What degree classification should a 'good enough' teacher have?

[KittyBigglesworth]

Following on from the interesting discussion about degree classifications and the importance of which university you attended, I would like to know the importance you place upon the same criteria for those teaching your children. I've noticed that, when viewing information about a school, the subject studied may be listed however the degree classification and university attended are often missing. Would you like schools to openly list more detailed degree information for teachers?

Everyone wants their child to do well, so how reassuring is it to know that the teacher got a 1st from Oxford in the subject being taught as opposed to, say, a third from an ex-polytechnic? A stereotypical extreme.

I realise it's communicating the subject in an enthusiastic and interesting way but if they can't get the grade, can your child excel in the subject?

I'm not bohtered.

I went to a private school for 6th form, full of teachers with 1sts from Oxford, etc., who couldn't teach for shit. (Apart form our Eng lit teacher who only got a B in his A level English. Why the hell was he teaching us? our parents were paying a lot of money for us to have a decent education and gain decent results.

I came form a school full of idiot teachers, who somehow managed to get us though what we needed to, to achieve decent results

What I want to know is; Can they teach? And can they care for my child?

I don't care if they have a first from Oxford. If they can't relate to my child, and give him or her, and the rest of they class what they need they may as well stay at home.

if they got a 3rd then they've been assessed as knowing less than half of the subject, not really good enough to go on to teach that subject is it? IMO a 3rd is an indication that someone picked the wrong course and should have a change of direction. I would not be impressed if someone who wasn't interested enough in the subject to get at least a 2ii (preferably better) was teaching that subject to my child

Right.

Firstly, teachers don't necessarily just teach their degree subject. My main teaching subject (English) - is not my degree subject (Classics/Latin).

I've also taught Drama, Geography, History & PSHCE. I was crap at Drama (takes a special sort of nutter dedicated person, does that! ) - but in none of the others has my knowledge of the subject ever been lacking.

Also, if you get a 3rd it doesn't mean you 'know less than half of the subject'! It means you got less than 50% in your finals, I believe, which isn't quite the same thing. The 'subject' is, hopefully, a bit broader than the course...('OK, I know 50% of Physics - Hawking, eat your heart out! ).

I am quite open about my richard. Early on in my degree course, 20 years ago now, I went off the rails & spent most of my final year managing a local music venue.

After Uni, I worked in the licensed trade for 10 years before turning my hand to teaching; I did an absolutely storming interview in order to be accepted onto an English PGCE.

My subject knowledge has always been mentioned as a key strength whenever I've been observed/performance managed/Ofsteded.

Thirdly, teachers are, or should be, life long learners. Degree knowledge has a sell by date in many subjects.

& finally: good classroom practitioners are people who have ENOUGH subject knowledge, but can also engage a class, control any poor behaviour, monitor progress & set targets.

With all due respect to subject specialists, I've known an English teacher on long-term supply deliver KS3 Science with notably more success than the designated teacher who was academically brilliant, but simply couldn't cope with the kids, the paperwork, the hours.

I do know one teacher who probably couldn't deliver an A* in our teaching subject if you plonked her in front of the GCSE paper, much less teach one. However, luckily for your kids she's now management & does very little teaching!

However, as for the rest of us,
I'm 'performance managed' on whether the children I teach reach or exceed their targets. If children who were expected to excel didn't, I'd've long since been forced out of my job.

It's probably fairly moot now, as I can't see teacher training courses being swamped for a few years - there aren't going to be the jobs.

Honestly. Of all the things to worry about re: your children's teachers, the class of their degrees needs to be waaaaay down the list!

Actually, looking again at your OP, you're suggesting a list of qualifications be published as part of the school prospectus, yes? Including name of institution & class of degree?

The problem I have with this is: as a parent, committed to sending my dc to a school, what precisely am I going to do with this information?

Ring the Head & chunter that my child is in Mrs Nottinghamdesmond's group for Maths, & can they be moved to Mr Cambridge-Doublestarredfirst's class?

What if Mrs N is teaching set 1, which is where your child has been placed, but Mr C-D is teaching set 4?

It's just, well, silly.

Unless you're using it to differentiate between schools?

In which case, I imagine you could work out some sort of point aggregate based on degree class, whether from RG Uni, gravitas of subject -

• but then teachers aren't actually chained to their oars until retirement (quite).

What if your dc arrives in year 7 to find all the teachers with Firsts have buggered off to the new Free school down the road?

It's still silly. Sorry.

Hi ravenAK

I can't sleep, it's too hot.

I'm interested to read what you say. How do the hours of study stack up? Three years studying Classics/Latin against how long studying English in your PGCE?

Was there a reason why you chose not to continue your degree subject through to PGCE? Greater employability or something more ludicrously obvious? I apologise for not knowing enough about this. I always assumed teachers were specialists who studied for their degree and then continued that through to PGCE.

