To ask if you think secondary teachers should have achieved top grades in their subject area

[Teachersshouldbeclever]

I genuinely wonder how, if a secondary teacher was unable to achieve the top grades when they sat their subject, if they are able to teach their students the skills needed.

Or is it a case of the cleverest students actually surpassing their teachers' knowledge and expertise?

I think someone who is naturally talented in an area can have trouble seeing how others can't 'get it'

Being clever means I can often figure out why kids can't get something even if I get it myself.

All this needing to struggle with a subject to be able to teach it well is bullshit.

Even when I left teaching, early 2000s, I could be paid well over £100 for a day supply teaching. And it cost schools more than that as the agency took a cut. This turning TAs into essentially, supply cover was a cynical, cost cutting thing. And my mother was a TA and my husband is a TA so I don't say that coming from a negative place - many TAs are brilliant - but it's a different job.

It was always two tiered, in a subtle kind of way - or was, in primary, where you had people with BEds (now BAs and BScs) and people with a first degree and a PGCE - the latter usually seen as superior, because it was much easier to get in to do a degree in teaching, in the first place. Getting on a PGCE can be incredibly challenging.

Oooh, that's a good question.

I think the qualities needed to be a good teacher go beyond just academics.

Obviously subject knowledge is necessary, but to be brilliant isn't reallynecessary. My brother is a teacher and he has a 2:1 in History from Leeds Uni. PGCE from Leeds Met. A* at GCSE History and A-Level.

Teaches History in a fairly rough comp, not sure he needs that level of knowledge to be a good teacher. Seems to be more about crowd control than knowledge of when Hitler invaded Poland.

I'm sure he'd be delighted if a student knew more about History than him!

All this needing to struggle with a subject to be able to teach it well is bullshit.

Hear hear.

I still have no idea how people know what academic qualifications their teachers got. I don't walk around with "I got a first" tattooed on my forehead.

DS's dad got an E in maths at A level and a third class degree. He went into teaching because his degree meant he couldn't do much else (and DS was on the way and he got money during training which we desperately needed). He turned out to be an exceptional teacher and his pupils consistently achieve great grades. I think aptitude as a teacher is far more important. Conversely I think I'd be a dreadful teacher and I did get top marks.

I think aptitude as a teacher is far more important.

I think aptitude for teaching is equally as important as subject knowledge. I'm working as a private tutor at the moment (health reasons) and some of my pupils have been taught stuff that is incorrect. Some can't ask their teacher questions because the teacher doesn't know the answer to stuff that's on the syllabus (that's what happens when you have under qualified people teaching A level physics). I've heard some great sounding analogies to "help" students understand but when you look at what they're trying to explain they're totally wrong.

To be a great teacher you need both a minimum standard of academic ability and an aptitude for teaching it. Missing one or the other is bad news for your students. Suggesting there is a maximum level of qualification or intelligence above which you're too clever to be a good teacher is frankly ridiculous.

Teachers are lifelong learners. Once you qualify as a teacher, the amount of self-study, continuous CPD about new approaches, getting your head around different syllabuses, changes in "best practice", learning about learning, developing your subject knowledge, interpreting data, using assessment tools, amongst many other things which go alongside your day-to-day classroom teaching, do require a degree-level approach to study. Therefore where you begin your career does not remotely compare to the level of professional knowledge and expertise that is acquired by the experienced teacher. There is no staying still in teaching. The continuous drive to develop oneself is even written into our professional standards.

My subject knowledge about my specialism hasn't really moved on a great deal since my degree, because my teaching is more about securing foundation skills and fostering curiosity about the world. However, as an educationalist I am still learning and developing all the time, and I would rank my expertise at Master's level, at least. That's not boasting, that's just knowledge acquired over time, and is the same for many other experienced teachers, no matter where they began.

I am in full agreement with you purple

Some of these posts are depressing.

I do think it should be a graduate profession

Unfortunately, this is no guarantee of good subject knowledge. (In addition, I don't think teaching is any longer a profession.)

