How do you feel about private prep teachers not having a teaching qualification?

[arizonagirl]

Hi there,

After all my recent research on prep schools (which I know many of you have noticed ], I find it quite strange that a lot of the prep schools have a handful of teachers who just have a degree. I know that this has been mentioned before but it just doesn't rest easy with me. I had to do several years of training before entering teaching and I just can't see how anyone can teach without any training. In some subjects eg. drama, music, PE etc it makes total sense - it is more important to be a specialist in that subject. But I am referring to class teachers who just have a BSc or BA.

Does anyone have children in prep schools being taught by unqualified teachers? And does it bother you? I'm just wondering if anyone has any interesting alternative angle to offer to make me see it differently.

Whilst you're probably best off learning the nuts and bolts of classroom management etc via a PGCE or equivalent, bear in mind that unqualified teachers don't teach in a vacuum. Teaching is a profession where you are constantly learning from your colleagues (and your pupils).

You learn by observing older, more experienced teachers, there should be regular staff meetings discussing methodology, and classes are discussed, mistakes discussed, unsatisfying lessons picked over by the teacher with colleagues in the staff room - not necessarily formal training, but training all the same.

I have met teachers who 'guard' their work and don't take part in staffroom 'debriefing' (for want of a better word) but they don't last long.

Op with your research have you found that the results are any different in schools where all the teahcers have teaching trainsing - do they get better results?

Have you asked chidlren taught by those with and without training - whether they find them better or not? Now or later in life?

As others have said 30+ years ago a BEd or PGCE was not necessary to teach, so indeed their are a few teachers in prep schools often really really experienced 'seen it all before' teachers who do not have an official teaching qualification. They do however have degrees in relevant subjects. That does not bother me. And in any case many of these teachers are close to retirement.

It's a fallacy that prep schools are full of non qualified teachers. Just look at their websites most schools will list their teachers and their qualifications. It's great to have a maths graduate teaching maths and so on , that does not often happen in a primary state schools as specialist teachers are not used. A teacher who really knows and lives their subject is an inspirational experience.

OP you say you looked at a lot of prep schools where, in my area all the schools that I looked at the majority of teachers had at least a Batchelors degree and PGCE. The school I eventually choose only one teacher does not have a degree, but she has the certificate of education and 30 years expereience.

A close friend of mine from university went to teach at a very famous independent school straight after graduating. He left a couple of years later, saying that he had felt completely out of depth in the classroom without any proper training or guidance from the school.

I am completely with those who say that a teaching qualification doesn't necessarily make a good teacher, but personally, I would never pay to send my children to a school where the teachers hadn't had appropriate training before being let loose in the classroom! I guess it depends on what you think you're paying for.

Yes, total fallacy. In fact most prep schools have better qualified teachers than the state sector, not the other way round.

How do you know that, Xenia?

The OP refers to research, I have no idea whether that is serious research or going through a couple of prospectuses of schools they are considering. Is there data anywhere about the qualifications of prepschool teachers, or have you personally browsed through most prospectuses to be able to say that?

The OP does say 'a handful'.

Just another of those fallacies that private schools are "better". They don't even need to employ qualified teachers!

No they don't - it's part of their independence!

But I'm still wondering how many schools make "a lot" and what numbers are "a handful".

We've had chidlren at lerast 5 independent schools and their father has taught in both sectors so I have read teacher lists at many many schools over the last 26 years. No good private school has lots of unqualified teachers in it and of course the results speak for themselves anyway. Most parents would pay if they could afford to and it is one of the best things you can do to improve your child's life chances in the UK - buy their education at a good (but not a poor) private school.

I see no reason why you need a degree in your subject to teach primary age children so maths graduates teaching maths does not impress me at all. And I could imagine an unqualified teacher possibly being excellent. However, it's the selection process that concerns me. If a teaching qualification is q requirement then at least we get away from 'who you know' and get closer to 'what you know'

A teaching qualification means that you are investing in your own future which I think is quite telling.

You do learn a lot on a PGCE, and very importantly, make lots of mistakes. This is the time to do it, not on your first job. A PGCE also exposes you to two or three different schools. I think it is important to experience diversity, so that you bring something to your new school and build on collective experience.

Much of the teaching on a PGCE course isn't particularly relevent to independent schools, and much can be done with books or by a one-on-one tutorial. It's valuable but not crucial to do it before qualifying. The teaching practice is really valuable though.

It is interesting that people are making judgments about teacher qualifications without knowing anything about a PGCE, and typically, without knowing anything about independent schools. As they say, everyone has an ***ole....

As for having a degree in your subject (or close to your subject), it really does make a difference. You did that degree because you are passionate about the subject, and this will shine through in your teaching. It is very possible to teach almost any subject, but it is hard to have lively and inspirational lessons if you are outside your specialism. There will be a certain spark missing, no matter how well you cover het learning objectives.

