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 did a PGCE course for a term and I realised I was CRAP at it. Academically I got firsts for my essays. (I got a 2.2 and MSC in Physics. I was seriously assulted in my first degree and it messed up my degree. I was good enough to get a job doing research. I was good Physicist until I had kids!)

I found it hard to get down to a kid's level. I found school science boring and banal. Hence I dropped out of the PGCE course. It was the right thing, even though my PGCE tutors were prepared to bend over backwards to get me to pass.

To improve teaching, I would insist that candidates work as TA for a year. I don't think the type of school would matter. There are advantages to getting experience with primary school children, even if you want to do secondary. I would pay people doing an intern year a subsistance grant. The year would give a good indication of whether the person was cut out for teaching.

I would also change the way the PGCE courses interview candidates. Many schools get kids to interview staff, why not get kids to interview potential teachers. Verbal communication skills also need to be tested.

I also think that universities should be more ruthless about kicking candidates of PGCE courses.

I would rather that my children were taught Physics by a GOOD geography teacher than gifted Physicist who has no classroom control.

DD1 has actually done a lot of her PGCE on Placement yes she did go into uni and had some lectures there but as the year wnt on she had less time at uni butshe did have a mentor at the schools she was on placemnt at, So she has had laods of ractical experiance and it wasn't just writing . Although she had to do lesson plans. do supervised thacing and write two very long Esays based on her subject and what she taught at the schools.
The headmaster of the school gave her the job as she was very good at interacting with the students.

I'm not sure I agree that working as a TA gives other people an idea of whether you are cut out for teaching. It might help a potential trainee make up their mind though. Although I suspect working in a primary would have sent me running in the other direction quite fast, yet I'm rather fond of teaching secondary. And making people effectively work for two years on a very low income is not a good way of attracting people to the profession.

I have 2 degrees - a first and. 2:1 and most days will use them. I do teach some very bright students and am encouraged by the head to teach beyond the exam specification. I also provide extra subjects such as Biblical Greek and Hebrew for some students.

Reallytired would you not rather that physics was taught by a top notch physicist who also had great classroom control.

Scary it must depend on your exam syllabus as I teach RE and at Ks4 cover Gnosticism and Liberation Theology. Neither are "needed" for the exam spec but they offer more challenge for the students.

Well, perhaps your subject lends itself a bit better to that then. Is it RE?

I still think a preference for a higher degree is swank.

x-posts.

No idea why it took me so long to post that...

I suspect Reallytired was assuming that the number of top notch physicists who are also great at classroom management is rather low. And she'd be right. So in the absence of one of them...

"Reallytired would you not rather that physics was taught by a top notch physicist who also had great classroom control. "

Ofcouse, however such people are very rare. The only way that could be achievable at GCSE level would be to go back to the days of seperate sciences and make GCSE science/s optional. Somehow I do not think there is the political will to allow kids to have choice at 14.

I have seen non physcists teach physics better than I could. Things like charisma, communication skills and the ablity to relate to children are far more important in teaching than subject knowledge.

You only need a top notch Physicist for A level.

You don't need a top notch physicist for A level I don't think. You do need someone who knows their stuff, but DH could do it, and he is an engineer. We also have a Chemist who teaches A level Physics very successfully. I teach GCSE, and I have no physics qualifications at all (although I am a good scientist). My students are also pretty successful

TheFallenMadonna,

There aren't that many positions for TAs in secondary schools. I think that potential trainees would really benefit from seeing what a school is like and being part of that enviromnent. It would teach them about the world of work. Some of the people on my course were just too immature for teaching. They might be more suitable in ten years time, who knows?

I imagine that being a TA in secondary would be better if you wanted to teach secondary, but there aren't enough positions. The PGCE course that I never completed had 22 people start a PGCE in secondary science and 9 people completed it. Its a serious waste of money and people's time.

I did all my observations before starting the course, but it was a different experience actually delivering a lesson. I hated it. What is frightening is that one of the people I know who actually qualified hated teaching as well, but did not have the courage to drop out and pursue a different career.

Whether or not your child is taught by an exam board marker will have much more implications for how well they do than what class of degree that teacher has.

Beveridge- totally agree with you there. I am an examiner, and I agree that has had more impact on my teaching than my quals. My college actively encourages examiners too - so it is easy for us to mark multiple papers / subjects.

