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?

What would you expect a dyslexic teacher to do? Write slowly and carefully at all times? Submit handwritten notes to court as evidence?

(I think Bonsoir has mistranslated 'provoquer'. It's a bit of a faux ami.)

And LDR some really really intelligent people are just no good at passing exams, whereas a lot of mediocre people are excellent at passing exams...

"to provoke damage" is perfectly standard English. Google it.

Not that its fucking relevant to anything, but...

...you would normally provoke an emotion or reaction [in someone]

It's not terribly idiomatic, but it's not awful, bonsoir.

It just suggests a slight ignorance of how the language has developed. I don't think it matters much. Language evolves, after all.

I think it is odd for the focus to be on people with dyslexia when most people who can't spell are not dyslexic.

I have very limited experience with dyslexia. Students I have known with dyslexia have been better at written English than the average student. I don't know why it is. Perhaps because they have to be so careful and check words that they end up using language with greater precision.

It would seem to me that primary school teachers spend a lot of time immersed in language that requires an immediate response - teaching phonics, reading, discussing spelling, answering questions on the spot about words, discussing patterns in words and discussing the content of a piece of written English as the child actually writes it. Presumably none of this would be a problem for some people who are dyslexic because their ability with words is high enough. It is possible some people with dyslexia may actually be better at teaching literacy because the strategies they have developed for themselves aid teaching; they may have more knowledge of word roots for example. But it may be that some people have dyslexia that is too severe for them to carry out the constant work of teaching literacy in a primary school. I wouldn't claim to know enough about dyslexia to know.

I think that's spot on caramel - I think dyslexics are just convenient scapegoats that lets us ignore the wider problems.

I do not care if my DCs teacher is dyslexic. What matters is the continual encouragement, motivation, development of DCs ability, etc etc. grammar and spelling are important as I can be a stickler to, however, what would I rather have? Someone dyslexic who understands my holds nature and is emotionally intelligent to challenge them and keep them interested or someone who is not interested in teaching and adapting their teaching style to suit my dc?
These comments by bonsoir are there to inflame and digress the real issues to be discussed here.

Too!!!

I was on our school governing body's selection panel when we were recruiting a new head teacher, and to be honest when I saw the application forms I found myself very biased in favour of the candidates with the most impressive academic qualifications - the First from a RG university, the string of good science A levels, and so on. But when it came to the selection days and the interview process it was very obvious that the best applicant to lead the school and inspire the children was the intellectually middling one with the single spelling mistake on his form that had made me instinctively write him off.

My husband has dyslexia. He did indeed use to have diabolical spelling. He doesn't any more. In fact, his spelling and grammar are now better than that of many NT people. Did I hear a "huh?" at the back?

Well, you see, he acknowledges his difficulties, and checks his work afterwards. He can even use a dictionary! Who'd have thought it, eh?

He's a bit of a pedant, to be honest.

I feel a bit sad that OP regards GCSEs so highly. I found many of my peers got good marks purely because they were good at memorising stuff, they're quite dim in the real world. I agree that teachers should have a very high standard of literacy though, considering they are passing on knowledge as their job.

My GCSE results aren't great, because when I was a teen I was too cool for school frankly, so didn't try very hard. However I went on to university and my maths/English is a million times better than when I was (practically a child with bugger all knowledge of anything really) 15.

'Dyslexics'
Just uugh. What was being said recently about disablist language?
Agree with DavidWicks (oh I loved the Jam).
I am not someone who has Dyslexia, but would have no issue with my DCs being taught by someone who had, because as said above, almost certainly they have learned valuable skills and strategies and would recognise when members of their class used these.

I was dx with dyslexia after years of problems at University.
I have all A, year before A stars, at G.C.S.E and in traditional subject bar the compulsory foreign language which was C. I have good science A-levels A, B and a 2:1 in science subject from red brick University and a Masters. I have also held down many jobs in industry.

My spelling has improved with age but my reading accuracy and writing can occasionally still trip me up.

Given my history and fact my DC are showing issues I have done a lot of research on how to teach reading, writing and spelling. I am sympathetic to people with problems and also know how important these skill are first hand.

I don't think my dyslexia is the thing that would make me a bad teacher.

