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?

Is now a good time to mention that I got a third for my maths/spanish degree and have just been accepted onto a PGCE secondary maths course?
Or should I keep quiet

BetsyBoop, I know what you mean. Some of my old teachers dressed in the style of 1808 and most certainly belonged there.

I think a good teacher needs a vocation, good subject knowledge, andan altruistic mindset. Plus quite a lot of energy and a belief in the infinite capacity of the human brain.

An inexhaustible store of patience and a very good sense of humour and of the ridiculous helps as well (as do unending supplies of tissues and biros).

Another vote here for an inexhaustible supply of biros. Children don't seem to have pencil cases any more!

I wouldnt care what subject a teacher had studied, but i would expect them to have a 2:1 or better if they had been to university. I wouldnt necessarily expect them to have been to university though.

N

Teachers need to love knowledge for its own sake not just knowledge of their own subject.

Whisper it quietly, but there are also teachers who know just about enough to teach to A level and don't bother with much else! I despair of colleagues who make a point of watching crap on television - yet miss documentaries and interviews that might add something to their own general knowledge and/or subject. A case in point was last year when BBC 4 did a series of programmes on poetry and modern poets - my colleagues didn't see any of them but were glued to some reality show (I think it might have been Big Brother).

The other concern is that as school exams become ever dumbed down we are getting graduates who are equally dumbed down. How can someone who isn't really that good at their subject and who shows little interest in gaining a broader general knowledge impart a love of learning for its own sake to kids?

I agree that a love of learning is a must. I have studied constantly all my life and I love it when I learn something new and can pass that on to my pupils. That inspires them to love learning themselves.

I can back up what RavenAKs saying - I'm another one that Durham took a punt on for a PGCE having a slightly unrelated degree. I did Politics, having had no clue what I wanted to do in life and picking something I found interesting (yes I KNOW!!! but I'm from a family of journalists so there was little hope for me) for three alcohol-fuelled years. Turned out I wanted to teach - was expecting to struggle to get onto a Primary PGCE, and Durham took me in a heartbeat - the admissions tutor's comment was, "You've spent your degree constructing quite elaborate arguments in written English - you've more than passed our criteria for getting onto the course." I got a 2-1, missed out on my first by one mark I found out at a later stage in life.

Interestingly - I was on my course with the Govt-selected creme de la creme of fast track teachers (back when they were hand picking them in selection centres, giving them a laptop and promising them headships in 5 years). They were the ones who by and large struggled and dropped off the course - the "lesser" plebs made it through - and PGCE is probably the toughest thing I've ever done in terms of study/career in my life - it's gruelling.

I think you can set academic levels where you want - but there are a certain set of skills you need to teach that can't be easily taught. In that sense it remains somewhat of a vocation - for me, it was never a career I'd considered, until I went to help in a classroom and it just "clicked". You're either able to bring a topic to the level of a child, or you're not really - my husband is academically brilliant at Maths, to the point where he can just "see" the answer to very complex calculations without even mentally working them out... ask him to explain anything mathematical to you and he can't do it - he just can't understand why you don't immediately just know that this is the answer and he gets very cross and exasperated with you very quickly. He'd make a lousy teacher - even with outstanding academic ability.

Having said all that - there's no excuse for the profession to be populated by those who are just quite simply thick - no excuse for spelling mistakes on the board, or posters on walls (I've seen both of these on supply) - so it's striking a balance really. I'd say 2-1 is a good cut-off - it's not excessive (my degree course gave out very very rare firsts), but it does generally require more than a few braincells to get the 2-1... although I really did do minimal work for mine, but I was a lazy git back when I was 20!

Breton, sometimes after a day teaching, I didn't want to watch anything highbrow; and I wouldn't have been able to watch BBC4 anyway, as my money was spent on books and not Freeview/Sky packages. If it wasn't terrestrial, we didn't have it.

I don't know where you teach Daisy, but my learning something new and passing it on, or recommending books/documentaries tended to elicit a yawn, rather than inspire learning. I was once told by a pair of Year 7 girls, that they didn't read, as 'reading is for losers and boring people Miss'. I went back for leavers day recently and they still don't read!

I teach in a comp, I often recommend doumentaries, radio programmes, lend books, even borrow books that pupils or parents have lent me. We have chat forums on our school website where pupils discuss with teachers the relevance of Plato or discuss the existence of God. Of course I have some pupils who have the attitude you outline but they are not the majority. Infact lesson 5 today I was teaching a rather crabby lower ability year 9 set about something that was new to me. They were fascinated and quite touched that I had spent weeks swotting up on somthing for them and noted down some websites I suggested to research further.

I have a new year 12 class coming up that I have taught all the way through from year 7 and have pushed and pushed them. I am quite excited at how they are going to stretch me as a teacher. They often come and chat over a coffee at lunch about the meaning of life. Nothing gives me greater joy.

Thanks scaryteacher. I am knackered and staring at a huge box of reports I need to proof read before writing on my own comments and wondering why on earth I do this job.

