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?

My posts of the lists of good teachers at private schools above proves that is wrong. These good independent schools have far and away better teachers than many sink comprehensives (and indeed good grammars will too).

My evidence is that to teach in a state school you NEED to have QTS. To teach in an independent school you DON'T.

That is a fact.

Without exception, all the teachers of both my DCs are better qualified than those at the local comprehensive and the super-selective grammar. I checked, teacher for teacher.

Those at the independent school had degrees from better universities. The majority had further degrees, either MA/MSC and a few PHDs.

Whether being better qualified makes them better teachers is an entirely different question. But better qualified is not in doubt.

My guess is that this unqualified teacher thing is a myth peddled by state school apologists. If some examples can be found, I would welcome seeing the evidence on this thread. Name the schools.

And Xenia, your list show that teachers have academic qualifications, not that they are good teachers. The two don't necessarily go together.

Hopefully- yes, of course you did

You clearly done't realise that a degree IS NOT A TEACHING QUALIFICATION.

They all had PGCEs if that is what you mean. Not that I imagine that that amounts to a hill of beans really, being a one-year thing with most of it in the class-room

Still, c'mon, name the schools.

Hopefully- are you serious? A PGCE is meaningless because IT IS CLASSROOM BASED???

I don't believe for a minute that you have checked all the qualifications of all the staff in the schools you claim to.

Here's my own largely useless anecdotal evidence- two people on my degree course teach in independent schools despite having no QTS. I teach in a comp in a deprived area but I am better qualified.

"breadandbutterfly Sat 23-Jun-12 09:48:35
To return to topic, Xena, the list of teachers at NLCS and their unis you posted is pretty much equivalent to my dd's at WG. No better or worse. Certainly glad I save £10K or £15k a year or whatever ridiculous figure the fees are at now! Given the two schools are virtually next door, no idea why anyone would waste the money..."

Well that's for each person to decide. We found Habs and NLCS where the girls went pretty good but Watford Grammar (state comp despite its name) is certainly good too. There are lots of reasons parents might choose private or state. I felt it was well worth what we paid.

FT tables:
NLCS 5
Habs girls 24 (bit lower than usual)
Watford boys 87
Watford girls 169 (lower I was expecting)

Obviously we are comparing private selective and state mostly comp so they are all good schools.

The good private schools have very very good teachers with good qualifications in my experience. If their teachers were not very good they are unlikely to do so well for the pupils.

Babs

Ha ha ha ha are you too stupid yourself to realise that ALL the "evidence" on this thread is weak? It is entirely anecdotal, none of it is based on fact.

My FACT is that you don't need to be a qualified teacher to teach in an independent school.

Another FACT is that having a top degree from a top university doesn't mean that you are a good teacher.

Another FACT is that many independent schools use the calibre of their teachers' degrees to sell themselves to parents who do not understand that having a top degree from a top university doesn't mean you are a good teacher.

I never said that independent schools don't employ qualified teachers, I said that they don't have to. I find the assumption that teachers in independent school are automatically better to be insulting and eronious. I have a degree from an excellent university. Perhaps I shouldn't be allowed in the state sector?

But are you as good, or a better teacher as a result? You sound quite dogmatic and not open to reasoned discussion, and mos tpoepl would think that an emquiring mind would be more of an asset to a teacher than a closed mind.

The other thing to consider of course, is that not all "good" teachers are "good" in all schools.

A teacher who might be considered outstanding in a top selective grammar might well fall apart in an inner city comp with challenging behaviour and students with low aspirations.

As I said upthread, MrsGuy, I don't believe my degree has much to do with it. The content of my degree has never been relevent in my teaching.

I am open to reasoned discussion, but I don't think the assertion that independent schools have better qualified teachers is a reasoned argument. It is, IMO, simply untrue.

I went to Warwick. The other teacher in my department went to Gloucester. We are both considered outstanding by OFSTED and by our school.

Babs - do you not understand the concept of irony?

Babs - clearly you need it spelling out... ALL the "evidence" on this thread is largely useless and anecdotal in nature.

I love the assertion that the parents of indie children do not understand and are being duped by the schools . These are the same parents who are told if they sent their children to state schools those state schools would improve by having more savvy indie parents at them. Hilarious how the ani-indi lobby wll twist themsleves in knots with contradictory opinions.

Babs - geniune question for you then - do you feel that you are better suited to state or independent?

I know I am better off where I am - I enjoy the challenges of the state sector, and would not want to work in independent. A friend of mine works in a top (and I mean top) girls' independent and says she would never ever set foot in the state sector. We both fully respect and understand one another's points of view.

What made you move? I am genuinely interested.

I'm not anti-independent.

Definitely horses for courses - many state teachers would have difficulty in indies as they then cannot hde behind crowd control and actually have to get down to real teaching, and being challenged by intellectual curiosity and enquiring minds, rather than being 'challenged' by simply having to police behaviour. I have taught in schools where behavour was not an issue, and a much greater level of prepration is needed as you get through more stuff in a lesson. Very easy for a lazy teacher to get away without much prep if most of time is spent dealing with behaviour.

MrsGuy - I agree there. I taught in a top comprehensive when I first qualified, then moved to an inner city London school where getting through the day with all your fingers intact was a challenge. I was astounded by how little work I could get through with some classes, because of time wasted by dealing with behaviour.

I suppose the reason I am most riled by this OP is that if it is assumed (and clearly it is by many) that independent schools take the "best qualified" teachers, then the implication is that I, as a state school teacher, must have poor qualifications. Of course I am going to feel insulted and defensive - on my own behalf, and that of my colleagues. Why should I accept the assumption when it is perfectly untrue?