Science teacher at secondary - should it be a specialist?

I did always find it odd I was qualified to teach GCSE physics when I don't even have an A level in it. I taught biology to A level and chem GCSE (my degree was biochem). Physics not a clue, luckily my school had sufficient physics teachers and didn't have to ask me.

I absolutely agree teachers need to have the appropriate amount of subject knowledge if they are teaching that subject. The ethusiasm and passion is also great to have but as a realist I can understand if not all teachers are have the energy to be ethusiastic.

I think we are discussing two different things:

Subject knowledge for GSCE science teachers - I agree with you this is a must and if a teacher is going to teach a subject (e.g. physics) they did not initially train to teach in, they have to come up to speed on the subject knowledge so they are on par with other specialist physics teachers. For GCSE this is not very difficult and therefore not having an originally trained specialist teacher for say physics is unlikely to affect the children's attainment unless that teacher has subpar teaching skillls as well.

For A-level this becomes more difficult and I definitely advocate specialist teachers who were specifically trained in that subject to teach A-level. e.g specialist physics teacher for physics. However I do not think they need to have done an undergrad degree in physics, they just need the A-level subject knowledge and high level teaching skills/experience at A-level.

Educational qualifications for science teachers: should be the same as all teachers, and does need to be subject specific.

Interesting because I would prefer teachers to teach something they have a passion for, or at least an interest in. We all know that in current crisis there are teachers who are being forced to teach subjects in which they are only a 1 session ahead of the kids they are teaching.
How do you enthuse young people about a subject in which you have no, or only limited, knowledge?

The main issue I have is that people think having a undergradate degree is something you have to have in order to be a good teacher of that subject. That's completely not true for the reasons I've outlined above.

Most students who ace their undergrad in science do not become teachers for multiple reasons:

1. Pay is poor compared to what they can earn in pharma/banking/academia (yes even academics earn more than teachers now)
2. Academia provides far more flexibility and in some people's eyes more prestige.
3. Personality - no need to stereotype but geninuely a lot of people do not want to spend all day with children.

Demanding that every science teacher has an undergrad degree in their subject is prohibitively restrictive - you will not have any where near enough science teachers.

It is also completely unnecessary. The level of scientific knowledge required for GCSE is really very very basic in the grand scheme of science. This can be learnt as part of the teacher training course and does not require 3 years of intensive study at University.

The thigns that actually make a difference to students are the teaching skills not the higher level scientific knowledge.

At our state comprehensive high school, the gcse science teachers all - or all so far in my experience of two teens doing GCSEs there - have specialist subject specific teachers for each science subject at gcse. I don’t know what degree subject those teachers all had, but teacher x is known for being a biology teacher, teacher y for being a physics teacher, teacher z for being a chemistry teacher. They have needed to use alternative subject science teachers for cover / mat leave.

Up to gcse all the sciences have been taught together, ie they’d have one science teacher for all y9, 8, 7 science lessons. So all the science teachers have to teach up to y9 min in other science areas.

They should be both, it should never be 1 or the other

I think people conflate high level scientific knowledge with being a good teacher.

As someone working in academia, I want to point out that undergrad/post-grad level science has almost nothing to do with what is taught in school (especially at the level of GCSE and below). Our lecturers in most STEM subjects are not good teachers, they are good scientists/mathematicians. They are great at doing research, publishing papers and networking. There is no way they could teach teenagers how to ace the GCSE science course.

You do not need a good scientist to ace the GCSE science course, what you need is a good teacher. What is more important to discover in your child's case is whether they actually understand the teacher, do they have a good relationship with their teacher, does the teacher make your child aware of their strengths and weakness in the subject, has the teacher given them specific ways to rectify their knowledge gaps?

These skills are specific to the teaching profession and has nothing to do with scientific degrees.

Ideally that should absolutely be the case. At GCSE level they don't necessarily need to have degrees in their specific science discipline but they should have advanced education in their specific discipline and they should have extensive training and education in teaching their specific subject. The latter is one of the difficult things... an aptititude and extensive education (and even professional experience) absolutely does not mean that someone will be good at teaching that subject, particularly to younger students, so teachers should be trained/educated in both the specific subject and in education for that specific subject. Currently we have a system that struggles to manage even one of those two things.

What we've done to our education system and teaching profession is profoundly upsetting.

I used to be a school governor. Finding physics and chemistry specialists is like finding hen's teeth. Of the dozen or more science teachers in our school, 2 had physics degrees (and one of them was very part time), 1 had a chemistry degree and 1 had a biochemistry degree. The 4 teachers who weren't biologists taught all the A level physics and chemistry classes. That meant that the kids in y11 and below mainly got taught by biologists. Although the chemistry and physics specialists did teach the y11 top sets.

One of the teachers offered DC1 some after school tutoring in chemistry. It obviously worked because DC1 ended up doing a degree in chemistry.

Not on this thread

Not on this thread

It’s interesting though. My DD is currently doing a PGCE in chemistry. On her course they are expected to be up to speed to teach all 3 sciences to GCSE level, but only their specialism to A’ Level. However, both her teaching practice schools have Yrs 7,8 and 9 taught by non-specialists (but scientists) and Yr 10 onwards by the relevant specialist.
These are not leafy secondary schools, but ordinary ones in local towns.

Who is being critical of teachers? I can see criticisms of the system yes, but not teachers.

There are countless posts on here from parents complaining about what teachers have said to their child, how they said it, how loudly they said it, who they've sat their child next to etc etc

@twistyizzyparents are attacking teachers left, right and centre. The number of emails from demanding and aggressive parents that teachers (especially HOY and HT) receive at my school is obscene.

Who is being critical of teachers? I can see criticisms of the system yes, but not teachers.

Teacher retention/recruitment crisis. This is why.

And yet there are STILL MN members being highly critical of teachers. Adding to the problem.

DD is going to do a degree in mathematical physics in September, incidentally her GCSE teacher had a PhD in physics and encouraged her immensely.
I've been surprised how the universities all pushed their courses (integrated Masters) as an entry into finance and banking with careers such as an actuary.
DD said she didn't know anyone who would choose teaching because the wages are so low and that she wouldn't be able to afford a decent (as she sees it) standard of life.

When I did my Science PGCE I could teach all of them to GCSE but only my speciality at A level. (Which due to my degree was actually Physics and Biology although officially I was a Physics teacher)

Yes so it's even more vital that they get to grips with the basics in Yr 7+8. None of this is acceptable so why are parents just sitting back?
The answer is that the teaching crisis is being hidden by tutoring. Take away any access to tutors and the reality would be laid bare.

I agree. The status of the profession is being constantly downgraded.

It does ramp up over the years but especially year 7, even really year 8 science content is really super basic. I'd much rather e.g. have that material taught by relative a layperson who had decent pedagogic chops than a much more technical person who did not.

Why would you be more relaxed? Why is it any less important to get a good foundation in all sciences?
Parents should be up in arms about this not just shrugging and accepting it.

I think for, say, year 10 upwards it really should be. I'd be a lot more relaxed for the earlier years.