You have reminded me.

I can just imagine the comments we would have received if we as an RE dept had set up a website to discuss the existence of God; but then if you manage to get gnosticism into your GCSE syllabus and have get more time than an hour a week to teach GCSE, then lucky you.

A level for us was 8 kids if that, and that was the result of two years very hard work in Years 10 and 11 to get to that point.

Most of them had been in my classroom every break and lunch for two years anyway; my room was the default place for lunch, plus my tutor group at times as well.

Don't take this the wrong way Daisy, but you seem unlike most RE teachers that I know, are you real?

"I can just imagine the comments we would have received if we as an RE dept had set up a website to discuss the existence of God;"

Why? Or do you teach in a Faith school that prohibits all critical thought?

No I don't teach in a faith school, but had we done this at the comp I taught at, the comments would have been ribald in the extreme, as RE was not universally beloved as it seems to be at Daisy's school. The students I taught were far more earthy and school was something in several cases to get through before they could join the family business (farming), or with RE, they were just not interested however hard we tried.

We had to fight to get full course going after school, and again to get an AS group going.

I also don't see why teaching in a faith school would preclude critical thought; just look at synod at the moment - plenty of divisive comment and critical thought going on there; why should that not be mirrored in a faith school? Surely, one could argue, critical thought and not blind acceptance is what feeds and reinforces faith and moves it on? The CofE wouldn't have women priests but for critical thought.

In the good old days when standards were higher , did teachers even need a degree to teach?

No, they didn't.

I am not sure that having a high accademic qualification necessarily means you will be a better teacher. If you are a boffin with brilliant subject knowledge but can't keep order within the class, or can't handle slower learners, not so sure you will be as good as someone less qualified but able to handle and motivate the class.

I got a 2.2 in Eng/History. I was struggling to support myself financially, as well as study and truly believe that had I been able to devote my time to my degree alone, I would have left with a higher qualification. It is unfair to assume that all students are on a level playing field. I do not think my degree accurately reflects my academic ability.
When I did my PGCE, I could devote all my time and effort to it and feel it was a much better indicator of my ability to teach. It was truly the hardest thing I have ever done and I am 36 now!
I echo the idea that teaching is a very specific skill, that not everybody has, regardless of how clever they may be.
I would rather that my DC were taught by people who know and love their subject, people who have the ability to communicate effectively, even if their degree is 'poor' and in an entirely unrelated subject

I don't see why I am not for real scary. RE is not universally loved but it is not particularly disliked. We have about 180 in each of our key stage 4 year groups, about 30 do the full course and the rest take the short course. We have a similar number doing A Level.

Any subject can have a forum, ours at the moment is dicussing whether we have a soul amongst other things.

DS's teacher doesn't have a degree at all.

She retires at the end of next week and "only" has a Cert Ed. Not sure when it became necessary to have a degree.

She is a great teacher.

Where I taught it was disliked Daisy, whatever we did, and we had about the same in our KS4 groups. We had to do full course after school, initially with 10 (Year 9 and 10) on a Friday after school, and then we had a group of 9s and 10s once that lot had gone through, and then repeated the process the next year with classes on a Thursday and Friday after school. AS level was a group of 6.

I know any subject can have a forum, but the comments we would have had don't bear repeating. In class I liked the year 10 who told me that Jesus was a wanker. I agreed and explained that as JC was fully human and fully divine at the same time, and as he was a fully human teenage boy at some point, he probably was a wanker as teenage boys do tend to wank, and would the student like to comment further? He shut up after that.

I see what you mean about the forum, the student's posts have their name on, so if they were to post something abusive they would be in trouble.

I have taught in schools where lots did not like RE, especially the compulsory short course and I also had to teach the full course after school. It is only now that I teach in a very different department that I appreciate the difference.

Of course I have students who do not like RE, but no more than any other subject. We are one of the most successful departments in the school and very respected - that helps to be honest. We also have a number of senior teachers who work in the department which makes a difference.

We had some support, but not huge amounts, so the full course after school was a punt on my part and with no official sanction apart from the HoD agreeing to pay the exam entries. We got 100% A*-B first time out so could continue it...however, it was not popular.

scaryteacher: Thanks for that clarification.

By the way when you " explained that as JC was fully human and fully divine at the same time" to the Y10 I do hope you prefaced your remark with the phrase that, "Many people now BELIEVE that JC was fully human and fully divine". Otherwise you might be in danger of proselytizing and I don't think that is tolerated in the State education sector.

Breton - when I need advice on how to do my job, I'll ask you.

You are making the mistake of assuming that because it was Jesus under discussion and because I responded as I did, that I would be proselytizing because I was Christian? I could be a follower of any of a number of religions. I was the agnostic in the dept, (we had one of each flavour), and the kids knew that.

Actually, I prefaced my remarks by saying Christians believe, because although Muslims believe JC was a prophet, they don't believe he was the son of God, and I didn't want there to be any confusion. Is that OK for you?