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?

MMM - do you know how tempted I am to give you a load of maths questions and ask you to explain it to me

well I am on your FB list (initials DB) so feel free

oh it's not the lack of knowledge she had - she had OOODLES of that, and when we'd given up trying to understand what she was attempting to teach us we'd pass the time firing or ridiculous maths questions for her to answers as quickly as possible........she just couldn't teach it to us

Makes pretty much no difference. Even with a 3rd, you probably know enough to teach A-Level, GCSE etc. And trust me, no matter the degree classification if you can't teach, you can't teach. One does not equal the other. Anyway, what about 'industry' experience etc?

Degree classification isn't listed at the DC's schools but certainly the university attended is. I don't think you need to be academically bright yourself to teach, except perhaps the brighter beans at A level.

Meant to add: I have a 2:1 degree and years of exp in marketing, yet have recently qualified as and English teacher and am 'graded' Outstanding. I have a natural rapport and love for the subject, and am a great communicator who builds respectful relationships with students. Apparently. But my degree isn't in 'my' subject, that would probably raise a few eyebrows.

The husband is an aerospace engineer and is about to retrain as a maths teacher. He is already in the classroom, and has been advised to look to move towards AST/leadership fairly quickly as not only is he technically very good (years of advanced engineering will do that to you) but he has years of high-level management under his bely and strong 'charisma'. Yet he 'only' has a 2:2 from what was a poly back then (15 yrs ago). The fact that this degree is now the recognised equivalent of a 2:1 in the same field (as bourne out by specified criteria on job specs in his field) would probably slide by many.

It also depends on the type of school. I used to work in a very rough school in a tremendously rough area. My private schooling and academic niceties wouldn't be enough to excel in that environment. There were teachers there who did, not not because they had 1sts from amazing universities, but because they had the right skills for that school.

think its pretty irrelevant tbh

I got my degree at a college, as I was married and dh put me through my degree, so didn't want to go off to uni elsewhere as I wanted to be about when he came home from sea.

I then worked for 10 years and retrained as a teacher for my millenium project. PGCE at same place I did my BA as now I had a 5 year old and a home, and it was easier to do it there with the childcare arrangements I had in place than anywhere else.

You can't just go on where people went, unless you wish to publish why they went there.

My degree was theology and philosophy with Eng lit, and I am an RE teacher. Subject knowledge has to be revised constantly, as the syllabus alters every 5 years for KS3, and you can also change which religion you teach at GCSE.

Teaching is about so many different things, and being very clever doesn't always mean as others have said, that you can teach. I got my degree in 1990, my PGCE in 2001, and have forgotten much of what I did at degree level, but I don't need to teach Gnosticism, Liberation theology or the Quest for the Historical Jesus at KS3 or 4, or even A level for that matter.

I teach a subject (some of the time) that I have no qualifications in at all. Not even an O level. Perhaps that's different, as I didn't fail to make the grade - I just never tried to make it in the first place.

I think you do have to be quite smart to be a teacher, but looking at degree class in a particular subject is a bit of a blunt instrument in assessing that.

me too
no qual at all.
but am " inspirational"

I got a 2.i in English and Theatre Studies from an RG university. I have been teaching for 13 years, on and off, and give or take a bit of maternity leave. I can honestly say that I have never used more than about 5% of stuff I covered in my degree, even when teaching A Level, as the bits of my subject which were covered for my degree were so narrow and specialised and depended entirely on the specific areas of interest of the various tutors I had. My university was a very traditional one (even though my degree course had the work "Studies" in the title) and I did 4 courses for each of the three years I was there. None of these were in any way "general" literature courses and since I haven't had the need to teach Ibsen and Stringberg, or Epic Poetry, Medieval English or European Theatre in the 19th Century, I haven't touched it.

I agree with other posters who say that a high degree classification does not equate to being able to teach. The only teacher I've ever worked with who was sacked for incompetence had a 1st from Oxbridge. Highly intelligent, but utterly useless at teaching KS4 English.

I haven't taught much that I covered in my degree (even when I teach one of my own subjects), but then I wouldn't expect to. I think it's less about what you know, and more about what you have shown yourself capable of doing perhaps? But then I work with someone who assures me she has a 2:1 yet who apparently fails to grasp some very straightforward scientific concepts. So as I said - I think degree classification is a blunt instrument.

i got a 2:2 in maths and theoretical physics but went on to get a distinction in a MSc in communicating science.

just because i was not and am not destined to be a high level physicist doesn't mean that i'm not brilliant at communicating the subject up to pretty high level

when i was at uni i was very naive and didn't think about my result, i chose modules that i thought were the most interesting.. some of which had only me and the top geniuses of the year group. i could have easily got a 2:1 if i'd been more pragmatic approach but i was fired by curiosity and enthusiasm for the subject and wanted to study 'further quantum mechanics' and 'general relativity II' rather than the easier modules.

