DC’s teacher didn’t go to university.

I've seen plenty.

However, you seem to have made a presumption that all I care about it qualifications.
Not so.

Have all you like but it doesn't make you a good teacher or a good person. I have worked with plenty of teachers with a Masters and PGCE, very few were great teachers, some shouldn't have been allowed to operate a kettle never mind educate a child. In fact some should never have been allowed near children. Character and ability matter much more.

In my view, a PGCE is essential.

Take exception all you like. I also have a BSc, Masters and a PGCE... And i'd not be happy adding a member of staff to my department without the relevant qualifications. Unless of course, they had 5+ years of outstanding results at A level.

I have a BA, MA and PGCE and have been teaching for 25 years. You seem to be stating that there is no possible view other than that "all teachers should have a PGCE". I and most of my colleagues will attest that a PGCE was utterly useless in preparation for teaching - the theory and lectures contributed not one jot to my pedagogical knowledge. I learned it all on the job, from more experienced teachers. It is perfectly possible to be a good teacher without one and it is also possible to be a perfectly good teacher without a relevant degree if you have good subject knowledge and work ethic, combined with the teaching skills, which is what this thread was about. I took exception to your categorical statement that a PGCE was essential.

In some ways. You do a teaching qualification to learn how to teach. But the degree means you have knowledge of the subject knowledge that you’re teaching.

Degree: subject knowledge. Teaching qualification: curriculum and teaching techniques.

That said they’re letting people with any degree train to be a maths teacher now so it’s even going out the window in the state system!

What are you on about?

Teacher training to get a PGCE is all about learning how to teach, manage students etc...

Where did a PhD come into it?

You do know that a PGCE is only half the credits of a Masters degree right? About 3-5 years away from what's needed to gain a PhD?

@Hio no it really isn't "end of story" - it's your view. One of many over 21 pages. There are plenty of teachers on here who are giving thoughtful and reasoned arguments as to why it may not be the case that HE is the key to great teacher. Teaching is not just a didactic imparting of knowledge - the "sage on the stage" model is rather outdated. It's an incredibly nuanced and varied occupation with totally different skills employed from one hour to the next and depending on age and stage, there are plenty of ways in which an enthusiastic and engaged communicator might outperform a PhD.

I understand that some people can teach fine. I'm sure she does a wonderful job. However, I personally don't agree with employing a person as a teacher who does not have the relevant formal qualifications.
That would be a PGCE with QTS.

I'm sure my views wont be popular for some... however, I don't care.

Teachers go through 4+ years in university, along with teacher training. All to get that PGCE and QTS. All persons who are employed as teachers should have done this. End of story.

OP perhaps before you invested your small fortune you should have done your homework? Private schools do not require their teachers to have degrees, or teaching qualifications. Perhaps, the local comp may have suited you better?

No, it is not relevant to state either. I am a teacher in a state school. Some schools have heads of years who aren’t even teachers. Having a degree does not prove that you can stick at something tough, because lots of degrees aren’t tough. If a head of year is a teacher, they should be an excellent teacher, but a degree isn’t necessary for this in my opinion.

I have no idea why you have asked the question “how do differentiate who scraped a GCSE pass or someone with an aptitude for the subject?” Well someone who just scraped a GCSE pass will get a grade 5 at GCSE and someone with an aptitude will get a grade 9 at GCSE. But I don’t know why you asked me this question. To teach maths GCSE higher content you clearly need to be able to do all GCSE higher content easily. To teach A-level maths you need an in-depth knowledge.

You’re right, no level of education at all should be required to be a teacher 🙄

In some European countries (Finland?) teaching and education is really valued and teachers have a masters. There is a real focus on research, pedagogy and child development, particularly in the early years. I would much rather this was the case here!

I might be a bit concerned if they were teaching A level without a degree, but As at A level and a few years tutoring etc and I wouldn't be too worried lower down.

