DC’s teacher didn’t go to university.

My point isn’t that anyone can teach. There are certain skills required and also certain subject knowledge is required to be able to teach. My point is that a degree is neither necessary nor sufficient for these skills and subject knowledge. Plenty of people out there with degrees who would make terrible teachers.

As for having qualifications in the subject you teach, I think I would simply say that having sufficient knowledge is necessary and ideally a passion too. But a qualification isn’t the same as knowledge / passion.

I did my PGCE two years ago. I did a SKE before that, but it was not in fact helpful. But I did a huge amount of skilling up myself in my own time (which has been massively helpful).

I think we will have to agree to disagree because I personally can't see someone who completed their education at age 18 as academically successful, regardless of the grades they earned in school. Potential, yes, success, no- the latter requires actually doing something, and academia is defined as a higher education environment. It is certainly possible for someone to be highly intelligent and to learn amazing skills without going to university, but if they didn't go to university they are not academically successful. Words do have meaning.

yes I am most certainly aware, what I’m getting at is that someone commented that “anyone can be a teacher etc” standards are still high for qualifications in most subjects.

and then where would we be?

At an Academy?

I'm an MFL teacher. When did you get your PGCE? When I got mine, the provider wanted to see I had 'substantial' MFL content in my undergrad although of course that doesn't stop me teaching a language I have never studied (and let's face it, many of us do). I also had to complete a SKE course in the language I studied at A Level before being allowed to do the PGCE. Lots of science/maths/MFL teachers have done SKE courses. Your young people are lucky to have you. Not everyone could do what you do. Let's not pretend that having qualifications in the subject we teach isn't at least desirable or we might as well just say that anyone can teach, regardless of level of education, life experience or subject knowledge. And then where would we be?

Agree my Dad was a history a level teacher and continued to mark GCSES until a couple of years ago when he fully retired at 70
He is an expert (written textbooks) on the Russian Revolution and Stalin and pretty good at World War II but very little about my Mums area of the industrial revolution

when he started exam marking back in the 1980s he marked a whole paper which included his subjects but also others (that for teaching the other A level teacher taught) or in gcse things he only had a passing knowledge of

by the end exam boards had recognised this and he only marked the questions on his area - so each gcse paper can be marked by more than one person now as it is all done via computer to recognise this fact

Yes don’t forget OP that many teachers have degrees in subjects that are unrelated to teaching. I have worked with those with degrees in advertising and marketing. They then did a PGCE year in school and uni which is very quick and I think barely prepares them to teach.

Having a degree does not make you a good teacher. Teaching GCSE English, for example, is less about content than it is about being able to teach correct structures/formats to access the higher levels. You can know all you want to about Jacobean drama but if you can’t teach a child to apply the PEE structure they will not get a high grade.
By the way, it’s A Levels not A Level’s. Be careful on that high horse of yours.

I don’t think you really understand the requirements here. To be, for example, a Spanish teacher or a biology teacher, there has never been a statutory requirement for teachers to have a degree in Spanish or biology. There is a requirement for teachers to have qualified teaching status (which requires a degree, but not in the subject you teach) but this requirement only pertains to local education authority controlled schools (which are now a small minority of secondary schools). Academies can hire teachers without qualified teaching status.

I’m a maths teacher, with qualified teaching status, teaching in outstanding grammar school. My undergraduate degree is in law (this enabled me to get qualified teaching status). I teach maths all the way up to A-level. I have sufficient subject knowledge to teach and (though I say it myself) I get outstanding feedback from the kids, their parents and my colleagues.

As a teacher, this pisses me off as it devalues the profession and they are likely to be paying her less than a qualified teacher. As a parent, if she was a good teacher, I wouldn’t mind.

Degrees are not the only source of learning.

Many practical subjects there are no degrees, hairdressing, motor maintenance etc.

I have a feeling that Jamie Oliver or Gordon Ramsey could teach a child to cook. Jamie Oliver might not be the best person to mark the written element due to his dyslexia.

Doing supply I was often in a class I am not qualified to teach eg photography, languages, music.

I don't have a photography or art degree, but in my teens I was in a photo club and I used to develop my own photos. Could I teach A Level photography, probably not but can I stand in a year 8 class and discuss David Bailey's portraits, yes.

Every classroom based teacher:

Learn it on Sunday, teach it on Monday.

I remember when I started at an FE/HE college I got a weeks notice that I was going to be teaching Level 4 (first year degree) data analytics - I'd never done data analytics in my life.

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't have any time for, let's say, a history teacher who doesn't have strong all-around history knowledge.

I've got a good general knowledge and a history degree. If you want yo know about the 1842 Mines Act, I'm your woman. If I had to teach about Stephen & Matilda or the Partition of India or the Congress of Vienna, I'd have to do as much work as if I were to teach Midsummer Night's Dream or Pythagorus's theorem or terminal moraines.