But you could equally well say that, for example, if a maths degree is required for teaching maths you get away from 'who you know' to 'what you know'. I'm not sure how it's different.

"As for having a degree in your subject (or close to your subject), it really does make a difference. You did that degree because you are passionate about the subject, and this will shine through in your teaching."

I would rather have people who were passionate about teaching than people who were pasionate about their subject.

It is possible to be passionate about both.

Of course it is - but in my experience of people with maths degrees, for example, a passion for teaching 8 year olds how to do long division isn't usually very high up their list of priorities!

I repeat - there is no need for a degree in the specific subject at primary level - a passion for teaching is the most important thing. ANd if you do a teaching qualification after a degree in maths, for example, I would be a bit concerned that teaching was not your first career choice.

all teachers at my prep school have a teaching quailification

Ds was taught English by an unqualified teacher at his prep for a short while. I didn't have a problem with the teaching, but I did with the way she marked; she marked for neatness of handwriting and not content. I complained with my professional head on; the Head of English remarked it, and it got a much better mark. She also received training in how to mark.

She tried to make some snotty comment to me, about untrained parents commenting about her work, but retracted this after it was made plain to her what I did for a living.

Seeker, I don't quite understand why we should expect that teaching should be the first (in a temporal sense) career choice of all teachers or indeed why we should expect that most teenagers will know what they want to do when they choose their undergraduate degree. Why on earth shouldn't someone who does a maths degree because at 17 years old they love maths think at 21 or 25 or 40 that they'd really like to become a teacher now?

I hadn't got a clue at 18 what I wanted to do - I could have become a teacher, a lawyer, a social worker, a consultant, a banker, an interpreter, a journalist - well, anything, really.

I find this widely touted opinion that there are loads of unqualified teachers in private schools a very Mumsnet thing. DS1 moved at 11 from state primary to private secondary and he's found more inspirational teachers there in one year than he found in all of his primary school years, though all his primary school teachers were very nice and well-meaning and no doubt many of them wanted to be teachers from the age of 5.

Hear hear Singersgirl. I graduated when I was 24 and then worked in the public sector. I got bored, and retrained as a teacher post ds at 35, 11 years after I got my BA. My mil was very worried that I wouldn't get on a PGCE unless I could explain why I hadn't always had a burning desire to teach. Why can't people change, or find something to do that allows a work life balance that suits them?

I thunk teachers are better if they have had a life outside the classroom; they have more relevant experience for one thing. When I used to point out that people could get sacked from jobs and that I had seem this happen, the kids listened. When a colleague said the same, the response was, 'You're a teacher, how would you know? You've never done anything else'.

Of course people can change - and I'm not talking abotu everyone. My comment was general - there are always wonderfully honourable exceptions to every rule.

I went into teaching later in life and I love it. I am passionate about my subject (Science), passionate about women in Science and Engineering, passionate about the pastoral care I do (I really do care about every single one of my pupils).

There is a season for everything.

I think that it is important in any school to have a significant number of teachers doing it as a second career.

With any workforce, it needs to be broad and balanced.

If the professional in the classroom can teach and do it well, I don't think it matters if they are qualified teachers or not. We have put one child through independent from 9 (now 15) and the other stayed at primary until 11 and now at excellent CofE girls school. What I have noticed though is the number of qualified teachers at the state primary who have made the following gaffes: mixing up their and there; there was more children at school last year; seperate; neccesary; the boys thing's; and the most disappointing was the teacher who mixed up the x and y axes. Nothing like the aforementioned has been observed at the independent although it is very academic and I believe all the teachers are qualified as teachers. What is notable is that one of the feeder schools has a teacher, (5-8 age range) who is not qualified (no maths O'Level) but who is inspirational, spoken of highly by every parent I have met whose child she has taught, etc, which is far from the case with the qualified teachers. The difference I think is that the independent school plays to her strengths and would never expect her to teach maths.

sorry for creating a thread and not adding to it in the last day (dissertation due in on Thursday). Have been reading all your comments with interest though. Hope I haven't offended anyone.

My post wasn't based on any research - only research I have been doing whilst looking at schools. I was rather worried when I found out one of the teachers at dd's current school didn't have a teaching degree so I always check now. And that was when I found about five or six schools who have listed staff on the website and have one or two in each school with only a BA or BSc. Again, I totally understand this when they have a specialist subject (although I do think classroom management training is very beneficial). It is the pre-prep teacher who hasn't any teacher training that still bothers me. Obviously if they have been teaching for years it is totally irrelevant now. But not for the young graduate who is now in charge of a whole class including my own child - that I do not feel comfortable with. Perhaps it's just me but that is how I feel.