To expect teachers to be clever?

[CJ2010]

I was visiting a friend, who has a 12 year old DC and she was telling me how unhappy she was about the school and her DC's education, or lack of. She showed me her child's workbook that contained comments from the teacher. My friend is getting really concerned because her DC's spelling and grammar mistakes are not being picked up by the teacher. She then told me to have a read through and to take a close look at the teachers comments, I did, and they were littered with spelling errors and poor grammar.

It got me thinking. I know a couple of teachers; we all went to school together and are still mates now. One is a primary school teacher, the other secondary. Both teachers only managed to get a Grade C for Maths at GCSE. One of them also got a few Grade D's in other subjects (not English or Science). IMO, GCSE's are a basic qualification and being taught up to GCSE level only really gives a broad, general knowledge of a subject. If they are only coming out as average / or below at this level, regardless of subject, are they really qualified to educate the next generation? They are not very clever are they?

I fear, that this this average educational ability amongst techers is quite common and wide spread. My DC's have yet to start school, but it is worrying for the future. AIBU?

Their salary is paltry compared to what the brightest graduates can go on to earn.

There will always been people who want to be teachers, but money is a huge motivator too. Some of the people who i went to uni with became teachers where the national average is £32k a year i think. Two people i know went on to work for companies like IBM and Fujitsu and they earn £100k+ now. A person who has a law degree can teach a-level law or they can go on to be a solictor, which do you think earns more? Same for engineers, scientists, mathematicians, etc.

Teaching is not a bad wage. But if you want to attract the best people, you don't offer a wage substantially lower than you can get elsewhere. If we are only going to offer them what we do, then don't complain when they're not the cream of the crop.

When i meet a really bright teacher with a good degree, i respect them because i know they could be earning a lot more elsewhere but teach anyway.

caramel - sorry, we're probably talking cross-purposes and I'm sure it's my fault.

My basic question was, why do you have faith in these tests? By that I mean, why are you linking teaching ability to the tests children have to pass?

Is it not quite possible a person might be very well-educated and intelligent, and still fail these tests? After all, Key Stage tests are not actually designed to mark out the good teachers, are they?

I'm really asking: what skills are essential to being a teacher (in your view) that are tested during tests taken by school-age children?

Perhaps a starting point for whether or not somebody is capable of becoming a primary school teacher should be whether or not they can actually answer all the questions on the KS2 Maths, English and Science papers correctly.

I keep repeating the same thing, in different ways I think.

Teachers have to teach children the national curriculum at KS2 level. If the teacher does not have the basic skills that the national curriculum covers for children of that age group, I cannot see how a teacher can teach those children.

I understand that children can get a level 5 without getting a high mark for spelling, but that is true for every area of the curriculum. You could get a 5 without knowing the earth revolved around the sun. It is acceptable that children may not know every area of the curriculum, but the teacher should certainly be able to deliver it!

leQ - I'm 90% with you there (as usual). But then, what about the teachers who can encourage a child even if they're not brilliantly educated? And what about the teachers who are well educated, but who are awful?

The worst teacher I had, had an MA in English and was very conscious of how bright she was. She made me feel like an idiot for years and made several other students give up the subject. But, the best teacher I had was not academic ... she was just brilliantly gifted at seeing how to make you push yourself. She was amazing. Some teachers are like that. Surely this is not about knowledge - which is really only a concern for mediocre students, in many subjects - but about how you make people think?

It is so insulting to generalise that teachers are 'not the cream of the crop'

I have met very few teachers in both my profession, as a teacher, and as a mom, who aren't passionate about educating and inspiring kids and spend time inside and outside the classroom working for the good of the kids. Just think about all those school trips and holidays...would YOU want to take a bunch of smalls, or mediums on holiday FGS, but teachers frequently do this, often so kids can experience things outside of the provision their parents could/would provide.

There ARE a few out there who aren't the best, but that's true of every profession - including PARENTS (let's face it, there are LOADS of crap parents, totally unqualified and dragging up the next generation...)

How many parents actually have a formal education that compares to those of a teacher? But obviously I will be MASSIVELY flamed for stating the obvious - as it is acceptable to teacher bash bash bash, but don't ever question a parent...not here, not in RL, not in politics, not ever...

If YOU think teachers are so shite, why not train to become one YOURSELF or home ed your kids??

Very easy to come on a forum and moan - don't like it, do something about it.

I am off to sulk now and try not to think about how lovely people are about and to teachers

caramel - sorry, I'm probably missing something really obvious... but what is it that you think teachers need to be good teachers?

I'm getting a good sense of what you think they shouldn't have, and of course that is important, but IMO positive skills matter too, at least a little.

Boneyjack that was my point . Teachers have 13 weeks holiday a year, for which they are not paid, which explains why they are paid less.

If I had a choice between a higher wage or keeping my holiday , the holiday would win every time.

I suspect we would attract better teachers if we moaned less about our job and stopped trying to make out it was the toughest job in the world . We would also attract better teachers of people stopped attacking them.

But if you want me to keep my holiday and take extra pay I am happy to oblige.

I don't really understand this 'how to think' issue. It is brought up a lot.

There are a set of facts for each subject and there is a mode of analysis for each subject. You teach children what the mode of analysis is and how to do it, and you teach them the facts. I don't see how a teacher can be good at one and bad at the other. They both come from a body of knowledge of the subject you are teaching.

LeQ, you might well as to what these students are applying their skills (other than grammar!).

