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?

Jabed - I don't think I am painting a rose-tinted picture.

Neither do I think that challenging you directly is poor manners.

NiceH - what is your subject? I do agree with you that whether or not you use your degree daily may depend on your subject.

But would you say that, by focusing on academic qualifications, the independent sector gets better teachers?

The OP didnt ask that did he/she? The question was are teachers in independent schools seek more highly qualified candidates. I think the answer to that is clearly a "Yes".

However, I do disagree with this
Or is it that, for all the reasons discussed above, the level of 'teaching skills' (as in 'advanced knowledge of and skills in pedagogy') required in independent schools may be lower, so it is possible to prioritise 'paper qualifications / subject knowledge' over 'quality of teaching / knowledge of pedagogy' as the latter is likely to be less important in classes which are more homogenous, compliant and receptive to 'transmission of information' teaching?

The teachers in my current school use a wide range of pedegogy and suitable teaching and learning techniques and skills. Many have outstanding teaching skills. They are not using as you describe " transmission of information teaching". I think that is a sweeping generalisation about independent schools and teachers.

I have seen more good practice in an independent school than in state schools. State school teachers though hold the accolade for dealing with disruptive classes and challenging behaviour. I admire them for that.

ET - humanities

But "highly qualified" had to be qualified, if you see what I mean.

If I have a 1st from Oxford and my Doctor has a 2.1 from Leeds, am I more highly qualified than my Doctor?

Maybe in one sense, but I am not qualfied to be a doctor, and that, IMO, is the crux of the matter.

I do think that some independent schools use the classifications of their teachers' degrees and the institutions at which they were achieved as a marketing tool. State schools don't tend to do this - I'm not even sure they can. I have certainly never worked in a school where such information was automatically made public. Incidentally, I have had a look at websites for four of the indendents in the town I live in. None of them published that information - given the calibre of the schools though, perhaps they don't feel the need to.

I think it is important that all teachers challenge themselves to keep up to date with what is current.

Xenia - the FT table you qoute frequently - completely unrelated to the fact it ranks your dd's schools highly, of course - -is bobbins; it categorises the Watford Grammars as comps! Which they are not. So don't have a very high opinion of the accuracy of the rest of its data, frankly.

Of course NCLS and Habs get higher results - they select 100% of the pupils, compared to 25% at WG. But I doubt that if you toook the academic kids at all the schoools, there would be any advantage gained in qualifications or university destinations at the private schhools ie extra value added.

Obviously you like private schools for other non-academic reasons like keeping your child away from the plebs, speaking with RP, buying social and career advantage by getting to know the 'right' set - all things that would absolutely put me off a school.

So horses for courses, certainly. Glad my horse/course is the free one. :)

But I doubt that if you toook the academic kids at all the schoools, there would be any advantage gained in qualifications or university destinations at the private schhools ie extra value added.

That's just the point - from my research of the schools in my area, the selective schools did add extra value, and I suspect this is universally true. Have you looked into this at all? I have, as I posted previously. I only made the comparison between three specific schools in my area, mind you, but the difference the independent made was significant.

I checked the exam results at GCSE versus the average IQ of the intake to test value added. The selective academic independent actually had pupils with significantly lower IQs (around 15 points lower) on entrance than the superselective grammar. You can get this data from ISIS reports on independent schools. Ofsted don't seem to do the same but the grammar school does publish the data separately. I suspect in order to try to limit the vast number of applications it receives.

I found that the superselective grammar had 72% A & A at GSCE which was worse than the selective independent (78% A & A). So in my comparison of the three schools relevant to me, the selective independent was just miles better. And if you factor in the considerable differences in sport and music, the difference is even greater.

(b&b, I don't think if only 25% are selected on merit though that you can say WG is a state grammar where 100% are selected on merit. It is not the FT's fault WG is unusual in that way. I have said it is a good schoo. Ir is fairly high up the rankings consideringf 75% do not enter on merit.

The reason the FT league table is good is it strips out non academic subjects some schools use to bolster league tables and it gives a several year picture I think or it used to . If a school like say NLCS is always in the top 7 over 15 years you can be pretty sure it's good. If a school gets good results in one freak year and then returns to a low placing it isn't. ("good" of course meaning purely by raw exam results).

We know plenty of parents who choose Henrietta B (Bucks grammar), watford g (25% selective, otherwise comp) and that is a great compromise if you aren't able to afford fees.