Fallen - the encouragement years for staff to have higher degrees is not swank, but is actually a real benefit to better teaching. As we only teach 'A' level, staff tend to have to teach more than one subject, and perhaps subjects not studied in detail in our degrees. Therefore, my college helps fund us to do higher degrees (because this is often cheaper to fund that doing another undergraduate degree) to improve subject knowledge. For example, my first degree was in theology (but I studied a lot of philosophy of religion). In recent years, i have started teaching the 'A' level philosophy course. When I did this, the college part funded me to do a MA in philosophy, in the exact same topics as the ones I teach, so that I am confident in my subject knowledge of this new 'A' level I have taken on. It has really benefitted my teaching, because I am confident in the topics I am teaching as this is sometimes to Oxbridge level. This is not published anywhere, parents do not know our qualifications (in fact I think often they under estimate them), so it most certainly is not for 'swank' as you put it - it is a hidden gem, but it does allow me to broaden out my 'A' level teaching and to be as confident in the other two 'A' level subjects I teach, as I am in my first. I know of several colleagues who have also done this, and it does vastly improve teaching of second subjects, yet the the cost is not that great. For one of my MA modules - it costs £250, that is cheaper than the cost of a one day inset to London!

Agree very much with TFM on the last 3 points.

You don't need to be a top notch physicist to teach physics, even A-level. You just have to be good enough, and have thorough knowledge of just what you are teaching and a willingness to learn. You need to absorb any current affairs to do with Physics as relevence is what captures pupils' imaginations. If you are a top notch physicist, I would prefer you to be off solving the world's energy problems rather than being in the classroom doing fairly mundane topics.

If I had to be a TA for a year, I wouldn't have come out the other end. It would have driven me mad.

And having a PhD just makes the school's staff list look good. It doesn't do anything for the pupils.

"Whether or not your child is taught by an exam board marker will have much more implications for how well they do than what class of degree that teacher has."

Absolutely. Every GCSE/A-level teacher should consider doing marking. It really does help the students.

But again you could have you 1st/2:1, be a great classroom manager and be an exam marker.

We have a biology teacher, Oxbridge graduate, great degree, marks for the board and contributes to the writing of set books - and he is not one to be messed about with.

Granted in my case there are not many philosophers or theologians solving world energy problems but I am well used in the classroom and doing a vital job. Our children deserve the best - not just good enough.

Teaching RS is one of the jobs that lends itself to a specifically RS/Philosophy/Theology graduate. There aren't many others unless you want to go into the church.

It's different for Physics. You do have to respect the 'market'.

It would be quite wrong for the country to say that only top honours Physics graduates can become teachers. That leaves all the lower qualified ones to either not use their degrees, or to be employed in vital science/engineering work that the country needs. Much better to have the top ones at Aldermaston and let the lesser ones into the classroom.

I think even lesser Physics graduates can handle acceleration calculations, build simple circuits, and regurgitate the life-cycle of a star.

Perhaps Mme which is why I have the view that I do. I know the school I work in won't consider interviewing you if you don't have a relevant 2:1/1st degree.

I have trained teachers who don't have an RS/ Theology/ Philosophy degree and they have all been shocking.

I am however the only one I can think of from either my of my degrees who has gone into teaching. Most are bankers/journalists, lawyers.

"I have trained teachers who don't have an RS/ Theology/ Philosophy degree and they have all been shocking."

So true - I had one who tried telling my students that Christians believed in re-incarnation. When I challenged her about it, she said that she was a Christian and she believed in re-incarnation so other Christians must too. I was .

Only a few graduates went into teaching from my degree. I seem to remember that a lot went into management of one kind or another.

Yes I have had the same thing. I have seen them all.

I teach A Level politics and law and have only ever had to use the knowledge from the first year of my degree. A degree has no bearing on how you teach. Are the Tories really considering only letting people with firsts onto PGCE courses? They may have to change their ideas on that one the year after when there is a severe shortage of teachers! All the people I know with Firsts went into the City to make oodles of money. Some of the best teachers i know had 2:2 degrees. As someone said before, if you find a subject easy, it can be difficult for you to then try and explain the basics to a 14 year old who just doesn't 'get' it.

I am sure I read on the Tory Manifesto that they only wanted new recruits with 2:1.

Just because you have a 1st it does not mean you not had to work hard for it. Just because you have a 1st it does not mean you have ever struggled wth anything.

Some 14 year old do get, some 14 year olds will go on to get 1st themselves from Oxbridge and need someone who can meet their needs.

We'll have to agree to disagree then helokitty. Or perhaps agree that it is different for different subjects. The content of an MSc would be quite different to that required for A level, unlike your MA where you say you are teaching the same things. And, as I said, PhDs tend to be very specialised indeed and therefore of little relevance. I'm not saying that the experience of being a research scientist hasn't been useful. I think knowing about what scientists do as well as what they know is of benefit to my teaching. But not in terms of subject knowledge.

But not all Phds are subject specific. Many are in education too - and these directly relate to classroom practice.