There's not a historian in the world knows everything, just as no Eng Lit teacher will have read every book.

One of my French teachers used to say (not in front of us pupils, but he was friends with my parents; I overheard,) you only have to be one page ahead in the book. I don't think just one page ahead is literally true, but you don't have to be a world expert to teach, especially at lower levels. What is probably more important is teaching how to analyse texts, how to question who wrote it, how to see more than one side of an argument, how to to write your argument (at least for subjects like English and history - languages you need to know a certain amount of grammar and vocab, sciences and maths, you need to learn various techniques and how to apply them.) If you're teaching GCSE or A-level, you have to cover the syllabus, but you don't need a PhD in it.

I think the idea used to be that a degree was evidence of ability to learn at a higher level and an indicator of overall intelligence. With such low pass grades I don't think that's always the case.

So overall teaching, social and life- skills are probably a better indicator of a good teacher, rather than a degree.

But they don't all have degrees

Already happening

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/uks-first-teacherless-ai-classroom-set-to-open-in-london-13200637

Surely you're well aware that times have changed drastically for teaching in the last 13 years. There are enough threads complaining about it.

@RabbitWedge

what about taking your child out of private school and putting them in a state school where you know all the teachers will have degrees? And you’ll save yourself a load of money at the same time! Winner!

What a load of nonsense. She has been academically successful - the OP states that. She just chose not to go to university after achieving top A-Level grades.

I’m a doctor. Whether or not my GCSE English teacher had an English degree or A-Level English wouldn’t change that. It’s the results that matter and if she didn’t get good results the school wouldn’t keep her in that role.

The fact that the OP didn’t realise the teacher didn’t have a degree and has stated that she’s the favoured teacher among parents just goes to show that it doesn’t make any difference - it sounds as though she’s a better teacher than her peers with a degree.

Mrs Jones is not going to suddenly leave her job and go to university for 3/4 years because “you’ve raised it with the school”. Do you want her fired?

I have an HND in engineering, FE teaching qualification from long ago, 20 years as an engineer in a nuclear power station on the reactor end being an RPO (Radiation Protection Officer) - No degree, teach physics in secondary (spoiler physics is kind of core to engineering).

So I'm really confused how that bachelors degree is going to help me know more than my students, when I get out the simple equipment we use to demonstrate the very basics of nuclear physics, does my lack of degree mean I know no more than them???😃

On the other hand its not uncommon for someone with a degree in a totally different subject to be teaching something else, or having a very vague degree in education (ie BEd) and no real grasp of the subject beyond the course, what would you prefer.

OP, I don't think you are being unreasonable. How can someone guide children towards academic success, if they were not academically successful themselves? Unfortunately the need for strong subject knowledge from teachers is not taken as seriously as it should anymore. Good education is undervalued at a societal level, academic success is not respected enough, and there are many gaps and shortages in skilled professions in the UK, e.g. doctors. This is not great, for a number of reasons.

I grew up in a country from which the UK routinely "imports" doctors, engineers, solicitors and other highly educated skilled professionals. The system there was badly flawed in many ways (pastoral care was appalling, for one), but all our teachers had degrees in their specific subjects. They would've been able to teach their subject off the top of their head if necessary, probably even if you woke them up in the middle of the night by surprise. Because they were so knowledgeable, they didn't need to spend as much time planning as teachers do in the UK either. Now we get to sometimes hear racist politicians moaning about why people educated in my country and others "are stealing local jobs". I wonder why! I'm sorry, but I wouldn't have any time for, let's say, a history teacher who doesn't have strong all-around history knowledge.

However there is nothing you can do because in private schools there is no requirement for teachers to have degrees, and there is a severe shortage of teachers in the UK (and not only in the UK), so the system overall can't afford to have standards. I wouldn't be surprised if in coming years some or even most schools replaced teachers entirely with computer programs and AI, with the occasional unqualified supervisor (a promoted janitor, perhaps) making sure the kids stay at their desks and don't fight.

Are you saying if she did hold a piece of paper you wouldn't be holding her accountable for your children's education?

It's a degree, not professional indemnity insurance.

If she is good at her job then what does a piece of paper matter?

My son teaches at a private school. He didn’t go to university however he is very specialised in his field and no one who teaches his specific subject would have been to university.
My close friend is a pilot for a major airline, he hasn’t been to university, it’s all about flying hours and experience.
I have never thought that teachers need a degree, although that is not to say that they need to keep up to date with their subject knowledge.
Teaching is a skill and it cannot be taught at even the most prestigious university.

You would hope the people teaching your children had a grasp of the subject they teach at a level higher than is taught in school, surely?