AIBU to think getting into teaching should be easier?

One of my A-level teachers (state school) had not done PGCE. It was decades ago.

Maths is a vast subject and the PhD might not be relevant to the A-level syllabus.

Teaching KS3/4/5 on one timetable

Many secondary teachers do all of this and more .... not forgetting safeguarding SEN and pastoral roles

What is a barrier though for mid career people (looking back at the OP) is the expectation of unpaid work plus inflexible placements (mid career people often have responsibilities for children, mortgages etc) with no guarantee of a job at the end.

@Needlenardlenoo but what else could be done? I mean, in this specific case there are training bursaries and paid training opportunities available as per pp, but almost all career changers would have to go through unpaid training no matter what they’re changing to. It’s not reasonable to expect to be paid a mid-career rate when you know nothing about the new area of work.

Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to say in my post and is exactly what I found in my experience of working with very academic PGCE students.

It is a very different skill set from someone who has excellent subject knowledge and having excellent subject knowledge does not mean that you are able to break it down well.

In my experience of working in private and state sectors in the UK, private schools will try to pay less than the state sector and will pay @unqualified teachers even less. As previous posters have suggested, your friend is better off trying to get a bursary for a STEM subject while she gets her PCGE.

Exactly this.

I work with trainees and ECTs extensively, and have done for nearly twenty years.

The single hardest thing - other than behaviour management - is being able to translate what you know and can do really well for someone who just doesn't "get it".

It doesn't matter how good your subject knowledge is if you can't share it effectively in an age and stage appropriate way.

Schools have such a wide range of needs too.

The teacher who's fantastic at getting GCSE students over the pass mark in a core subject, or engage a year 9 in something they're going to drop at the end of the year, isn't necessarily the same person who's going to be able to extend an A-level student working at A* with a practice Oxbridge interview. And it's definitely not the same person who's going to be fab at consoling 4 year old who doesn't want to sit on the carpet and listen. And it might well not the the same person who can manage other adults, whether that be colleagues or parents, or find suitable HE or career pathways or work experience for something specific

We need all these people.

What is a barrier though for mid career people (looking back at the OP) is the expectation of unpaid work plus inflexible placements (mid career people often have responsibilities for children, mortgages etc) with no guarantee of a job at the end.

It's 15 years since I trained but I did the old GTP which did at least mean you were paid while training and I was given some say in where the placements were. Plus the school wanted to keep me hence paying for the training. I think that is still possible but the multiple routes in are v confusing to outsiders.

It's not arrogant to say "these are my skills and requirements, what are your needs and requirements - do they match sufficiently?" Too often in teaching It's all about what the school want, but this is a sellers' market! They need to convince the candidate It's a good investment of their time and money as well as the other way round.

You've never seen anyone suggest that someone who is really good at maths might struggle to explain maths to someone who is bad at it because the person who is really good at it just 'gets it'?

But teaching isn't a question of standing at the front of the class giving them information to absorb. There's more to it than that and it isn't for everyone. You can have a Phd in Chemistry or whatever and be absolutely brilliant but that won't help in the face of a bunch of teenagers who don't care about it and don't want to do it.

No one’s saying it’s a barrier, just that it’s not sufficient. The assumption that someone with a PhD would automatically make a good teacher is very arrogant. Teaching is a separate skill that has to be learned.

Very reasonable - and to do their research because schools work how they work; and you can't know teaching will suit you and vice versa till you've got experience.

I'm not some kind of PR person for doctorates (I don't have one) but from what I know of what's required to get one, it requires a fair bit of commitment (4 years), determination (hard to get the funding, poorly paid) and humility (need to make an original contribution to knowledge, supervisors aren't there just to encourage you). One might say those aren't bad experiences for a career changer into teaching.

I think the question you need to ask your phd pwrson is "what have you got to offer that will help the kids be the best they can be and how can you suppor and encourage t them?"

That's not what people are saying though.

They're saying those things don't automatically make you a good teacher.

Maybe the PhD itself isn’t a drawback, but perhaps having one gives some people- like the OP or her mate- a sense that any school would be lucky to have them? Whereas most of us need a bit of humility to become good teachers and to understand that there IS more to it than excellent qualifications, or even excellent subject knowledge. The OP did sound as if the PhD should have schools swooning at the chance for this person to waltz in and start leading A levels, and I imagine it’s not an isolated opinion.

Surely everyone can agree with that?

You do see expressed though (and I've heard it from real life colleagues over the years as well as on here) that having a PhD (for example) is a drawback and I don't think it is. I think it's independent of the other skills required.

I don't have a PhD but the 15 years of experience I had doing other jobs before I trained as a teacher have been really useful, despite no teaching recruiter ever asking about them or having the slightest interest in them if I mention them. Teaching doesn't exist in a vacuum - or it shouldn't.

AlertCat said “I had a PhD-qualified teacher when I did a level chemistry 30 years ago. He’d been in academia all his career and thought teaching would be an easy way to spend the last years before retiring. He lasted just one year. Hated teaching anyone under 17, basically.”

I was a Science teacher for 16 years and I worked with a physicist exactly like this. Wasn’t so bad with the Y11’s although he did struggle with class discipline, but the KS3 classes were an absolute disaster. And that was WITH a QTS and a subsequent year teaching at a local private school. Went back to academia with his tail between his legs (his words not mine) after almost suffering a breakdown. And that school wasn’t so bad then.

It isn't necessarily a barrier but it isn't all that is required.

This site gives details of bursaries available for trainee teachers, by subject and level - https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/funding-and-support/scholarships-and-bursaries?funding_widget%5Bsubject%5D=maths&button=#funding-widget

As pps have said, very generous funding is available for STEM subjects at secondary level.

@MeMumI I agree with your fuller answer but there is definitely a strong current of anti-intellectualism in ITT (largely reflecting UK society as a whole and it pops up often on Mumsnet) which is at odds with the move towards a more knowledge rich curriculum. Plus gate keeping of entry routes into teaching, which makes little sense considering the need for recruitment.

I’m not saying you can’t be bright / have a phd and be a brilliant teacher…

You might not be, but there's always an undercurrent of 'X was brilliant at maths but couldn't teach for toffee where my best maths teacher actually failed their GCSE so really understood the struggle' in these sorts of discussions.

Being academically brilliant doesn't mean you'll be a good teacher but it also doesn't mean you'll be a shit teacher. In fact being clever is a definite positive in the classroom where you are constantly thinking on your feet.

As a maths teacher who teaches predominantly A level, I can assure you that subject knowledge is only a tiny part of teaching. Teaching year 13 to solve differential equations is the easy part. Keeping 30 hot, tired teenagers motivated on a Friday afternoon has very little to do with your degree.

That’s why I said sometimes. I never said the two were mutually exclusive… and indeed if you read my post, I also said at other times very academic teachers could be brilliant.

The point I was making was that having excellent subject knowledge is not the same skill as being able to break down and communicate that subject knowledge. And sometimes (in my experience of mentoring very academic pgce teachers) just sometimes being very good at a subject can be a barrier to teaching it, particularly to those who struggle with your subject.

I’m not saying you can’t be bright / have a phd and be a brilliant teacher… I’m just saying you can’t just assume that because you are bright / have a phd you will automatically be a brilliant teacher. There are other skills at play, alongside subject knowledge which is also needed in teaching, particularly at lower years / levels.