them were. In the 60s, teachers at secondary level were in such short supply that anyone with a pulse was employed. We had refugees from Europe with PhDs, ex-military Intelligence officers with Oxbridge Masters degrees...most of them were incompetent as teachers.

I trained at a teacher training college so don't have a degree. My standard of written English is streets ahead of some who have a more recent English degree...😉

One of the most effective teachers in our local state school is not qualified and does not have a degree. What she does have is many years experience in the school rising through the ranks from a TA to a non-qualified teacher and who job shares with a qualified teacher. Parents are far more concerned about how she is able to do her job than they are with her academic qualifications

I won't be giving my opinion on your rather ignorant post until you come back to comment (218 posts in and you've only posted once).

I taught a practical STEM subject.

A deal of the material, devices, components used and taught about for my subject did not exist when I first started teaching.

As new stuff came in, other stuff was dropped from the curriculum.

You have to keep on the ball, train, read up however good ones initial qualifications were.

Oh, the delusions about minor private schools! I am a product of a state school, so is my husband. We entertained the notion that everything in private schools, even minor, is better. So we sent out dc there, thinking that. How wrong we were! The examples of unprofessionalism are too many to mention, and when I realised the school was not teaching, I started teaching my dc at home (after work) because we could not afford the fees plus tutors. I was shocked to find out that most had tutors in final years but admitted it only under duress to their closest mum friends. No university diploma would have been a non-event at our school.

There are a few of us left who "only" went to teaching training college. To have lasted this long we must have managed ok.
I worked with three teachers who couldn't manage in the state sector so they moved to private. They were poor teachers.

I'm 66 and it was suggested, back in my lower 6th year, that we should all apply for a teacher training college place - just in case we messed up our A levels.

It was just possible in 1976 to obtain a Cert Ed. (Certificate of Education) and become a fully qualified teacher.

Entry to such a course required O levels or Grade 1 CSEs although some may have had A levels too.

Most of my cohort, and previous ones, will have retired by now. Just as those emergency trained teachers after WW2.

You'd not know that one of your own teachers 'only' held a Cert Ed unless they told you so or if their name and level of education was published. Some rose through the ranks to be departmental leaders, deputies and heads.

Just because a teacher has lots of qualifications doesn't guarantee that they will be a good teacher of children.

And me? Didn't mess up A levels but chose to go to a teacher training college and do a degree. Did a PGCE, at another teacher training college a few years later. Then taught for 30+ years.

Would I have met your criteria?

I think you might be shocked at the number of ‘Physics’ teachers out there who have not completed a degree in Physics. It’s a shortage subject and incredibly difficult to recruit, An awful lot of Biology specialists end up teaching Physics out of necessity.