Primary school teachers who are unable to keep up with a 9 year old

[activate]

Makes me want to scream.

DS3 now has to go for maths lessons with a different teacher because his techer is not good at maths - what the hell are we doing allowing people who can be beaten by a 9 year old qualify as teachers?

And don't get me started on the state of grammar and spelling

15 years of crap education policy leads to a generation of bloody idiots teaching the next generation

is too low

Are you saying that a C grade at GCSE is the equivalent of a 5 in KS2 SATS?

Really?

My gaster is totally flabbered now.

Multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a diseased mind!

I did say roughly.

Was reading a discussion on TES that argued a level 5 at 14 left a student on track to get an A/A at GCSE - level 5 C, level 6 B and level 7 A/A.

But the problem is that apart from the skills tests during the PGCE they could've scraped a C years before and then barely think of maths again until they're in the classroom teaching. That's the impression I get from friends who've done it anyway.

I am a secondary school teacher - English - and was looking at a colleague's marking recently. She had written on a student's work that his mistake was 'unexceptable'.

And this colleague is herself an English teacher...

A C grade GCSE in Maths is not equivalent to a level 5 in KS2 SATs. This notion of equivalence is a problem in education I think.

Okay. If a level 5 is in fact nowhere near a grade C, then teaching a very able 9 year old should pose even less of a problem.

I have a B at A level - most 9 year olds are safe in my class I feel.

Freudian, you would be given very short shrift by anyone observing your lesson when training if your Maths planning and teaching was in any way not up to scratch, believe me. Plus there's always the Numeracy test which students need to sit to pass, which should at least weed out the truly innumerate.

The sats predict the gcse result i.e. a pupil who achives level 5 at ks3 should be able to achieve a c two years later.
I think that primary schools should have specialist teachers at ks2 for this reason. I am a secondary teacher and whilst totally confident in my specialism would struggle to teach ks2 maths.

a child who only scores a 5 at age 14 would not be doing very well surely

if the average is a 4b at KS2 and progression is 2 sub levels per year then a 5 is way low

way low

offers crap excuse of having teens and a medical condition

Progession in expected levels is 2 levels in two years - that's one and a half sublevels a year.

Still doesn't add up though, does it?

I'm fairly sure it's 2 sub levels per year hence

a 2b at year 2 (expected ave)
2a
3 at year 3
3c
3b at year 4
3a
4 at year 5
4c
4b at year 6 (expected ave)
4a
5 at year 7
5c
5b at year 8
5a
6 at year 9

etc

I seem to remember a thread on here by someone taking the numeracy test over and over and over again.

You're putting in an extra sub-level for each level - it goes 2b, 2a, 3c, 3b.... not 2b, 2a, 3, 3c, 3b .....

Indeed - 3b in y4, 4b in y6 - one level in two years, so 3 sublevels - one and a half per year for expected progress.

So:

2b at Y2
Between a 2a and a 3c at Y3
3b at Y4
Between a 3a and a 4c at Y5
4b at Y6

That's why we have to do it in points - 3 points per year for satisfactory progress (i.e. not good enough).

God, I've depressed myself now.

Disclaimer - there is no such thing as an average kid who progresses in nice little jumps like this, and we aim for as much progress as possible for children to flourish. Children really aren't points to us, but it enables us to spot quickly if children aren't making progress, to find out why and intervene as soon as we can.

All this level stuff confuses me. Bring back the days of "johnny is brilliant at maths, reasonable at English and his science... um... needs improvement" :o

Ahhh...the level debate!
Anyway, I'm a secondary science teacher and am also qualified to teach KS3 Maths. My english language skills are functional but really not fantastic and as for some other subjects, well...
HOWEVER, I have been assured that I am a bloody good science teacher.

I know I'm changing the subject somewhat, but it seems that we are expecting a huge amount from a professional who is being paid a fraction of what is perhaps deserved? I agree that it would be ideal for teachers (esp. Primary ones) to be highly skilled in all aspects of the curriculum and beyond, but where are the incentives to encourage those sorts of people into the teaching profession? MOST people of that calibre are going to highly paid careers with perks etc! It would only be the ones who had a particular desire to teach that would follow that career path.