Personally I just feel we fit better into selective private schools for a raft of reasons and I picked at career which means I can afford fees so it's not an issue.

There are teachers in tough schools who hide behind crowd control and it would be daft to suggest otherwise. Not a huge number but I have worked with them. In some schools they are just so relieved if you turn up every day and "get the buggers to behave" that they turn a blind eye to you failing to stretch the pupils. Just as there are staff in the independent sector who could not control the behavior of many classes in sink schools. I suspect this is a greater number than the poor state school teachers hiding behind behavior issues. They are a different skills set

I would totally agree with this . I base my comment on my own experience and that I have from friends and colleagues. My personally based action researched sample consists of 10 schools . It is a longitudinal study of schools over a period from 1977 - to present day. The state sample size is 7 state schools although I admit five of those were "sink schools". One was a grammar ( although I could add two other grammar schools from a separate source , I do not, and the other a half way decent comprehensive ) and 2 independents. I can suppliment this with a number of experiences in schools as a supply teacher for a year as well , but I will leave that aside.

However, I admit my personal research took a longer time to complete because it was broken by committments to an academic career in the mid 1980's- 2002. But when I returned to this project, I found little really changed, except to be far more pronounced than previously.

I worked in so many poor schools - and thus know the score there, I think mainly because it does seem that once you are in a poor school, getting out is very hard. There seems to be an assumption that you only have a skill set for such a school.

Jabed,

Thank you for clarifying.

It is a shame that your data is so skewed, with such a high representation of 'sink' schools, as otherwise the comparison would be interesting. However, countrywide it is definitely not the case that 5 out of 7 non-grammar state schools are sink schools...

Like other posts on this thread, you are contributing to the 'false dichotomy' I mentioned above, where it is implied that in selective private or grammar schools subject skills are needed, while in other schools only crowd control is needed. In fact, your information indicates that in a small minority of state secondaries (what you call 'sink' schools, though whether the problem lies with the school or in the environment in which that school operates is perhaps a subject for another thread) there may be a focus on discipline because that is what is needed.

It completely ignores the large majority of state schools in which the intellectual and teaching challenge comes not from behaviour or classroom management, but from the huge range of abilities within every cohort - requiring both excellent subject knowledge (it requires a very deep subject knowledge in many areas to really break learning down into all the component steps that a struggling learner needs in order to make accelerated progress) and genuine knowledge of pedagogy. Different teachers in these schools will balance these aspects in different ways, and that might be reflected in their paper qualifications.

I am not denying that there are poor teachers, and they can appear in any school - in a selective type school they may hide behind the compliant nature of their classes, in a tough school they may focus on discipline to the detriment of learning, in an 'average' school they may coast from year to year.

I do not think that there is a preponderance of poor teachers in any one type of school, although it is certainly true that there may be teachers who are very good in one context who would struggle in another. It does not make you a 'better teacher' to be good in a selective school and less good in a non-selective one rather than good in a non-selective school and less good in a selective one, any more than it makes you a better doctor to be an ENT specialist rather than a gynaecologist.

Eviltwins, you said: *I have a 2.1 in English Literature and Theatre Studies from Warwick. I teach Drama and Performing Arts in a state school. I can categorically state that nothing I covered in my degree has had any relevence to what I now teach. In my final year, I covered four modules (all theoretical - no practical drama for joint honours students) - Staging Shakespeare since 1960 (doesn't come up in KS3 Drama), Shakespeare, Marlowe & Webster (too specific for Secondary School), Musical Theatre (theoretical, historical - very interesting, but again, not something I've had to teach) and English Poetry II (from about 1650-1800) So despite my qualifications, my degree was largely irrelevent.

The obsession with teachers' qualifications is, IMO, held by a small amount of people who don't really get it.

I have considered an outstanding teacher (I have a certificate and everything) but I don't honestly think my degree has anything to do with it. I stayed at Warwick to do a PGCE, and that is where I learned to be a teacher.*

To my mind your degree isn't irrelevant. You will be able to write very well, you are erudite, you have more knowledge than the majority about some of the best playwrights in the world. You are highly educated, you teach drama and will impart this knowledge unwittingly as well as knowingly. You've also been taught how to teach and have a PGCE.