I've read that universities like Durham expect students to have a 2.1 to study for a PGCE so do think that is just a certain level of elitism on their behalf or there is a genuine reason for such a criterion to become a teacher?

It is indeed too hot!

I just cocked up my degree, basically. Too young & daft, unsuitable boyfriend, absorbed in promoting bands & running venues & what have you - these days they'd kick me off the course & quite right too, but back then I just sank quietly without trace...

When I fell into teaching, 10 years later, I chose to teach English because I love books. I suppose I could pretend it was more calculated, but it really wasn't! I had some vague idea, based on my own grammar school education, that I'd choose nice books, read them to nice kids, & pontificate about them a bit...

Blagged my way on to an English PGCE (again, they wouldn't accept me now!) & now teach English, Classics & Latin.

Tbh, you don't really study your subject on a PGCE - it's assumed you know it!

As for needing a 2:1 to do a PGCE - well, OK, I suspect if a 3rd was your best honest effort, especially given that University has become increasingly accessibleto a wider ability range, you might not be bright enough to stay abreast of new curricula etc.

You do have to be able to assimilate whacking great chunks of New Stuff fairly regularly - I have to write much of the new Eng Lit GCSE programme of study for our school over the hols, for example.

However, I really don't believe there's much correlation between academic brilliance & teaching brilliance.

i know a lot of private schools want teachers (or even no-qualified) to have 'good' degrees & do publish this info.

however, i dropped out of my degree, got a BA but didn't do the hons part. was on course for a 2,1 so not like i was struggling. tbh, i did bugger all & still was getting that grade.

however, i taught english. for my degree i knew loads about medieval english. utterly irrelevant to my job, only taught one brief unit on it. also, by the end of the first year in uni you've gone past A level standard, so should already be beyond the best achievers even in yr 13.

in fact, the last school i taught in, there were 15 staff in the faculty, and only one person had an english degree. some people didn't even have degrees, they'd become teachers before they were deemed necessary, didn't mean they couldn't teach well.

fwiw, in spite of my crap qualifications, i did tutor someone who went on to do english at cambridge, so i'm thinking my degree does not reflect my teaching level.

...& actually, I did my PGCE at Durham!

So back then they were perfectly willing to take a punt on a mature candidate with a crap degree in entirely the wrong subject, given a good interview.

If they're looking for 2:1s now, I suspect that may be down, quite simply, to more people wanting to train.

I had to take two McJobs, ponce off my parents & go substantially into debt to do a PGCE. Since then, various recruitment incentives & bursaries have been available, which have increased the number of graduates willing to 'suck it & see'. & of course in a recession teaching does tend to look like a nice safe job, & with education cuts jobs are going to be lost...

...so I imagine there's going to be more candidates competing for fewer places.

2:1.

Excellent post ravenAK

I got a 1st and a PhD in chemistry from a 'good' university, and am considered a 'good' teacher. Am generally popular with the pupils, and help them to acheive very good results.
(as it happens) (3 'goods' in 2 sentences... hmmmm...)

Colleague f*cked up her A levels and did some degree-equivalent thing at local college (and pretty much messed that up, from what i understand). She's a fantastic science teacher, incredibly popular with the kids, acheives the impossible sometimes with 'unteachable' classes....

and I could add to the list. Best chemistry teacher I've seen (and probably the best teacher overall) had a degree in agriculture, and not a great one. There's more examples that I can't think of right now.

Despite my 1st and PhD, sometimes I feel terrified when I have to teach something at A level that I haven't really thought about for 10 years or more.... As RavenAK says, if you are a good teacher, you are constantly developing, learning and training anyway.

What about if you received an Oxford 1st in Chemistry over 30 years ago and are still teaching? You would need to keep reading and learning and keeping abreast of everything despite your excellent degree.

Subject knowledge doesn't make a good teaacher. Anyone that thinks so probably hasn't seen a range of PGCE students standing, terrified, at the front of the class, unable to communicate, mumbling away or coming at a subject at much too high a level for the pupils to access it.

I'm sure there are exceptions and examples you could bring in to strengthen and disprove any argument, but I'm just trying to say (in a very long-winded way!) that it's just not that simple.

erm.... achieve not acheive! sorry...

(my degree wasn't in spelling, obviously!)

I agree that passion, enthusiasm and an ability to communicate are more important. Having worked with a lot of people with firsts from good unis, very, very few would have been able to engage a class of children.

I think you have to ask what having a good degree from a good university actually says about someone.

They could be devoted to their subject hard-working, which is definitely a good thing. It is, however, no guarantee that they can put this across to others in an effective way.

They could be naturally intelligent and have managed to get a good degree despite doing very little for 3/4 years. Also not the best person to become a teacher.

