The best Independent schools generally take the highest qualified teachers?

[Hamishbear]

It might be obvious to many that the most academic schools insist that their teachers have an outstanding degree from one of the best universities but it wasn't to me.

For example if you want a job in Maths at Guildford High school allegedly you need a first in Maths from a well regarded university. You obviously need to be an outstanding teacher in the fullest sense too.

So do the elite schools usually have the best teachers? I suppose it stands to reason that there is more competition for jobs at schools that have a fantastic reputation?

I teach drama. No way I could have achieved an A in Maths. I am passionate about my subject though and love teaching. Would have hated not to be able to do my job because I find Maths difficult.

Xenia - what are you waffling on about. Why should teachers' universities feature on the websites. Both Watford Grammar and HBS publish info on unis their teachers attended (unlike most state schools) and this is freely available at Open Days.

What appears to have been omitted from this thread, strangely, is that teachers at independent schools can be and often are much lower qualified than those at state schools. To teach in the state sector, you need a minimum of a degree plus PGCE or QTS. To teach in the independent sector, there are no minimum qualifications, though in practice most have degrees But a large number are not actually qualified teachers. I'd much rather send my child to a good state school where I can be sure the teacher has learnt how to teach.

I just wanted to do a comparison. Is the WG and HBS as good as the Habs list and how would it compare to a local comprehensive list - I look at a local state RC comp but they give no teacher details at all.

The good private schools have better qualified teachers as my link proves. Useless state and privates will have less qualfied people. However some people are pretty good at teaching their subject with their Oxbridge degree in it without a PGCE so it is by no means always so that it really would matter.

However if you want clever teachers who went to good universities and got good results there it is certainly worth asking to see the teaching list. Anyone found a state school which puts the places on line like Habs boys does?

I have found the same issue - our local grammar schools have a list on the school website and in the school prospectus of which university the teachers attended and what they did their degree in. Some of them have a PhD. Our local comprehensive school does not publish a list. I suspect this is not so much about where they went to university as to do with many of them not having a degree that is relevant to the subject they teach.

Obviously I do think teachers should have a degree and was being sarcastic in response to a previous poster. It is also the case that when people who do not have the same qualifications take over particular roles that somebody wheels out the argument that less academic people have better social skills of one sort or another. I have heard this argument for nurse practitioners and cover supervisors. I don't believe that being academic gives people better or worse social skills, or that there aren't enough academic people who would have the personal qualities required for teaching if they were given appropriate incentives.

I always assumed that telling the less academic people that academic people have no common sense/can't communicate/don't understand others etc was just something we said to cheer up less academic people; it is like telling people who are very unattractive that they have an amazing personality.

It explains a lot about educational standards; what is the point in telling children to work hard at school if we are also telling them that academic qualifications don't really matter, not even for teachers?

I really don't care what university my children's teachers went to. I find the schools who do it are generally doing it to try and sell themselves. It is pretentious in my opinion and I wouldn't apply for jobs in schools that do this as it is unnecessary. Just my opinion though

Do you take the same attitude to your children? Do you think it doesn't matter which university they end up at?

A lot of DS's teachers are Oxbridge. Do I believe that this automatically make them better teachers? Of course I don't but at the same time I am aware that in a few years time our DCs will be applying to Oxbridge and it would be nice if their teachers were in a position to advise them on which college is best for their subject for example.

At the end of the day, whether you are applying to a secondary school or university as a student or as a teacher the admissions people can't be expected to look at you and, from that, assess whether you would be a good student or a good teacher. So all they are left with is a CV with grades to judge you by. Its not perfect but in the absence of a workable alternative ....

Just to be clear (in response to a PP) I think Guildford High School is an outstanding school in every respect.

It matters to some degree but I have a different relationship to my children! I want the best teachers for them who can inspire and believe me I have worked with many teachers who on paper tick all the boxes but in the classroom they are terrible. Being able to teach needs a different skill set to passing exams. You need to be able to break complex processes down into steps and explain each step in a way that connects with people. Passing exams requires you to jump staright to the answer almost instinctively. If you have always answered exams instinctively, and with no need to have it explained, how do you comprehend how to break it down and do each step?

Let's face it, a lot of university lecturers are appalling teachers. They know there subject inside out but can't explain it in a way that connects with others. They are brilliant at research and leading teams of PhD students but explaining to undergraduates? It really isn';t good. Students at university have to be self reliant to learn in a way we don't expect 11-16 year olds to be.

You may also find that highly academic teachers prefer to teach highly academic students and head for those types of schools. They also shy away from dealing with more behaviour issues. If all you have ever known is a sheltered indie school with very priviledged intake then the day to day life of a comprehensive may be rather shocking. I heard a teacher talking about a child who came from a very difficult background with all sorts of social services intervention and many issues. Her comment "He didn't even apologise for missing my detention" showed she had absolutley no concept of the realities of his life. I like teaching academic students but also love teaching bottom sets and hard working students who get there through hard work and determination. I would also say these students take much more skill to teach and inspire. I would never teach in a grammar school as i like the full experience. I can teach Alevel Further Maths and have had students get A* at it so I clearly can deal with the academic subject matter but don't want to narrow myself.