Ah yes. At my college QM3 (third year quantum mechanics) was the course that separated the proper physicists from the also-rans

I'm a great believer in the old saying "those who can do, those who can't teach", but not in the negative way it is normally used.

The uber-intelligent-first-getter-from-oxbridge usually often can't get "down" to a level where mere mortals (and pupils!) can understand what on earth they are taking about. Much better for them to go into research or whatever with all the other tefal-heads.

I'd much rather have a "good enough" subject-wise teacher who has a passion for their subject and can put it across to their pupils in variety of ways that enthuses the pupils to want to learn.

ah yes I too did quantum mechanics (not through choice I hasten to add...) in the 3rd year of my maths degree, and I was most definitely an also ran...

"often can't get "down" to a level where mere mortals (and pupils!) can understand what on earth they are taking about. Much better for them to go into research or whatever with all the other tefal-heads.
"

oh god yes that was it exactly with my maths teacher - she had the most amazing mathematical mind, and tbh I reckon her many years spent attempting (badly) to teach the subject were wasted years for her - she could have been "doing" so much with that mind.

It depends on the teacher. If they can engage and enthuse an entire class, then that matters more to me than if they have a 1st class honours from Oxbridge.

"often can't get "down" to a level where mere mortals (and pupils!) can understand what on earth they are taking about. Much better for them to go into research or whatever with all the other tefal-heads."

This really needs emphasising - when you are teaching you need to be able to get down to the level of those you are teaching in order to raise them up. If you don't understand why they are having difficulties, as the brilliant often don't, then you won't be able to guide the student through them.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread but I know the last government was always going on about wanting the 'brightest and the best' to become teachers. But is there any evidence that they make the best teachers? I have always thought of teaching as more of a 'soft' skill and very difficult measure who will be good at it or not.

Put me right someone please?

I think Raven's post makes a lot of sense. I think it also depends on the age and environment you work in.

I now teach in post 16 FE/6th form type college, and the majority of teachers in my dept have higher degrees - either MAs or Phds. But, that is because we teach 'A' levels so you need the greater subject knowledge.

However, I do think academic qualifications are really not the be all and end all. I have mentored lots of students from Oxford Uni PGCE over the years, and I have seen some brilliant students, but they have also produced the worst I have mentored (those that just cannot relate their knowledge down to a suitable level). I have also witnessed (several times) Phd graduates who perhaps have done a bit of university teaching think that they can do secondary teaching, and think it is a bit of a doddle - they usually crash and burn, because teaching is not lecturing and requires a totally different skill set that all too often gets underestimated.

Obviously you need to have good subject knowledge, if you haven't got the subject knowledge, you can't pass that on... but that really is only the beginning - the ability to communicate that in a manner that children / students understand is what is really important. The job after all, is primarily a communication / development role so in my mind that is more important than academic ability. But, I may be biased as I only have a bog standard 2i from a bog standard (not RG) university - but I have been graded outstanding for the past few years. So I think I might be a bit biased in my response .

DD1 has just started a job as a science Teacher at a school in London. She has a first class degree in Zoology from Cardiff university. She did her PGCE at Kings college London which is considered one of the best Universities,
She only finished the PGCE a few weeks ago. Her job is actually at the school she was on Placemnt at and the headmaster offered her the job as He was very impressed with her teaching skills and her manner.
My niece got a 2.1 at The university of the West of england, and also did her PGCE there last year. She is now teaching English and was also offered the job at a school she was on placemnt at,

DH has a 2ii from an ex-poly but has still be graded as an 'outstanding' teacher by OFSTED and LEA inspectors on 3 separate occasions.

If you look at his qualifications on paper he doesn't look like he should be a good teacher but he is bloody brilliant at engaging his classes and making every single child reach their potential.

A First means nothing if you can't engage children and inspire them.

See, I don't get that. I don't get that you need the subject knowledge that comes from a higher degree to teach A level. I think it is swank on the part of the sixth form college. I have never, ever needed to know the subject matter from my PhD to teach A level. It is pretty specialised, and certainly doesn't appear on any specification.