However, a person with a 2:2 from whatever university could have been hard working in other areas. Remember that teachers need to be jacks of all trades and willing to pitch in and give above and beyond what is expected of them. Someone who focused entirely on their degree may not have those attributes. Someone who joined societies, joined the SU, had a job or volunteered their time in other areas may be valuable teachers.

Then there are teachers who went down the B-ED route and studied solely for the profession. Are those better than PGCEs or not? They wouldn't necessarily have the same depth of teaching in their specialism, as they would have been splitting their time between teaching practices, teaching theory courses and subject knowledge. How does that fit?

I think it's all pretty irrelevant. As I looked round the staff room the other day (primary) I pondered this. If a 2:1 from an RG university makes someone a good teacher, then I should be the best in the school. I am clearly not.

I would also add that it is just as important to look at where a teacher was trained to be a teacher rather than just where they did their PGCE and when you are looking at teacher training institutions, you are not necessarily going to find that the best ones are what are considered to be the 'best' universities. There are many excellent places to train that are small independent PGCE providers, or colleges.

It's all a nonsense. It's about the teacher's ability to engage and teach.

My best teacher at secondary school was my A Level Politics teacher. He freely admitted that much of what he taught he had to learn himself in the weeks before he taught us, but he was excellent and he delivered it well and we ALL got As.

I don't think can they teach is the only question I want to ask. Depends on the subject: fact subjects you can swot up on in break time, but if you really don't know a language or really understand maths, then I don't think you can teach it.

Dd's French teacher clearly does not know French, she is incapable of holding a conversation in the language (tested on recent trip to France), her accent is absolutely appalling and she seems to have a dogdy grasp on grammar: my only hope is that she is not able to convey what she (thinks she) knows! I would be totally unimpressed by being told that she was very good at other things, had joined lots of societies etc.

I work in the Modern Languages dept part of the time and my impression is that somebody who hasn't got a 2:1 or above doesn't really know a lot of French.

I agree that good degree doesn't equal good teacher.

My main concern in primary school is that a teacher can do a degree in, say, English - great, but they may be absolutely rubbish at maths (or vice versa)

Message withdrawn

Speaking as a teacher (safe in the knowledge i have a decent degree ), a decent degree does not equate to being a good teacher. I have seen NQT's with firsts from the like of Oxford, Cambridge and other red brick universities, really struggle in the classroom. They may have wonderful subject knowledge but they can't actually teach! Subject knowledge, (which I agree is a lifelong process) is but a part of what makes someone able to stand up in a classroom and engage children. The rest is made up of personality, work ethic and good old fashioned values. Teaching is a vocation, you have to love children to be a teacher, not just your subject. You can have degrees coming our of your ears but it won't make you a good teacher.

I'm with LS.

My worst teacher by far was the one with the longest list of qualifications after her name - degrees, Phd, al in her subject that she taught , fabulous mathematician - absolutely SHITE teacher.

I think I'd like my DCs' teachers to have a solid love of learning which might translate to a good degree. But I'd be open to a teacher showing that they still possessed that through other means. Particularly for small children.
That said, a very bright A level child probably will need a teacher with a good degree in the subject plus good teaching skills.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I want teachers with good degrees and good teaching skills, not one or the other...[demanding parent emoticon]

Subject knowledge does not make a good teacher. Being able to teach and relate to the students is more important. DH got a 2:2 in Chemistry, was lucky to get on a PGCE without any experience in schools either. But his observations were grade 1 from the start (which includes subject knowledge) and the kids love him. His Y11 class from his placement gave him a thank you card saying he was the reason they felt they'd done so well in their GCSEs.

And if the Tories get their way in saying only people with a First will get on a PGCE, they could be depriving a lot of great natural teachers from the profession.

If I were a headteacher, I would want to put together a diverse mix of staff. I wouldn't want all my staff to have first class honours from prestigious instititions. That makes the staff as a whole very one-dimensional.

I would expect high achievers to be getting high-flying jobs in industry, tbh. Unless they had a clear passion for teaching and can show evidence for this, I would wonder why they weren't selling themselves to the highest bidder.

I would like about 10% of my staff to come straight from their degree/PGCE (ie people in their early 20s). I'd like the rest to have worked outside of education, and done their PGCE in relatively later life. Once they have something else to add, their actual degree class is not the only indicator of their intellect, attitude to work and willingness to learn - basically, I would like to see evidence of their transferrable skills.

I'm about halfway through my maths degree (OU so not a prestigious institution, but hopefully decent!) and so far I'm on track for a 1st . I'm hoping it'll make me an attractive candidate for primary school teaching, but only because it's maths and there's a shortage of very-good-at-maths teachers in primary, I've heard. if I got a 1st in some other subject I don't think it'd be as big a deal.