But it would be at state. You'd be proven that you could stick out something tough for three years and write reports.

It's like there are lots of people who could teach physics on the fly or maths with just gcses, but personally given the choice I'd rather it was someone more qualified than the kids they are teaching. How do you differentiate who scrapped a gcse pass or someone with aptitude for the subject?

He was head of year in his twenties so there's no decades of experience behind him. There's no reason he can't go on to be a deputy or HT. Personally I'd raise an eyebrow but there's plenty of things that aren't held to state standard.

Teachers in private schools and academies don't need a degree or QTS to teach. As long as they have strong subject knowledge and the capacity to teach, I don't think it's an issue. I say that as a qualified teacher with a degree and QTS.

My children were earning more on their first day out of university than I am earning after 35 years in teaching

@AvrielFinch because as a career path, teaching is less attractive financially, with less status and fewer options for progression than other options for the kind of graduates you describe. I love teaching, am pretty good at it and have two degrees from Russell Group unis. I'd probably fit your description but I'm not ambitious, I like the holidays and I'm an academic at heart. I love my subjects so this is the right job for me. But many of my contemporaries at uni are now earning far more in more prestigious careers and are seen as "more successful". Unless we change the culture around teaching that won't change.

Why can't we have teachers with degrees and training and who have the skills to be a good teacher?

Ok. So what makes her A levels not good enough to teach GCSEs? Is a degree good enough or why stop there; surely a doctorate is what you're paying for?

One one hand, yes I believe teachers should have degrees. On the other, I have worked in a school for several years and some of the TAs are genuinely better than the newly qualified young teachers (and definitely better than a good number of the supply teachers we've had in). But by your metric, you're more interested in the paper than the ability to teach.

By all means, raise it with the school. You don't sound as if you're going to be happy until you do.

so what are you saying there then? The kids are wealthier so.....what? As we keep being told, wealth is no indicator of intelligence in children. If a private school is non selective on entrance exams then the only admissions factor is ability to pay, just like the leafy comp with the best reputation in my town that you need to live within half a mile of which means a 500k+ house. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

But even state schools are selective in some ways, be it catchment area, siblings already in school, church attendance, 11+ success...

No they are not all selective

They are selective by income, if not by ability.

But bragging rights can count for a lot in some private schools.

I am sure we all know from our own school days that not all teachers are equal. Not all were inspiring, not all were good at classroom control. Most of them were similarly qualified, but you still knew which classes you could muck about in and which you couldn't, which ones you felt you learnt well in and understood the subject in.

I expect formal qualifications to give teachers initial classroom experience (they have to do a certain amount of TP,) and knowledge about teaching practices. But there are other ways of gaining experience, such as being a TA, and the syllabuses change and practices change if someone is still teaching in exactly the same way as when they started out a couple of decades ago, that would worry me more.

My experience of teaching is very limited - swimming and TEFL - but the one thing I do know is qualifications are irrelevant if you can't build rapport and engagement and adapt to the needs of your students- they don't all learn in the same way, and you need to adapt to that. A qualification can tell you the theory of doing it, but experience is what gets you there. If a teacher is good at that and is getting results, that's more important than the pieces of paper they hold. (And I say that as some one who's got a ton of qualifications in various fields.)

How original..another inaccurate post about private schools. No they are not all selective, far from it. The ones that aren't do comparatively well because of small class sizes, great pastoral care, bespoke curriculum choices where appropriate, generally engaged and supportive parents and good teachers. You are right that they are businesses (though not profit making) and need to keep costs down but as with all businesses it's a balancing act and a school that had actually crap teachers would not attract customers and fail. If this school has faith in this teacher and her results are solid there is no reason for the OP to kick up a fuss. She is if course entitled to remove her DD if she thinks it's right to do so.

It is so weird that you are indicating that academies are not good schools. Academies vary hugely, many are truly excellent. A degree is not an indicator of a good teacher.