To expect a GCSE science tutor to have some relevant qualification?

[MrsRobertDuvall]

Dd is entering yr 10 and needs extra support with science as she is only working at level 5.
I contacted a local recommended tutor agency, explaining that it was not merely revision, but going back to basics and working alongside the curriculum.
I have had a call from a lovely lady, who has a degree in marketing. She has never been a teacher, and has GCSE Science grade b.
I've gone back to the agency and said I do want someone who is/has been a secondary teacher, with experience in GCSE science. At £30 an hour, I think that's reasonable.
We have a maths tutor who meets that criteria.

Now noble I am going to have to ask you to stop making assumptions about me - this is the second one this thread. I do not work in a science department; I have to very great fortune to work in a purely physics one.

Even if I did work in a department named 'science', I still do not accept that term. I accept that physics, chemistry and biology are separate and distinct subjects. They have a beauty and grace all of their own, we do not need to create a homogenised mix. (However I do understand the political reasons why the govt moved to dual/triple award).

Also, just to clarify, I am sure there are fantastic people teaching outside of their subject. I merely state that I observed some incidents of poor physics knowledge. Would you expect a GCSE maths teacher to have poor maths knowledge? Of course you wouldn't. I have listened to the lectures that assert that any trained teacher can teach anything. I do not subscribe to that viewpoint.

My DP is the head of a science department - he's a physicist. He's been teaching 'science' for 15 years now. As a dept. head one thing he implemented straight away was specialist teachers - so biologists teach biology, physicists teach physics and chemists teach chemistry.

DP is a 'physicist' he has the specialist knowledge to make physics come alive and be exciting. He has taught biology and chemistry in the past and he is intellectually capable of understanding and disseminating the information to kids, but like him I think it's shocking that so many kids are not being taught by subject specialists.

IMHO it would be like asking a german specialist to teach french.

As for tutors, if I were forking out 30 quid an hour I'd want (a) subject specialism and (b) a proven track record of success.

I am technically qualified to teach gcse physics, as my PGCE is in "science". In reality I would struggle to do so effectively as I don't even have an A level. I am lucky to teach in a school where we have specialists for the three sciences, but it is not unusual for physics to be covered by biologists, or even biology to be taken by PE teachers.

Good on him alistron. TBH I think that the way physics is taught really does put people of the profession and also hastens the exit of those who are in it with the experience and subject knowledge.

Primary school teaching (especially KS2) is a whole different kettle of fish/another discussion! My own kids have come home with misconceptions (regarding science) due to non specialist teaching. And a lot of primary science sessions are (IMHO) very dry and completely useless.

I do wonder how many primary school maths/science/literacy co-ordinators are subject specialists?

In the primary school I work in language teaching is outsourced from a nearby secondary school. I wonder how other primaries work it?

Good word that alistron 'misconceptions'. I wrote an essay on it for pgce. Very easy for misconceptions to be picked up/or introduced into child's head. Shockingly difficult to move.

You don't accept the term 'science' as an umbrella term for biology, chemistry and physics? How odd. Like a woodwork teacher refusing to be part of the design and technology department.

noble Its not odd. Perhaps if you went and actually left the maths department and talked to the physics specialists instead of making endless (ref this thread) assumptions about them, you might find it interesting what they say.

I am in a physics department which is part of the science faculty. I teach physics, not science. Really, this is getting a bit low brow isn't it? And this thread is drifting away from the OP.

stellar do you teach at KS3? Do they do three separate subjects from year 7? (just being nosy).

Science faculty, department, being a bit picky with words, no? In my experience there's no real difference.

And if you left the science department, you might find that it is not just science teachers that are asked to teach outside their preferred specialism. Some very successfully, I might add.

Given the shortage of physics teachers, I expect it is nice for your school to have the luxury of a physics 'department', and the choice to not have you teach other sciences.

stellar, how many teachers are in each dept?

When I was at school we had a science department with 4 rooms and 4 teachers. If would have been overkill to have a separate depts for the sole biology/chemistry/biology teachers. The 4th one taught general science for the pre-options 3 years of secondary.

I suppose it depends on the size of the school and the number of staff.

I think it would be okay but there would need to be strong statistics to back up his/her ability, eg predicted grades before tutoring actual grades after. Still better to have subject specialism and teaching ability.