I really believe (as a parent) that I would rather my child be taught by someone with a huge amount of enthusiasm for a subject rather than being highly qualified (obviously, I would expect 'enough' knowledge!).
I frequently have to tell students that I don't know the answer to their question. But I/we find out the answer where possible and hopefully they see that Science is constantly changing and progressing and that it is impossible to know everything about everything!
That said...I would want a primary teacher who had the basic skills to teach my son! But, you know what (thinking on my feet now, sorry!), I have to teach subject matter that I'm not hugely familiar with all the time and I make sure I'm at least one step ahead of the kids. Maybe this comes back to what i said earlier- the OP's problem is actually caused by a lack of enthusiasm/desire rather than it being mainly a lack of skills??

As a secondary maths teacher, I would say that broadly a C grade at GCSE is a level 7.

It's misleading as the tests are quite different styles.

Freudian the problem is that primary teachers have to teach pretty much all the subjects. You say that your degree in maths will make sure the kid's maths is up to scratch but what about the science you teach, the music? As a secondary science teacher it drives me mad trying to undo some of the misconceptions kids bring up from primary BUT the I also accept that the primary teacher has about 15 different subjects to keep on top of.

Sending a letter because of overuse of ! Really!!!!!!!!?
Of course older teachers have a larger breadth of knowledge than younger ones, they've probably had years to gain that knowledge. Yes there are some crap teachers with missing skills, my english is lacking, but they can be more than made up for in other areas.

Surely OP you should be pleased that the school is dealing with your child's ability in maths in this way? As some of the teachers on here have pointed out primary school teachers cannot be specialists in all subjects and it is common (in my DCs state primary at least) for the teachers to recognize their strengths and weaknesses and use them accordingly.

Better that he is doing maths with a different teacher than stay with one who is hopefully competent with the "average" but recognizes her limitations when it comes to children who are more able in the subject.

Yes bulby that's exactly the problem. This is where I blow my own trumpet a bit sorry - yes, my main passion is maths. So many people have asked why I'm not going into secondary maths teaching, and I give them the following reasons:

• IME by the time kids get to secondary many of them are totally turned off maths, and I want to get to kids while they're young and help them see numbers aren't so scary

• while I love maths, I also love everything else - I've always been like that. I loved all subjects in primary, and I can assure you I will put just as much effort into the rest of the curriculum :)

It's one of the reasons that most primary teachers work and research a lot outside of school hours. You have to teach a huge range of skills over a very wide range of subjects, and for most schools the curriculum rolls over every two or three years so you teach different Humanities topics for example.
That said, I do expect to be able to function and teach up to a level 6 in all subjects, and beyond that in my specialities.

What happened to the promise of all those bright young gym-toned bodies flooding into school from the City? Ready to improve the teaching standards with their megabrains and whatnots?
Did they get a better offer?
By all means, only accept and keep the best of the best of the best as teachers.
Our children should have nothing but the best.
So that's one fantastic Superhero teacher, with a double first, stunning teaching and communication skills, able to teach everything to a high standard, and a class of 400? or 900?

Goblinchild, you echo my thoughts exactly. You cannot have small classes and every teacher of them up to scratch. Believe me, the pieces I've had to pick up from a poor teacher the year before, but had these people not been able to qualify then, at least in the 'undesirable place to 'work'' school I was in those pupils would have no teacher at all. And as has been said time and time again, a teachers ability in a subject does not necessarily reflect their ability to teach it. I am convinced that a very good teacher with a few knowledge gaps is far better than a poor teacher with superior knowledge.
It's a sad fact but we live in the real world

No BatteryHuman I am not pleased that an adult teaching in primary is not capable of keeping up with a bright, but far from genius, 9 year old. I am appalled.

I think a primary school teacher should have a strong grasp of basic maths, english and science.

If they were unable to keep up with his music or sports ability I would not worry but for teachers to be unable to keep up with a child who is possibly 2 or 3 years ahead of his peers in a core subject is, in my humble opinion, abysmal and points to a wider issue of people qualifing as teachers without the necessary skill sets.