DC’s teacher didn’t go to university.

[RabbitWedge]

Two of my DC’s are at the same secondary private school. It’s a small private school, not a well known name, but costs a small fortune nonetheless. An interaction with one of my DC’s English teachers at the end of term has made me feel uncomfortable.

‘Mrs Jones’ has worked at the school for a number of years. She is a very well liked English teacher; the children love her and she’s given high praise on the parents WhatsApp group. At the end of term, I was having a casual chit chat with ‘Mrs Jones’ and the topic of university came up. I asked ‘Mrs Jones’ where she went to university, and she stated that she had not gone and didn’t have a degree. I must have looked very taken aback, as she quickly added that she had an impeccable educational record (apparently all A’s and A*’s), she’d been tutoring for a number of years and working as a TA, at which point the school promoted her to teach English. I didn’t ask for this explanation, but she perhaps felt the need to justify her teaching.

I was under the impression that all teachers had to have degrees at the very least, and whilst I don’t doubt her popularity and delivery of her English lessons, I am concerned. I was aware that teachers in the private system didn’t need to be qualified teachers, but to not even have attended university seems unsuitable.

Would you raise this with the school in my position?

On that note, the previous Tory goverment has actually started an apprenticeship for being a Doctor and many currently serving Doctors aren't happy at all about it, in fact they're very critical and for very good reason I've read.

I’ve trained many teachers over the years and the best ones were the “least qualified”. In my experience, those who are academically gifted and breezed through uni with a first are often the least effective teachers as they struggle to get their messages across to pupils, especially those who struggle with their learning.

Yabsu who cares if she went to uni? She's clearly capable.

OP @RabbitWedge , what's your preferred outcome here?

When I was a student on a physics degree I helped out at a struggling school where the A level physics teacher asked directly for our help as physics students as he didn't have the knowledge to answer some of the questions.

It was quite sad really.

However upon graduation the jobs available all paid much more than teaching so I can see why they can't recruit qualified physics teachers. It's a difficult subject to take a degree in and the jobs you can get at the end are very well paid. They simply need to pay more.

I don't think this would bother me, although I can see why it's a surprise.

With those grades she absolutely could have gone to university and probably didn't due to finances or a personal crisis of some sort, not because of lack of academic ability.

You don't have to be a particularly high achiever (academically-speaking) to be a teacher anyway, it's not rocket science! Other traits are more important like having energy, patience, crowd control etc.

If she has taught for a number of years and her classes have gotten good grades that's all the proof that you need that she is capable.

Private schools don’t have to to recruit those with a degree. But I would assume they would normally look for the kind of experience that would allow someone to excel at teaching, which if her record is correct then she clearly does. If she was shit then that’s a different matter

Better at teaching isn’t completely subjective. It is also what we should specifically aim for in terms of our teachers.

”Qualified professionals” isn’t the aim from my perspective, the risk of increasing barriers to enter the profession is that some outstanding would be teachers can’t get into the profession and that is a same for the kids.

I am arguing for improved subject knowledge and an ability to teach it, but that is not the same as needing a degree. If what you are simply saying is that teachers need subject knowledge, then we are in agreement.

I should have said the teacher had a degree, but not in physics. It showed me I think you need a physics degree or further study in physics to be a good physics teacher.

People who hadn't studied physics probably wouldn't notice the problems with what the teacher was saying in class or some of the subtleties to the questions being asked because they're unaware with just an A level depth knowledge.

I don't know about other areas so I assume that teachers in those areas would have holes without further study, that I don't know about and the kids wouldn't notice because we're not experts.

I wouldn't be bothered about the teacher not having a university degree in this situation. In fact I feel bad for the teacher in this situation (unless I'm misreading the situation).

The teacher seems to be well liked by pupils and parents alike. If they make the children really engaged in the subject and the kids enjoy their class, then they'd be a fabulous teacher. The teachers achieved level of educational attainment wouldn't be important to me in that case.

The answer to that is yes. My Gp needs medical training, nurses never needed one. Pretty sure Isambard Kingdom Brunel never had a degree.
Are you happy to fly on an aircraft that is flown by a pilot that doesn't have a degree or is serviced and kept flying by a technician that hasn't been to uni ?

I'm not in the UK, so I couldn't really tell. But you said she's an English teacher, so I'm guessing she's had some sort of teacher training / certificates like TEFL, or CELTA, or other TTCs.

A private prep school called Dalton in the U.S. hired Jeffrey Epstein — he was in his early 20s and had no university degree.
He was called “flamboyant.”