I agree with TrillianAstra that £30 an hour isn't that much. The real hourly wage is probably at most half that, once you've allowed for preparation & planning etc. I think for most, 40 hours of tutoring a week would be impossible to do.

I'm with stellarpunk, science is a method that can be applied to all sorts of subject areas - for example sociology, history, philosophy etc..

'science' in itself is not a subject. Biology, chemistry and physics are 3 different subject areas - in the same way that maths, french and geography are different.

The lumping together of 'em that was forced by the NC is one of the reasons why (a) lots of young people struggle with the transition from gcse to a-level 'science' and (b) why the uptake of pure 'sciences' (especially physics) at university is in a decline.

Universities don't have 'science' departments, they have schools of biology. chemistry, physics...

Imo (and the interpretation of the national curriculum at all levels) that science is 4 subjects....essentially scientific enquiry, biology, chemistry and physics. It is the scientific enquiry is the element which links biology, chemistry and physics. The knowledge component in each is distinct.

In an ideal world all children would be taught the 3 knowledge strands but in reality that doesn't happen. Sometimes it happens from gcse, more often now you are only taught by the relevant specialist from a level. Maybe when and if the bias towards biology specialists is redressed we will see more specialist teaching within the sciences.

I think that the naming of departments is down to semantics. Small schools will have a science department as staff numbers within the specialisms and/or there is limited specialist teaching don't warrant any further hierarchy. Large schools that have multiple specialists in each area are more likely to have the faculty as an additional layer of management hierarchy.

*taught the 3 knowledge strands by the appropriate specialist.

thanks alistron for that.

I could be seen as being pedantic here... but this is something I really feel very passionate about and sorry noble there is a huge difference.

Lets take an example of humanities. Most teachers of humanity subjects don't tend to refer to themselves as humanities teachers IMHO. They teach history or geography and they are primarily known as such. Their subject area hasn't been bastardised as mine has. The reason I had to teach other science subjects for PGCE (hence PGCE Science: Physics) is because I wouldn't be employable if I took a separate science as the majority of physics is taught in school as dual/triple award in a mixed department. HOD's are looking for those that can teach all in an ideal world.

Also I am fully aware that I may at any moment be asked to teach, oh PE? But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Totem asked what the numbers of staff in the science depart were. Answer is about 15 - no different from really another other school. Just organised differently.

And you're right noble, it is nice for me to teach only physics. I am incredibly lucky.

Stellar, like yours DP's dept is quite large so there is scope for the arrangement of specialist teaching from Y7 onwards.

Obviously smaller schools with smaller departments present different challenges, however certainly with regard to GCSE as a parent I would expect my children to be taught by subject specialists.

Someone upthread mentioned that they were worried about teaching biology (their specialism) because they would have to dumb down. IMHO that 'layer' of specialism and in depth knowledge makes it easier for people to convey the foundations of a subject. You only have to (for example ) look at the letters Einstein sent to kids who wrote to him with their questions about this thing we call 'science'

I've been teaching physics chemistry and biology at KS3 and KS4 for twenty years and feel I have done a very good job (as do OFSTED and the senior management teams of the school I have worked at)

I would disagree with you Stella, up until further Bio, Chem annd Physics and at that point I think you do need a specialist who will begin to bridge the gap into A level.

Is science compulsory at GCSE?

Stellar, some universities that are quite well respected don't have separate physics, chemistry and biology degrees. A mate of mine got supervised by a physicist when he was doing organic chemistry. It wasn't an issue. Maybe it's more of an issue at GCSE, but how?

Btw, plenty of schools also have 'humanities' teachers who do history, geography and RE. Or 'modern languages' teachers who do German and French. Some people are capable of understanding more than one specialism; others are not.

LRD, which universities are they and what courses do they offer?

I was thinking of Cambridge, which offers Natural Sciences. Cambridge graduates go on to be teachers all the time - I was lucky enough to have one and she was fantastic. I never thought of it as a problem that she wasn't a specialist physicist ... I think the reason she was such a good teacher was her love of learning made her want to do an interdisciplinary degree.

I believe science is compulsory to the end of ks4 (ie age 16).

It doesn't have to be in the form of a gcse tho. Some schools I have observed in offer BTEC's and other qualifications for their less academically able students.