I'm lead to believe pgce actually spend very little time teaching how to teach reading and basics in Primary its more theory of learning with placements providing the practical experience.

I think the most important thing is that teacher can teach - a different skill set to 'cleverness'. In an ideal world they would both be very clever and able to teach.

OP if there are a lot of spelling errors in DC work they may be leaving some not marked so as not to destroy confidence. I've had this done to me - or so my parents were told - it didn't really work or help me.

scrablet: "I am not someone who has Dyslexia, but would have no issue with my DCs being taught by someone who had, because as said above, almost certainly they have learned valuable skills and strategies and would recognise when members of their class used these."

Agreed. It can be really useful to have a teacher who understands the difficulty children are having. Sometimes someone who is really brilliant at a particular skill is a hopeless teacher because they can't remember what it's like to be a beginner and struggle. I agree with posters who said that patience is a hugely important quality for a teacher.

I think a truly excellent teacher - one who is patient, empathetic, understands their subject, is clever, likeable, good at managing behaviour, has a variety of strategies for teaching children of different aptitudes and attitudes towards learning - is a precious jewel. Anyone who has all these qualities should be loved and appreciated and have praise heaped upon them. Unfortunately in this country we seem to have decided that the teaching profession are a bunch of lazy, ignorant layabouts and we treat them accordingly.

I'm a teacher and I hate to say it, but I have sometimes been shocked by some colleagues' (lack of) qualifications. I know a science teacher who didn't get honours in her degree and came very close to failing. She now teaches GSCE and A-level.

But there are two sides to the coin..my DS is in reception and his reading record sometimes has spelling/grammar mistakes in it - but he adores his teachers and has made excellent progress this year.

I think the question is how her classes perform earthpixie? Are her results any better or worse than any other more highly qualified colleagues (with similar teaching experience?)

I don't have an honours degree but I got the best results in our department, year after year, with all levels of class, including SYS (said to be equivalent to first year at university).

I am not saying that to brag, but just to point out that my ability to teach was what mattered, not the level of my degree.

YY carrots. I expect it is harder for a person who's less qualified to get good results but that doesn't mean they won't do it! I had an English teacher for my A Levels who was wonderful. She truly taught me more than lots of my university teachers. She didn't have a great degree - I don't know it it was honours or not but certainly she wasn't an academic high-flyer. She was a brilliant teacher though and really made my A Level texts come alive for me.

I've got honours - it was supposed to be a combined subject and teaching degree except I dropped out of the last placement as I was failing it and dropped the teaching qualification part of it.

Several people in my class didn't get high enough marks to get onto honours, they passed the teaching qualification and their probationary year and are now teachers.

I'm better at the subject, but they're clearly better at teaching - they're two completely different things.

YANBU
I am a teaching assistant (career changing and planning to qualify as a teacher) and I have been shocked by some of the stuff I have seen in classrooms. Everyone's human, I know, but to see an English teacher spell 'bleeding' as 'bleading' and 'budget' as 'bugit' is pretty poor in my opinion. None of the English teachers in the English department can pronounce the word 'hyperbole' (I've heard it pronounced 'hyperboll' and 'hyperbowl'.
Having said that many are talented teachers so perhaps I'm just being picky. I think I find it so frustrating because I feel so well qualified (with 3 degrees including a double first from Oxford) - and yet I can't be a teacher until I have gone through the hoops of PGCE. I've already taken a big pay cut to do this and I feel that the barriers are so big and so discouraging. I know that it is important for there to be professional standards, but I do feel that heads should have the discretion to employ whoever they deem suitable for the job, whether they are a qualified teachers or not.
Sorry, I have turned this into my own rant. I don't think you're BU to expect a certain level of intelligence in teachers, whatever they teach.

And how demotivating for children, to be taught the wrong things. Particularly if they know its wrong.

But leQ, is anyone disagreeing with you, really?

The issue here isn't that lots of people are jumping up and down to say 'yeah! Let's have teachers who can't communicate! Well wicked!'. The issue is that we disagree about what the parameters are, I think?

I am a maths teacher. I often end up working late at night when I am tired. When I look at it the next day, I am horrified by my spelling and grammar mistakes, but late at night my brain doesn't work as well.