To expect a secondary school teacher to be able to spell? Warning; Long post!

[AddictedToRadley]

Please be gentle with me. If you disagree please say so (that's why I posted here after all) but please don't be rude or nasty as I'm a sensitive soul and take it to heart! Thank you for any/all opinions, they're really appreciated.

I'm genuinely interested in whether my fellow MNetters think I'm being a bit precious or if I'm right in thinking all teachers, especially secondary school teachers, should be able to spell and use good grammar?

My DNiece, 13, showed me her school planner last week as she was proud of the great comments she'd received from her teachers. To cut a long story short she is a troubled child after witnessing some dreadful DV in her younger years (thankfully nothing in past couple of years as her mum left her dad) and has had severe behavioural issues. She is now trying hard and knuckling down but has an educational age far below her real age and needs extra help.

Anyway one of her comments read 'X has been done some Amasing work today'. This is exactly as it read in her planner (X = her name). When I mentioned it to her she didn't think there was anything wrong with the sentence. Her mum wasn't too bothered, well I suppose it's the least of her problems considering the horrors she's recovering from and still occasionally faces, but still...

If a teacher's spelling, grammar and punctuation is that bad and he can't even spell well used, straight forward words then what hope is there for the pupils? Thankfully he is a Science teacher as opposed to an English Language teacher, but I would still have assumed an A Level in English was needed to teach in schools. This is a school with an excellent reputation and pupils travel a long distance, past many other good schools to attend.

So am I being a bit anal about the fact that a science teacher has bad grammar, punctuation and cannot spell words like amazing? Or should all teachers be expected to have good if not excellent English Language skills to be able to teach?

Sorry it's turned into a long post, it was meant to be short but I tend to ramble on!! Maybe I've had too many s for my birthday!

I'm under 30 LeQ, (well, I was when I was in the classroom, but as of a few weekends ago I can't claim to be that young any more) but I can spell, honest guv. I know who writ Hamlet and everyfink.

As I said yesterday, a poor standard of English is unacceptable in any teacher especially a primary school teacher. It is certainly not true that secondary teachers are better educated, nor is the pay scale any different these days.

However, I do take issue with the idea that every mistake should be corrected every time at primary level.

When you have an 8yr old working at the level of a 5yr old. Who comes from a home where education is not valued and where nobody has ever heard him read. You do everything you can to encourage writing. It is so important to encourage and enthuse that child that if you correctly every spelling mistake (which may well be every other word) then any sense of achievement he may have gained from getting ideas down on paper will be lost.

So, instead, I would read the piece and pick out 3 or 4 words from what may only be 40 written words in total with 20 or 25 spelling mistakes and write them in the margin. The child would know to write each out 3 times underneath and those 3 words would be added to their individual spelling set for that week.

This is not because I don't think English or spelling matter. I am an English graduate who has also taught at KS3. I think it matters very much. But content and encouraging a reluctant learner also matter.

Three words to practice and a 'WOW!, I like your description of the monster! This is a super effort', will go much further to enhance his education than getting his book back littered with red pen. He won't be able to see past that and he won't try for me again. After all why should he if he's obviously so useless at it?

So of course it matters and there is no excuse for it from colleagues. But with young children or reluctant learners, it certainly isn't always appropriate.

LeQueen - my dad has recently retired from teaching. He was a very well respected teacher, who worked very hard, particularly with children who had poor attainment and low motivation. He left school in 1958 with no O Levels. He did an access course in 1975 (the year I was born) and became a technical drawing teacher. In 1986, he did a BEd. For the last few years of his career, he taught Maths, very well.

So IMO, your rant about how thing have "gone downhill" (yawn) is crap. Nowadays, teachers have to be far better qualified. My mother was a primary school teacher for nearly 40 years before retiring last year. She doesn't have a degree either - she went to teacher training college in the early 60s.

As for qualifications; I have 3 good Alevels, a 2:1 from a RG university, a PGCE and a Masters.

We certainly haven't all got poor qualifications and I actually believe, as I said on the other thread, that we need to raise the bar and demand higher qualifications.

I want my colleagues and those that teach my kids to have been able to do whatever else they wanted with their education but to have chosen the teaching profession.

EvilTwins - she did say in the under 30s. Those I know who teach struggle with spelling and grammar (except for the one who actually wanted to be a teacher).

LeQ - did you read my post? You are so full of indignation that you are blinded. Academic qualifications do not always make a good teacher. At my school, the SLT teach just about everything. I'm not saying it's ideal, of course, but I think you're far too hung up on the idea of "good" degrees. I once taught with a highly academic English teacher who was absolutely shocking at communcating with students. At the school I am currently working in, one of our weakest teachers (on competency procedure and sinking rapidly) has a Doctorate.