I want erudite teachers, I value teachers who have this level of knowledge about their subject. Their knowledge is likely to rub off in a positive way on my children, they will likely influence and inspire and have the knowledge to do so in a meaningful way too. Sadly I am more likely to find a teacher like you in the independent sector. This sort of knowledge IS important, not just the ability to teach via PGCE.

I am sorry to say I've met English & drama specialists who are unfamiliar with Marlowe, who can't spell playwright so on and so forth. To many this doesn't matter as long as they can teach. I'd like both erudite teachers and those who can impart that knowledge. The best independents look for both.

Qualifications do matter but so do other qualities.

Just to add as do the best state schools, but on balance I'm likely to find more like this in the independent sector.

EvilTwins,

I like your analogy to doctors - I feel that one of the problems with this debate is a general perception that teaching (as in the process of pedagogy) does not require any particular skills but simply requires a mastery of the body of subject knowledge that needs to be imparted to children...

So it is obvious to 'the general public' that a doctor requires specific medical skills that may not be reflected in their paper qualifications, but less obvious to the same people that a teacher requires specific teaching skills.

From the inside - particularly if one works in an environment requiring very coinsiderable teaching skills, for example very mixed cohorts or where a lot of children find learning difficult but behave very well - the need for knowledge of and skills in pedagogy are glaringly obvious (as are the lack of the same in some of those who may have good subject knowledge). Perhaps they aren't as obvious 'from the outside'?

Hamish - I suppose I meant that the specific knowledge I gained from studying for my degree bears very little resemblance to what I teach, day to day.

I'm very happy in the state sector!

TW2K - yes, I agree with you. It would seem that plenty of people seem to think a teacher either needs to be really clever, or really good at crowd control. It shows a lack of understanding of how good teaching actually works.

EvilTwins, I am sure your pupils benefit from that specific knowledge every day, it will inform everything you do.

HB - yes, I'm sure you're right. On the face of it, though, knowing about a 1960s Kabuki style production of King Lear doesn't often come up. Then again, understanding that it is possible to do King Lear in that style is relevent, and I do pass that understanding on to the students.

Like other posts on this thread, you are contributing to the 'false dichotomy' I mentioned above, where it is implied that in selective private or grammar schools subject skills are needed, while in other schools only crowd control is needed. In fact, your information indicates that in a small minority of state secondaries (what you call 'sink' schools, though whether the problem lies with the school or in the environment in which that school operates is perhaps a subject for another thread) there may be a focus on discipline because that is what is needed.

Teacherwith2 kids, I think that the dichotomy is used - although I agree it oversimplifies, because it does exist at the two ends. Its very pronounced.

I am also inclined to say that I do think, certainly in my own area, there are far more sink schools than "ordinary" ones and that also possibly has skewed my sample. When I say I worked in sink schools - I worked in five of the bottom fifty in the country , including one right at the bottom, and two so close , it couldnt be called in any difference, although they didnt figure there. Tjose three did go into special measures. The other two were inner city deprived areas.

But I dont think it changes much . I really found the leafy schools had bad behaviour too often similar to that in the sink school. It certainly disrupted the teaching and learning considerably.

I am not suggesting that grammar schools are exempt from poor behaviour because I know they are not. However, I have also worked at the very top end - the top fifty nationwide (well into that although I will not be indentified by saying which and where my current school is positionedm but it is a top school). We do not have discipline issues generally and teaching and learning is focussed and moves at very fast pace. That is a major difference and it does enhance the sense of dichotomy . But I still think ( and I do have some experience) that many state schools err toward the sink end , not the top end in my experience. I know of state schools I taught in on supply who had good reputations but they were little better than the worst of the worst in some instances - and certainly required the skill set.).

I love my present school because I can teach. I think many very good teachers want to teach and that is why they tend to gravitate to the independent school and that is why we attract high calibre applicants.

There are other factors - such as cost and many state schools now are employing younger and less experienced staff for that reason. I do know that to be the case. That does affect the ethos of the school and the teaching environment in my experience.

I fogot to add, much of what you say teacherwith2kids, I would agree with.

Jabed - your "evidence" is skewed to the point of being irrevelent, IMO. You say your "study" began in 1977. The education system was vastly different. You then had an academic career from the mid 1980s-2002. So we're talking at most 8 years in the late 70s and early 80s, followed by less than 10 years in recent times, in a total of 10 schools, some of which you were employed as a supply teacher.

