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?

The issue they will have with trying to up minimum standards is that at the moment they are crunching down on pay and conditions for teachers...hardly an incentive for those who could do far better elsewhere. I changed careers because I wanted to, had been in a position to make a lot of money previously and realised it wasn't the be all and end all. Not everyone feels the same.

I agree MrsC20101, I am considering leaving teaching because of effect it has on my family. I could easily earn more money doing something else.

I have a 2.i and literally can't teach my degree subject. It's music. I've always been able to do it, connect with it and understand it without trying - I can't explain it to people that can't. Sure I can get the theory into students heads and I'm a passable instrumental teacher but I don't like teaching beginners!

Put me in a primary classroom or an EFL classroom and it's like I was born to teach. I can get the most reluctant child to understand maths precisely because I'm bad at it. I might have managed a third from a 'bad' Uni.

That said, there are two sorts of people who get thirds -those who had other stuff going on and those who couldn't do the work. I wouldn't particularly want the latter teaching A-level because IMO the brightest students need extending and to be introduced university level concepts. If the teacher themself doesn't get it then their students are missing out.

I honsetly don't think it is worth worrying about what degree classification your childs teacher has. What is far far far more important is what they have acheived on their PGCE (or equivalent) year. What is far far far more important is their teacheing qualities and ability to inspire their pupils to learn.

A teacher needn't knwo didly squat about their subject...as long as they stay 1 week ahead in teaching themselves it and they can communicate the curriculum clearly...although having said that it is obviously easier for the TEACHER if they know their subject but if the teacher is good then the pupils won't necessarily know that the teacher doesn't know much more. Now in practice that rarely happens because a school should employ a teacher on the basis of both subject knowledge and ability to engage the pupils.

Now when it comes to a degree....in a very few subjects will a teacher be expected to teacher material from their degree course (science is perhaps an exception) so what does the teachers acheivement in their degree actually matter for the material that they will actually be teaching...especially if that teacher did their degree 20 years ago and they have so much more practical life experience which they can draw on rather than their potentially outdated academic experiences which are not likely to be relevant to the subject matter they will be teaching.

Yes I think that the Tory's are pushing for a 2:1 requirement for a PGCE....going through the preperation for the PGCE applciation process now I am being told that within a few years teaching will require a masters level qualification.

Youmightknow acknowledging that it may be different for other subjects, you cannot seach GCSE or A Level in my subject by being a week ahead. You need to make links between topics and have the right grounding. I have watched trainee teachers being a few lessons ahead in a topic and quite frankly they are not fit to be in a classroom.

I didn't mean to suggest that would work for all teachers....just that it is the quality of the teaching that is more important that depth of subject knowledge, and that I could envisage some circumstances where the teacher who s just keeping a couple of weeks ahead could actually be a better teacher than someone who knows everything there is to know about their subject....in the same way that many have on this thread.

Put it another way....there are LOTS of skills a great teacher needs - two of the most important categories are classroom engagement/management with the class and subject knowledge - and of those two I would rate classroom engagement/management more critical than subject knowledge. The BEST teachers will obviously haev a balance of the two - and that even for the subject knowledge arm a degree isn't always the most appropriate source of subject knowledge - let alone a 2:1 or above.

Teaching is moving towards being a masters level occupation, which I think is a good thing. Existing teachers are being encouraged towards partially funded MAs in education related subjects round here, and most training (I did the GTP) includes a portion towards this. Mine included 1/3rd of a Masters in Education, the second third to be done during NQT and the final third self funded at a time to suit.

The Tories will struggle to recruit to an already declining profession if they institute a 2:1 minimum, it would be very short sighted. (I say that having a 2:1). If they are gong to do this they need to improve pay and conditions, not cut them.

'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. ' Precisely, which is why my residuals were the best in the department.

Daisy - there ain't much call for Liberation theology or Gnosticism on the Edecxel spec for GCSE. Agree you can't teach A level being a week ahead, but you can the GCSE once you've taught it for a couple of years and have all the resources in place. You obviously have to differentiate for differing classes, but once you know the syllabus, it's not difficult.

As for the Masters level - I'm not teaching at the moment as we are abroad (but will be teaching ds GCSE privately) - but I am doing an MA in World Religions, which allied to my examining I hope will look good on my CV when back in the UK.

People come into teaching via different routes and those people should not be rejected because they don't have a 2:i. Dh has a 2:ii from a redbrick, an MA from KCL, and professional qualifications but he couldn't teach teenagers. I can however (but have 2:i); but I was 34 when I retrained. I think that perhaps people should spend 5 years post Uni doing something else for life experience as that gives a bit of authority as well.

Meant to add, I taught Year 7 and 8 geography from a standing start at 35, not having done Geography since I was 14. I read the book, swotted up and they all passed their assessments and tests!

I did that too scaryteacher.

They made me stop, though, after I had the brainwave of Contour Line Potato Halves.

All my year 7s actually understood contour lines, which was rather cool considering I personally had not a blethering clue.

But the Dept.'s year's supply of felt pens was royally buggered, & the stairs to Humanities were rendered unsafe for days by the deployment of forgotten stripey spuds bounced off the heads of SLG.

Most subjects are pretty teachable at year 7/8 by any decent classroom practitioner I think.

It's not till year 9 when you'd actually need to know what would happen if you fed an Oxbow Lake into a Hadron Collider, or whatever...

I'm not even remotely bothered for anything below A-level. I'm probably more bothered for A-level but wouldn't be automatically throwing my hands up in horror at a "poor" degree result -- there are many reasons someone might have a poor degree result, not all of which involve being bad at the subject and none of which tells you anything for sure about what they do or don't know now.