Teaching is about way more than being clever. And frankly, that PE teacher may well have a maths A Level, which is plenty for teaching Yr 10.

Being academic and having lots of qualifications does not make you a good teacher.

I'm technically qualified to teach all three sciences to GCSE level. Which is daft, really. Biology and Chemistry I can do, but Physics? I don't even have Physics A level.
Luckily I'm in a school where we have enough physicists that all the GCSE groups get one. This is not always the case.

The PE teacher may be very good at teaching maths, as others have said academic qualifications are not the only thing needed to be a good teacher.

Well as I said, we haven't all got poor qualifications. I could have done lots of other jobs but I wanted to teach.

As a primary teacher it always annoyed me that colleagues earned the same as me when they had 2 Es at Alevel and 4yrs at TT college. I know that makes me a snob but I think it does impact on our professional clout somewhat.

And, yes, Eviltwins, often very clever people make poor techers. That doesn't mean we should lower the standard though. Plenty of well qualified graduates are teachers. Plenty more may have followed it as a career if it was a better prospect financially.

It does with me as I was an AST!

LeQueen, to be realistic, the PE teacher is probably not teaching the top set maths.

That's not to say that lower ability groups don't need someone with a good knowledge of the subject too, but if a school is short of specialist teachers they tend to reserve them for the top groups, in my experience. Or, being cynical, those on the C/D boundary.

I don't know the situtation in England, but in Scotland yu must have a degree relevant to the subject you are going to teach at secondary level in the state sector (not sure if it is as strict in the private/independent sector) AND you must have a teaching qualification for those subjects.

From the website "Teaching in Scotland"

"For secondary teaching in Scotland, your degree must be relevant to the subject you wish to teach." and ^"You will also need a to have a teaching qualification and provide documentary evidence of an official transcript of your Professional Qualifications.

This evidence should show the age range in years and subjects which apply to your professional education."^

Re the Alevel maths being sufficient - I totally disagree. Should primary teachers only be able to cope with maths to Year 6 level?

In an ideal world, teachers ought to be highly articulate and proficient spellers, among a host of other qualities.

In the real imperfect world we live in, we have to make do with imperfect teachers who are not even necessarily aware of their own shortcomings.

If you want your DCs to be great spellers, get them to read a lot of books - which, unlike teachers' marking, have been proofread.

Unfortunately, there are not enough teachers, let alone good teachers, and so very often schools are in the position where someone in front of a class is better than no one. This is in no way ideal, but it is the reality in many cases. If you went into a school and insisted that everyone who does not have a good degree in the subject they are teaching should leave, there would be a great many children without teachers. At my school, we have an excellent Maths teacher, whom the children respect, and who gets great results. He came to the school 5 years ago as a History teacher. I assume his degree is in History, but he teaches Maths bloody well. Our Science dept is a joke - only one teacher is any good, but two (and neither of them is the teacher in question) have doctorates. I am Head of Performing Arts, which means that I teach Music as well as Drama. I also teach two English classes. My degree is in English and Theatre Studies (from an RG - not Mickey Mouse)

Maths and PE seems to be quite a common combination, BTW - many trainees on the same PGCE course as me did PE with Maths as their second subject.

Betty - "It does with me as I was an AST!"

I've worked with one AST who is terrible. She may have been excellent in her previous school, but not in the one we work in now.

He/she may well be. 3 different outstanding gradings from 3 different teams during different inspections. This was in 2 different schools. One of the schools was in special measures so it was by no means a coasting experience.

I loved my job and I was good at it. Why should I hide that fact as if it's a dirty secret?

Still, with 3 children under 5 I gave it up to be a TA. All the good bits without the paperwork and hassle.

Most of my colleagues (secondary) are very well qualified tbh, because most have degrees in "traditional" subjects, which tend to have reasonable entry levels. Certainly those aged between about thirty and fifty. FWIW I am brilliant at spelling and very clever and good at teaching .

As for marking. I do not teach English, but spend plenty of time teaching literacy skills. However the problem with correcting every mistake, is that so many pupils are quite sloppy, and the work is littered with errors in so many cases, that it would take forever. The need for precision needs to be enforced in primary, so that it is habit during the secondary years and we can concentrate on our specialisms.

This is true but as I said in my post earlier, that doesn't mean correcting every mistake in every piece of writing for a low achieving reluctant writer.

Able children need it but sometimes those less able need to encouragement to have a go instead. With these children, correcting every mistake can be counter productive and bring a sharp halt to their output.