I would imagine you love your present school because it better fits your specific skill set. Perhaps you had a tough time in the "sink" schools (what a vile term) because you did not have the skills necessary to inspire and teach students in that environment.

I won't pretend I have anywhere near the experience you have - for a start, you must be at least 30 years older than I am if you really did begin teaching in or before 1977, but I have taught in three different schools since qualifying, one of which was a tough inner-city London comp, and one of which (current school) spent 18 months in special measures. In both of these schools, there were teachers who tore their hair out because the kids just wouldn't sit down or shut up and they felt they simply couldn't teach them. However, there were also teachers who taught the same students brilliantly. As other posters have pointed out, it's not "one size fits all", and it's certainly not the case that a 1st class honours degree from Durham means one is able to teach anywhere.

"I would imagine you love your present school because it better fits your specific skill set. "

I should imagine that is true for pretty much all of us! I love where I teach because it requires me to use ALL my skills and so I find the challenges it poses interesting.

I see nothing wrong with a teacher saying 'I choose to teach where i do because I feel my skill set is best used here'. What I find difficult about jabed's post is that rather than recognising this, he implies that there is something wrong with the other schools and the teachers who teach there because their skill sets are different from his own.

Different, but not better - as I have said above, it is not that teachers who teach in selective schools but struggle in others are better than those who teach brilliantly in other schools but would not excel in a selective one. Both types can be fantastic teachers. Both are likely to choose, and prefer, the schools where their skill sets are a 'best fit' with the needs of a school. No need to denigrate a teacher with a different skill set....

I am not denying that there are poor teachers, and they can appear in any school - in a selective type school they may hide behind the compliant nature of their classes, in a tough school they may focus on discipline to the detriment of learning, in an 'average' school they may coast from year to year

I didnt think I had denied it either. There seems to be some cross purpose about good qualifications and good teaching. The latter isnt the purpose of this thread.

I am sure I have colleagues who hide behind their compliant classes. I am equally sure I had colleagues who hid their teaching inability behind challenging behaviour. Mind you if you cannot control a class in a challenging school, you qill quickly get found out and will end up leaving. That was one reason we had a high turnover of staff in my last ( albeit less challenging )school.

I know the reason I spent so long working in difficult schools was because I was good at dealing with challenging behaviour. I had that " skill set". Its also how I worked into management because they needed someone with the skill set, but like many teachers I( missed not being able to teach. I am good at teaching. I enjoy it. Its what I want to do. That is why in common with many, I have " jumped ship" despite the comments that we "owe " the state system something. I reckon I have paid my dues TW2K. I work in a school for me now :)

From DH's personal experience.....large percentage of the good senior independents tend to interview and appoint O&C degree's teachers. Some are good teachers AND clever....some are terrible. It seems to help to get a foot in the door but if you're terrible at interview, it won't make a jot of difference where you came from.

Also if many of the parents have been to good universities and expect the teachers to have gone to those that will also have an influence on who is hired too.

Take the Habs boys list
habsboys.org.uk/info/govstaff1112.php and take say English randomly

I Wheeler, BA, University of Bristol
C R Bass, BA, University of Reading
Mrs C B Lyons, MA, Inst Of Education, London (Head of Individual Needs)
T J P Norton, BA, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, London (i/c Drama)
Mrs D Morris-Wolfe, BA, Birmingham University
Mrs K R Pollock, MA, Edinburgh University
Mrs N M Burgess, BA, Warwick University
A O'Sullivan, BA, Trinity College, Cambridge
D W Hall, BA, Worcester College, Oxford
P P Jolley, BA, Durham University, MA, King's College London
R Amlot, MA, Mansfield College, Oxford
S Pinkus, MA, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, LLB College of Law, London

That is pretty much a list of universities on the whole where we would expect the parents to have gone and where the chidlren will go. If instead it were full of Middlesex Poly and nowhere good it starts not looking very good to parents.

As I said earlier, Xenia, you have illustrated why independent schools recruit teachers from 'known' universities as a PR tool, and have demonstrated the (potentially faulty) parental logic which lies behind this decision they make.

There is no reason why a teacher who has been to a less well known university might not be a truly fantastic teacher - however, for 'looking good to parents' reasons, independent schools choose to recruit those who have university degrees which look good on paper even though it will give no indication of how good they are AS A TEACHER.