AS a tutor I have seen shocking practice by teachers in top indie schools by the way. If the teaching is so good there, why do I end up tutoring so many of them and explaining concepts that their teacher hasn't been able to?

Tutoring seems to be rife across the board let alone in top independent schools.

Xenia - at Watford Girls, where my dd is , she has a number of Oxbridge educated teachers. Virtually all are from RG unis at least.

PooshTun- would disagree that an Oxbridge educated teacher could tell your dc 'the best college' at Oxbridge to apply for their subject - there is no such thing. And if there were, their info would be probably 10+ years out of date. But there isn't - unless you are studying a v minority subject, it is catered for well at all colleges. It's more about whether you get on with the tutors personally and whether their areas of specialisation are of interest to you - but the former you can only tell by visiting all the colleges (rather time-consuming) and the latter anyone can tell by googling teaching staff in their preferred subjects.

IMO teaching is a vocation. Having a good degree from a good uni doesn't make a good teacher. I've worked with some very 'qualified' teachers who don't evenlike their job but needed a job after uni. I've also worked with some excellent and dedicated teachers like myself who have average degrees from average unis but love their job and want to make a difference. I wouldn't want to work anywhere other than under priveledged state schools as this is where I feel I am needed the most although if they keep freezing my wage I might be swayed If independent schools only looked for the top qualifications I would pay not to send my DCs there! (accept that some good teachers also have very good qualifications)

I want my children's teachers to be both good teachers and also have a good subject knowledge. I would not like it my child was being taught A level history by someone who hasn't even got it at GCSE level. Equally I would expect the teacher if they sat the A level exam in the subject they are teaching themselves to be able to get an A.

Poosh* isn't your eldest DC only in Y7? And you already know that they'll be applying to Oxford or Cambridge! Admirable prescience, but how do you know?

Secondly, admissions are changing all the time. And it's worth not getting hung up on a particular college because the sod's law is that the admissions bloke will re-direct you to a college miles the other side of town with a totally different character to the one of your dreams and totally different architecture etc. and whose tutors have interests in fields very different to the ones you've carefully swotted up on prior to interview. Better to be relaxed about absolutely everything to do with the application.

bb, don't doubt it. It's a good school. I just wanted to see the list to compare it to Habs. I suspect the worse results schools get the less qualified the teachers.

I also agree with the comment above that msot of us want welleducated clever teachers who are also good at teaching. I also like ones who have received pronunciation and wide general knowledge too. You are more likely to get that with those from RG universities and indeed those private educated themselves as otherwise. I want to know about and care about placing of apostrophes even if they teach physics.

Received pronunciation Xenia? What approach do you take to all the clever geordies and yorkshiremen and east europeans who tutor at RG universities then?

"If it is well known, then the government should put in place a policy of only employing people as maths teachers if they aren't very good at maths.2

Hardly any maths or physics teachers have good degrees in the UK.

I think the most important criteria for a teacher is to have good written and verbal communication skills. The ablity to be clear and confident is important whether a teacher is in a MLD special school or one of the best private schools in the country.

Different schools require different types of teacher. For low ablity secondary school children a primary school trained teacher with a BEd might be better for teaching Science than a Physics graduate.

In someways I think the ablity to act is more important for a teacher than high level subject knowledge. Unless a teacher is teaching the top 10to 20% then subject knowledge is not so important.

I think every teacher should have fantastic subject knowledge. It should not depend on the ability of the child.

"isn't your eldest DC only in Y7? And you already know that they'll be applying to Oxford or Cambridge! Admirable prescience, but how do you know?"

I can see where you are going with this but, in the absence of any interesting bun fights on MN, I'll play with you.

DC doesn't have an idea as to what he wants to do with his life. He just knows that he will probably need a degree for it. Which university he chooses will depend on his degree choice which is something he'll obviously make nearer to the time. At the moment he thinks he wants to be an architect. If he keeps to this then Oxbridge is NOT the top school for that from what I have been told so Oxbridge will not be his number one choice in that eventuality but no doubt it will feature somewhere on his list.

Hamish that's the ideal but there's a huge variation in supply between subjects. There are far fewer highly qualified physicists and chemists coming forward for teaching posts than historians say. Supply and demand has a significant impact on teacher recruitment.

Oxford doesn't do Architecture Poosh, it would be a waste of an application.

Is it only Oxford and Cambridge that turn out 'well educated clever teachers'? I didn't go to either of these and only got a 2:2 but excelled in my chosen subject and on teaching practices and Ofsted/parents/children seem happy with me. My children always get good results and enjoy school. My accent is completely screwed up as I was a forces child, Dad from Yorkshire, Mum from London and lived in Birmingham but how does that matter? My vocab and grammar are fine. As I said before there are plenty of teachers who have excellent subject knowledge but are in the wrong career.

According to the boys DH teaches, and amongst the pupils from another school that he has supervised on extramural activities, he is 'a legend'.

I have no idea whether that makes him a good teacher as such - it might be that he is male, has a shaved head and a tattoo ...

Oxbridge definitely isn't the best school, no.