The most ineffective teacher I ever encountered had a PhD in his subject. However, he couldn't teach it because he was incapable of managing the behaviour in the classroom for long enough to teach anything.

I was an advisory teacher for behaviour management and the only advice I could give would be to go for a different career! In addition, he was so good at his subject that he had no concept of anyone being unable to understand aspects of it.

YABU

I am a straight-A , double-first holding PhD graduate and I would be a terrible teacher: I cannot understand how kids don't 'get it'. My DH is a teacher and gets great results, in spite of actually failing his subject at A-level and having to do an access course to study it at uni.

Anything taught at school is easy compared to the uni degree (even if you were mediocre at uni), and teaching is (sadly) 90 per cent crowd control anyway.

I agree that great subject knowledge and great teaching don't always go hand in hand, but I also agree with purple that they are not mutually exclusive. I have a first in my subject, and I'm also (IMO) a great teacher. You just have to adjust your teaching to individuals you have in front of you - if your usual approach isn't working, change it.

Just to add, I'm not a secondary school teacher, but the principles are the same.

PurpleDaisies, I was the top student in my subject i my year, the entire way through secondary school and as I say scored the highest result on an S Paper for the board. I had no science O Levels and was so bad at Maths I never took the O Level, so had to teach myself it when I wanted to apply for a PGCE... So your 'hear hear' comes from a place of ignorance/inexperience.

I was a much better science and maths teacher than English/literacy (and I went on to do a Masters related to Literacy as well). Because I understood why I hadn't understood it at school - (bad teaching quite often) and so the kids I taught had the advantage of my experiences, there.

Incidentally the badly taught science? Delivered by the only two PhDs in my secondary school.

DH got a drinking man's degree, worked for a while, qualified as a teacher and then decided to do something different.
What he does is inspire kids by the thousand to want to learn.
His inspirational skills are not connected to his ability to pass exams 30 years ago.

Can you explain why you don't think teaching is not a profession? Surely it ticks all the boxes of being classified as one? I actually find that little post as being incredibly insulting and derogatory.

Sandy - I don't think "teaching is 90% crowd control" is a true picture. I teach in what I think used to be called a "bog standard comp" and my job is 100% teaching, not crowd control.

Can you explain why you don't think teaching is not a profession? Surely it ticks all the boxes of being classified as one?

I'd be interested to hear what you think those boxes are.

Look up the definition of profession. Teaching does exactly what it says on the tin.

Teaching does exactly what it says on the tin

What, exactly, do you think is written on that tin?

Teaching might have been a profession back in the day, but its de-skilling, as characterised, for instance, by the micro-managing lesson/unit plans, constant changing of standards, use of unqualified staff, are not those of the work we would recognise as professional, such as that of doctors or lawyers.

In addition, the lack of a self-regulatory body, such as the BMA, makes teachers the football of every government. The GTC was not a professional body, it was forced on teachers, so not like the BMA.

Should be is not. Grrrr.

I don't understand what your problem with my "hear hear" is joffrey. I was agreeing with noble that you don't necessarily have to have struggled with a subject to be a good teacher of it. Clearly your experience teaching yourself helped you and I'm sure you were excellent. There are also many excellent teachers who understood their subject without needing to battle so much.

Academic success does not guarantee you will be an amazing teacher. It also does not guarantee that you will be awful.

TBH
Teaching is more of a vocation than a profession.
In that those at the top of a profession - Architecture, Accountancy, Law, Surgery - still get to do a bit of coal face while setting policy.

In a vocation - nursing, teaching, belief systems - those at the top of the heap have had to give up coal face

eg the top teachers are heads who very rarely face a class of low ability Year 9's

BUT
The biggest problem that teaching faces is
Arrogant parents who went to school so think they know what teachers do

The fact that good teaching is about so much more than subject knowledge

• pedagogy
• psychology
• child development
• negotiation and arbitration
• management
• delegation

but parents only see what they want to see

and politicians are just second rate parents