AIBU to think getting into teaching should be easier?

[LavenderFields7]

My friend has a PhD in stem, is trying to get into teaching A-levels at local school but everywhere wants PGCE. AIBU to think it’s ridiculous to want someone so qualified to have to study another year, fork out £10,000 and work unpaid for a year? She has a Level 3 teaching qualification and has taught uni level students.

My DCs independent school had several unqualified teachers, but they were all in specialist subjects that were difficult to do a PGCE in at the time. Plenty of business studies and economics teachers are unqualified for example, but they tend to teach at sixth form rather than younger children and being independent schools, there are usually fewer behavioural issues to deal with.

@ReadTheBlurb so what did the trainee do

They had a structured lesson with a starter activity, main body and end point. They chunked tasks down to ensure students remained focused and on task. They asked targeted questions to check for understanding and think-pair-share strategies so that students could bounce ideas off each other and support one another's knowledge development. They referred to the specification and exam context so that students understood why what they were doing was relevant. I didn't hear a single student voice in the PhD candidate's "lesson" - that's not teaching.

@ReadTheBlurb thank you

@KateDelRick Totally agree about PhD not necessarily making the best teachers.

A few years back I used to mentor teachers from Oxford uni who were training to be teachers. They were rarely mediocre and often either brilliant or awful.

The trouble is, good teaching is not simply having great subject knowledge. The skill of teaching is being able to break that knowledge down, to simplify it and communicate it in a way that makes sense to those who are not good at the subject.
Some of the worst PGCE students I mentored were the brightest students because they just couldn’t understand why some kids did not get (what seemed to them to be) quite basic stuff. Because so many of them naturally got their subjects, they struggled to get students who didn’t. This was particularly true of some of the very bright maths teachers.

And again being very bright does not mean that you will be good at classroom management, dealing with SEN students, motivating kids who do not want to be there, understanding and implementing the rubric of the exam board, creating personal relationships, having the creativity to develop new and interesting ways to engage and communicate the students with the content, managing SEND requirements, sequencing lessons and so on.
In fact, subject knowledge is the easy part of teaching… it’s the rest of the stuff that makes it so difficult!

Maybe state secondary isn't for her, if she thinks a PhD automatically means she doesn't need to learn anything to go into a new career.

She can apply for School Centered Teaching Training programmes or aim for independent schools.
She may want to find some humility first though

For the hard of reading at the back..... Independent schools do not routinely employ unqualified teachers..even for 6th form level. It is absolutely not the obvious solution to this.

I teach Economics and absolutely do not agree that "subject knowledge is the easiest part of teaching." You need excellent subject knowledge so it frees up your brain to deal with all the other stuff. You have to keep adding to your subject knowledge and thinking how to get it across to different students and situations. Otherwise what are you even doing in a classroom?

I dislike the prejudice that teachers being intelligent and knowledgeable is somehow a barrier to teaching.

I am pretty sure you wouldn't hear this expressed in other countries' educational systems. The UK is quite odd in that way.

Absolutely this^^

I dislike the prejudice that teachers being intelligent and knowledgeable is somehow a barrier to teaching.

Well, yes. I have a Masters in maths and yet being really good at maths doesn't mean I can't teach kids who struggle with maths. I'm perfectly capable of breaking simple concepts down for them.

That’s why I said sometimes. I never said the two were mutually exclusive… and indeed if you read my post, I also said at other times very academic teachers could be brilliant.

The point I was making was that having excellent subject knowledge is not the same skill as being able to break down and communicate that subject knowledge. And sometimes (in my experience of mentoring very academic pgce teachers) just sometimes being very good at a subject can be a barrier to teaching it, particularly to those who struggle with your subject.

I’m not saying you can’t be bright / have a phd and be a brilliant teacher… I’m just saying you can’t just assume that because you are bright / have a phd you will automatically be a brilliant teacher. There are other skills at play, alongside subject knowledge which is also needed in teaching, particularly at lower years / levels.

As a maths teacher who teaches predominantly A level, I can assure you that subject knowledge is only a tiny part of teaching. Teaching year 13 to solve differential equations is the easy part. Keeping 30 hot, tired teenagers motivated on a Friday afternoon has very little to do with your degree.

I’m not saying you can’t be bright / have a phd and be a brilliant teacher…

You might not be, but there's always an undercurrent of 'X was brilliant at maths but couldn't teach for toffee where my best maths teacher actually failed their GCSE so really understood the struggle' in these sorts of discussions.

Being academically brilliant doesn't mean you'll be a good teacher but it also doesn't mean you'll be a shit teacher. In fact being clever is a definite positive in the classroom where you are constantly thinking on your feet.

@MeMumI I agree with your fuller answer but there is definitely a strong current of anti-intellectualism in ITT (largely reflecting UK society as a whole and it pops up often on Mumsnet) which is at odds with the move towards a more knowledge rich curriculum. Plus gate keeping of entry routes into teaching, which makes little sense considering the need for recruitment.

This site gives details of bursaries available for trainee teachers, by subject and level - https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/funding-and-support/scholarships-and-bursaries?funding_widget%5Bsubject%5D=maths&button=#funding-widget

As pps have said, very generous funding is available for STEM subjects at secondary level.

It isn't necessarily a barrier but it isn't all that is required.

AlertCat said “I had a PhD-qualified teacher when I did a level chemistry 30 years ago. He’d been in academia all his career and thought teaching would be an easy way to spend the last years before retiring. He lasted just one year. Hated teaching anyone under 17, basically.”

I was a Science teacher for 16 years and I worked with a physicist exactly like this. Wasn’t so bad with the Y11’s although he did struggle with class discipline, but the KS3 classes were an absolute disaster. And that was WITH a QTS and a subsequent year teaching at a local private school. Went back to academia with his tail between his legs (his words not mine) after almost suffering a breakdown. And that school wasn’t so bad then.

Surely everyone can agree with that?

You do see expressed though (and I've heard it from real life colleagues over the years as well as on here) that having a PhD (for example) is a drawback and I don't think it is. I think it's independent of the other skills required.

I don't have a PhD but the 15 years of experience I had doing other jobs before I trained as a teacher have been really useful, despite no teaching recruiter ever asking about them or having the slightest interest in them if I mention them. Teaching doesn't exist in a vacuum - or it shouldn't.

Maybe the PhD itself isn’t a drawback, but perhaps having one gives some people- like the OP or her mate- a sense that any school would be lucky to have them? Whereas most of us need a bit of humility to become good teachers and to understand that there IS more to it than excellent qualifications, or even excellent subject knowledge. The OP did sound as if the PhD should have schools swooning at the chance for this person to waltz in and start leading A levels, and I imagine it’s not an isolated opinion.

That's not what people are saying though.

They're saying those things don't automatically make you a good teacher.

I think the question you need to ask your phd pwrson is "what have you got to offer that will help the kids be the best they can be and how can you suppor and encourage t them?"

I'm not some kind of PR person for doctorates (I don't have one) but from what I know of what's required to get one, it requires a fair bit of commitment (4 years), determination (hard to get the funding, poorly paid) and humility (need to make an original contribution to knowledge, supervisors aren't there just to encourage you). One might say those aren't bad experiences for a career changer into teaching.

Very reasonable - and to do their research because schools work how they work; and you can't know teaching will suit you and vice versa till you've got experience.

No one’s saying it’s a barrier, just that it’s not sufficient. The assumption that someone with a PhD would automatically make a good teacher is very arrogant. Teaching is a separate skill that has to be learned.