Donald Barr, father of Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr and Dalton’s headmaster, thought Epstein was “promising.”

Yikes.

I just looked into that and it looks like most of the anti sentiment from current doctors was a mixture of annoyance that some people would be qualifying while working and not accruing huge debt and the belief that the training was going to be different academically - but this apprenticeship has the trainees doing exactly the same degree as the traditional medical students - except they will be getting paid and getting more hands on experience at the same time.

The only worry is if the candidates didn't have to be of a similar standard to qualify but I don't think there's any evidence of that yet.

But this wasn't what I was talking about - I was saying you could create a great doctor without involving a university degree at all - as long as whatever testing and assessment process you put in was stringent and robust.

But there's no point in trying to create a system like that as it would be far too expensive and you couldn't train enough doctors fast enough to meet current needs.

My overall point was we shouldn't be relying on the concept of 'a degree' as some magical qualification that fits people for the working world. A lot of students coast easily through degrees, a lot of degree courses are not particularly rigorous or relevant to the jobs people get.

There are some professions where it works well - those where huge amounts of specific knowledge are needed to progress - doctors, lawyers, engineers for example.

But for most other careers shorter, targeted learning experiences and on-the-job training are far more valuable.

I went to a grammar school that was stuffed full of teachers with PhDs. Some of them were very good, some of them were pretty terrible - a pattern that repeated itself at university. A PhD demonstrates that you can research to a very high level in a very narrow field, that you are intelligent, and that you are persistent. It says nothing about your ability to teach, manage a class, or effectively engage young people. I dare say most of the people on this thread could, with a bit of time, pick up the curriculum for any GCSE, learn the content, develop or find materials, and teach it. A level might be trickier unless you already have an A level in the subject (I could never, no matter how much time I was given, teach A level maths, for example, but I could probably teach three or four once I got to grips with the materials). Provided your teacher is getting decent results, keeps up to date with the curriculum and teaching methods, and is effectively engaging students, then does it matter how they got there? They have received plenty of on the job training and are regularly assessed through peer practice and OFSTED or its equivalent.

You don't need a degree to become a solicitor.

Some of the best ones I worked with didn't have degrees. It's not the be all and end all.

I can understand your concern OP, but most "qualified" teachers with a degree, got absolutely shocking GCSEs and A-levels - rarely above a D - and that horrifies me more. If your English teacher really did get top grades then she's probably better than most teachers, who have shocking academic qualifications.

Yep. I'm surprised at most of the responses in this thread. At secondary level, especially by year 9, I'd expect teachers to have a degree in the subject or in one closely aligned.

I'm a retired teacher, and while I'm aware the private schools and academies can bypass QTS, I'd be concerned about a teacher that hadn't proved their academic abilities through a degree level qualification.

Why are you just thinking about this now? A conversation you had before they broke up...so literally weeks later you are deciding it's an issue?

LewishamMumNow · Today 20:32
I can understand your concern OP, but most "qualified" teachers with a degree, got absolutely shocking GCSEs and A-levels - rarely above a D - and that horrifies me more. If your English teacher really did get top grades then she's probably better than most teachers, who have shocking academic qualifications.

Whhooaahhhh, @LewishamMumNow... that can't be allowed to go unchallenged...kindly justify or withdraw.

They did degree level vocational training though.

A teacher that doesn't have a degree, and nor have they undertaken teacher training, is a different thing altogether.

Hahaha - going to uni doesn't mean much in terms of ability to do anything outside of being good at going to uni. Decided not to go after school having spent a summer working alongside many uni idiots. (1970s)

Considered going again in my early 20s but again too many idiots (1980s) - did finally go when I was around 40 (2000s) and found the 'system' so lacking in common sense that I finally understood why so many things/systems don't work very well in the UK.

Seems going to Uni is considered a 'benchmark' with 'graduates' apparently being more able. Inexplicable to me as I found the opposite to be true.

As others have said private schools don’t jabs to recruit those with degrees. My DC’s auntie works at her children private religious school as a cooking teacher. She’s an amazing cook don’t get me wrong, but she does teach some theory and has to google it (or at least she did at first and now I guess she’s got materials). They recruited her as she helped out at the school bringing in some of her food and they loved her food (as do I, it is amazing food). That’s when I found out private schools don’t have to recruit qualified teachers and to be honest it shocked me

WTF?

Where do you get that from?

I can assure you that that is not the case.

I've got a PhD and was a teacher. The very best teacher I had at school - back in the 60's, who inspired me in her subject to the extent that I wanted to study it, encouraged me to go to Uni and did not have a degree.