I can't answer for everything, but one really interesting topic is learning how language evolves. I tutor students who're learning about the history of language. We used to learn that there was such a thing as 'correct' grammar, but they are learning the truth of the matter, and learning how the English language really took shape. They're learning about Shakespeare in the context of how their dads and granddads spoke. I know of projects looking at how the accent in the West Midlands actually reflects some of the oldest and most important literature we have.

This in turn helps us to understand how there is a rich heritage to the language we speak - and that's true whether or not we speak 'correct' upper-class grammar, or not. We can learn about history through this. If people can understand that London, and the south, are relatively recent areas of politcal power, then they can become proud of the area where they live and the dialect they speak. IMO it is incredibly important. And then, of course, understanding dialect leads you to understand the concept of multiple 'correct' linguistic patterns, and that in turn leads you to think about the theory of 'correct' patterns, which helps you to understand the scientific concept of 'hypothesis' and the mathematical concept of an 'axiom'. These things are all interrelated, and a good teacher will show a class that. IMO.

I accept that we need more graduates with a strong academic background and charisma , however there are already teachers in the system who match that description. I teach in a school solely staffed by strong graduates with charisma. Before I get pulled up I am sure perhaps one or two dull academic types have got through, I am just struggling to think of them right now. So it is wrong to say that bright graduates with the skillset to be aspirational and inspirational are not going into teaching.

However if you want to give me money I will take it' gladly.

Even when I have taught in schools that struggled to attract staff I cannot imagine that we have ever employed someone with two e grades at a level.

Oh, huge cross-post!

LeQ, I certainly agree that teachers should be paid well and doing a very well-respected job. I'm sure it'd solve many problems if they were.

caramel - of course a set of facts, and a mode of analysis, is fine for the earlier levels of primary school. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But, what do you do for the brighter primary school children? Or for secondary school?

I am perhaps looking from it from the other side of that, LeQueen. I think 'how to think' has become mystified. I don't suggest LRD is claiming such a thing, but I do think it is sometimes discussed in that way. I think children often aren't taught modes of analysis in a direct and straightforward fashion because people believe it is some kind of thing that clever people can just do.

I believe that is one of the differences between the state and private sector. The private sector teaches the nuts and bolts of how to think. Some parts of the state sector don't really teach that and expect children to pick it up. Now that DD is going in to KS3, and DS is going in to KS4 I am buying private school text books to support them at home. I do not really understand how to think about English, but having had a look at the text books, it seems quite straightforward if explained properly.

Feenie - Oddly, that's what the school are doing now, after two years of me complaining. They get work from the local Secondary school for him from the Maths Dept there. Which I find odd them doing that as he will hopefully get into the Grammar school.

He also goes on MyMaths and does work on there. that I have no clue how to help him with because I was always shit at maths, in bottom set, and I have NO idea WTF Euler's theorem is, or how to do quadratic equations...

LRD, no, I believe straightforward modes of analysis are 'how to think' at every level including undergraduate.

Whatever, I don't think we need people who are exceptional academics to become teachers. I think most people, including teachers, need to have basic skills that should be taught by the end of secondary school. If schools did that, then teacher training colleges could do the job of teaching things like classroom management, child psychology and so on to potential primary school teachers. I don't think an undergraduate degree in a specific area of the national curriculum is required for primary teachers at all.

Sorry, I think I am with you now.

I think it is really important to teach children how to think - and to me that means questioning, thinking, experimenting, and getting it wrong.

A good teacher will encourage this, and he or she will gently shepherd the class in the right direction, so they believe they've got the answer on their own.

A bad teacher will say 'do it like this! This is the right way!' and will make a class learn by rote. That is the thing that worries me, and initially when I read about a 'way to think', I thought of this.

IME, it'd be possible to fail state-set exams - Sats, or GCSEs - if you're an unusual thinker. You would have then to catch up, and to learn the actual content very well. But I think someone who fails a school exam should not automatically be excluded from teaching. They should have to prove themselves in another way ... but might they not be a very good teacher, if they were both as capable as other teachers of understanding the subject matter, and also innovative and different in the way they thought?

Checking the facts about teachers' degrees

This is an interesting article about the degree qualifications held by teachers in different subjects. As you can see by the graph, the vast majority of entrants into the teaching profession have 2.1 degrees or Firsts.

(LRD,
Your work sounds fascinating. I am currently teaching a unit on language change to my Year 8 group. They have responded very enthusiastically, particularly to the idea that language is constantly evolving and changing and that they have a role to play in making that happen.)

"Teachers have 13 weeks holiday a year, for which they are not paid, which explains why they are paid less."

Really where abouts are you ??
My DH is a teacher and he gets no where near 13 weeks off . :(

caramel - sorry, my last post refers to your earlier post. You've missed words out in your last - sorry, help me understand?

I am just hoping that next year's teacher is qualified highly enough in Maths to mark his work, like his current one is. Unfortunately I know he won't have the same teacher next year, as his current teacher is also the Deputy HT, and only teaches 3 days a week, so doesn't ever teach Y6 due to the SATS and the school feels that it would be too disruptive to have two teachers in a SATS year.

His literacy is of a reasonable L5 standard, but his maths IS off the scale for Y5. But there are two others in his class, a girl and another boy, who are working at the same level! The school keeps going on about how 'academic' this whole year group is. The 'struggling' DC in this year group are on a level 3a/4c at the end of Y5. The year group has always been a 1FE in a school that is usually 2FE, and Y3 is 3FE.