I have an upper second Oxbridge degree in a non-national curriculum subject. I teach Reception. The subject of my degree, where I got it, and even the class of it, are all pretty irrelevant. What matters is whether I'm a good teacher (which of course I am!).

When I graduated, I wanted to teach, but was dissuaded by my parents (I've always regretted that). I think they felt that I could do better than teaching, and they had given up a lot to help me through university. 20 years later I decided to retrain and I've been teaching ever since, and I know I am good at it. But that skill is completely unrelated to whatever intelligence got me into Oxbridge in the first place IYSWIM.

However, my parents were right in as much as teaching is not well paid, and teachers are not widely respected ime. But it's what I'm happiest doing.

If the government want excellent teachers, they need to make sure entrants have reasonable qualifications, but more importantly the right attitudes and personality. Also, if teaching was more widely respected, more high quality graduates wuld consider it.

I have a first-class degree, masters and PhD in history. None of what I studied in the latter two is on the national curriculum and very little of my undergraduate syllabus either. I am a "good" teacher because I am enthusiastic and hard-working, but I am NOWHERE near as good as many teachers in my school whose qualifications are much "lower" than mine.
Teaching is a vocation and a skill that largely can't be taught. Without the necessary skills subject knowledge alone (and the ability to write for three hours about the American South in your finals) will not make you a good practitioner.

'It's not till year 9 when you'd actually need to know what would happen if you fed an Oxbow Lake into a Hadron Collider,' At a guess the electrics would blow and there'd be a hell of a mess on the floor!

Contour island is better than spuds - they have to cut different sizes of card out and use it to make an island with hills etc. Not quite so messy! It's good with lego as well.

Teachers need a high level of basic education and a high IQ I think. More than this they need to love children and be absolutely passionate and committed to their subject. They also need to be clear communicators.

Extremely poor spoken and written grammar can give a very bad impression. I am astounded by some of the emails I've received but then again I am an old git and probably very old fashioned. Sometimes the emails received have completely put me off a teacher who is actually very bright and committed to the class. I've realised the error of my ways in time but feel rather sad someone can come through our education system and not have been taught the basics. Also are teachers taught how to communicate with parents? Or do they think it's a given? This sounds very patronising and I have many friends and colleagues who have taught.

To give an example I asked about the new syllabus, the teacher said: 'yeah, I completely knows what yer mean by that, ha, ha, ha, it's sort of like all over the place, and yeah, it's changed I think for the worst, innit'.

'By the way am off out tonight, on the piss. Been hell today'. More laughter.

I've nothing against regional accents etc, I've one myself but I was a bit aghast at this. This teacher is actually very bright and committed but can't communicate well at all. There are other ways to put things. I wonder how she got through the interview?

Reading this back maybe I am just a old git.

Not at all Norham - I am a teacher, and 40+. What appalled me when I began teaching was that many of my younger colleagues could not spell, and had no idea of grammar at all. There seemed to be a divide between those of us with O-levels, and those with GCSEs. The former could spell, and knew that it is could've, should've etc; whilst the latter use could of, should of and seemed unacquainted with dictionaries, or their purpose.

I learned to talk to parents because, firstly, I am one, and secondly, I worked in Local Government Finance before I retrained as a teacher, and was therefore used to dealing with the public. One needs to be firm and polite, it's not hard.

Not all with GCSEs obviously.

I'm not saying that a 1st = a good teacher and a 2:2 = a bad one

but a 3rd... that indicates that they didn't even bother to attend their course half the time! And I'm not just talking about recent graduates, in my PARENTS time the pi$$ologiest who didn't even bother to make a proper attempt at last minute cramming got 3rds

to me a 3rd = someone who does not love learning/a learning environment, and if they don't love learning then how can they inspire a love of learning?

Why are people banging on about the contents of their courses not being on the syllabus? so what? an ability to learn and enjoying learning is a transferrable skill

A 3rd could also equal illness; a bereavement; breaking your neck in a pool and missing time off the course. You can't make sweeping judgements like that, unless you as a parent reserve the right to know the ins and outs of a gnat's arse about the lives of your dc's teachers.

The point about the course content arose because most teachers on here feel that the content of their degree has little relevance to what they now teach, and it is the other things like communication skills and people skills that make a good teacher, not that you know all the nuances of the counter reformation.

If we didn't all value learning, and realise that it is a life long process, do you think we'd bother to teach?

Is it OK that I am a tiny bit irritated that everyone under the age of 38 is presumed to have no abilities in grammar or spelling scaryteacher??

When I qualified (1996) it was much much more difficult to find a teaching job if your degree was less than a 2i.

my sister has a third. she also has a masters and a phd in her chosen subject. (and did her PGCE at Durham!)

doing the additional study got her up one pay band, but it is the years of experience in teaching that have made her a better teacher.....

i think you need to take people as indiviudals not degree clasifications.

not everyone goes into teaching because of a love of learning, I know a few people who did it for much less noble reasons (e.g student nurse drop out who was happy temping but who's parents were unhappy with her not graduating in SOMETHING)

I also know enough people who graduated with respectable degrees despite horrific tragedies / illnesses etc because their grades and attendance prior to the events were good and as soon as they could go back, they did.

I think someone who went to uni at 18 and went wild and got a 3rd is not necessarily thick and may be quite capable of going back to uni later and doing very well if its taken seriously. But if a 3rd is the highest level of education they've ever achieved, yeah! I would think about them inspiring my kids educationally

would the teachers on here be happy to be nursed by a nurse who got a 3rd?