What do we think.....would this improve grades at secondary level?

[Verbena37]

I was thinking whilst chatting to two teacher friends today......what if, rather than continuing the primary (mainly KS 1 and 2 rather than reception), primary schools employed specialist teachers in ALL subjects?

I honestly think this could dramatically improve teaching and outcomes. So instead of a teacher, for example doing a degree in education or a degree in history and then doing a PGCE), they do their specialist primary subject (maths/English/science/French/PE/Humanities and music and then do a PCGE.

After that, they teach from year 1-6 only in their specialist subject.
Obviously many primaries already employ specialist language, PE and music specialist teachers but surely this proposal would be cheaper and more effective (for continuity) way of teaching.

Wouldn't specialist teachers from year 1 ensure a better quality of teaching ....especially in core subjects? I'm really NOT trying to annoy current primary teachers but just looking at an easy way to update and improve our state education system.

The two teacher friends both agreed that it was a possible idea that could work,

I can see it working in KS2, but the surest and cheapest way of improving overall attainment would be to modernise English spelling. Its many antique and unfathomable irregularities make both learning to read and write much slower and more difficult than need be. They prevent many students from achieving an acceptable standard in English and handicap their attainment in maths and other subjects too.

The frequent use of phonically variable spellings like ‘does, shoes, toes’ is especially costly. It makes learning to read English roughly 10 times slower than in the rest of Europe. In Finland, which has one of the world’s simplest writing systems, nearly all children read fluently by the end of their first term. In the UK many are still unable to do so after 10 years at school.

That too is a good idea. I wish they would simply the handwriting system as well. It's only in school that handwriting is so strict. In the workplace, as long as writing is clear, it doesn't matter whether it's joined up.

the trouble with angels would it not work in larger primaries (timetable-wise) if more than one teacher were employed for say maths and English?

Problem would also be that schools would need a few English and Maths teachers, but probably only need humanities or music teachers for 7 hours a week. Not sure I'd want to go into a profession where I knew I'd never be able to work full time at the same place!

Primary age children need that relationship with their teacher. And, to go out on a limb here and sound terribly old fashioned, it shouldn't be all about learning the academic subjects. And it worries me that many schools consider that the be all and end all. But I do agree about spelling. And handwriting. Simply not worth setting so much store by it.

Agree about updating English. Although I have heard they've done that with Portuguese and it's caused chaos. I also heard that some study or other found that exactly the same percentage of people have dislexia in Italy as in the UK but it causes Italians no problems at all because they have a logical language.

I wonder if there are any advantages to learning an illogical language though? In that it teaches people to expect the unexpected as it were?

Some primaries do bring in specialist teachers for subjects such as music and PE. In my experience, where they do so the quality of the provision is, without doubt, better. However I do totally accept that young children need the security and routine of a main teacher.

I have to say that for a me a big positive of primary school is the way they do cross curricular stuff linked to a topic. OK, not so much maths, but they get a lot of English teaching in almost by stealth. I'm not sure I'd really like the rigidity of "this must be an English" lesson now, and the more disjointed nature you'd get with multiple teachers.

My DD1 suffered in secondary due to patterns of difficulties across subjects being missed.

So I am happy with the current method.

i think that is becoming less and less important though fortyfour..... Schools already have PE coaches teaching all PE lessons in many schools and music teachers who come in weekly.
Also, the kids only have their class teacher for less than a year and so have a new one every year anyway.

Definitely agree though, school should definitely not be about only academics......I'd like them do weekly cooking from reception age, as well as gardening and DIY. I also think they should have a life skills class from KS2.....teaching them about handling money, relationships, first aid etc.

DH and I also don't understand the RE requirement through the whole school life. Once the kids have learnt the basics about tolerating other religions and a crash course on what others believe, it should not be taught once a week til hey leave. It's ridiculous and could be replaced with the subjects I mention above.

My DC had specialist teaching for various subjects at junior school, including ICT, MFL, science, history, RE, art and PE. They were also streamed for maths and English, so did not always have their form tutor for those subjects, either.

Their heads appear to be reasonably stationary on their shoulders.

Sorry, music, too.

sanity exactly....even if it was from KS2 onwards and not KS1

I agree with forty. Dd is academically very able, however with the right attitude from her primary she didn't really need teachers with degrees in the subjects, the social benefits were more important. She did actually benefit from support from one with a degree in her subject, but she's a minority, and even with able kids the complaints I've heard from other schools/parents about suitable teaching aren't because the teacher isn't knowledgeable about the actual subject. So I think for the academically average child, let alone one struggling the benefits of the traditional primary teacher far outweigh any gain of specialist teachers. Not to mention that at primary it's a different skill set to secondary, whether it's school, a sport or one of the arts, people great with young kids/ beginners aren't always the best at high level skills and vice versa. Some can do both but not all.
Personally I think the focus needs to be more on making sure every child whether top or bottom gets an education appropriate to them individually.

My dds would definitely not make more progress with that system than the current one. At the age of 5 both of them need(ed) a constant adult at school. dd2 is about to go into year 1, she has really struggled with reception, not really academically but socially. It took her a loooooong time for her go get used to the teacher and ta, even seeing them both every day. If she had to go into year 1 having 6/7 different teachers every week, she'd spend the first term at least in a constant state of fear, therefore learning absolutely nothing. She is not particularly unusual in this, dd1 was fairly similar at that age, quite a few of their friends have been shy as well.

By juniors age dd1 was better able to cope with visiting music/language/sports teachers, but she still needed the security of knowing that her usual teacher would be back after that lesson.

There could be an argument for specialists (more specialists) in upper Primary, just as some teachers are much happier with the first few years of Secondary than Sixth form etc. Which is why the middle school system can be argued for, and can work very well.
But it has been tried in local areas a few times, and then they have moved to conform with the rest of the country.

I would love to have more specialist teachers in upper primary actually, just not too many too soon. While I said that dd1 needed the security of her usual teacher, she could also have done with some more specialist teaching in the core subjects. Currently, teachers only need to have C grades at GCSE English and maths, but some children are at that level of understanding in years 5/6. There should be some way of ensuring that the brighter children at the top end of primary have teachers who understand all the work they are teaching inside out. I assume a lot of primary teachers who teach upper primary do have higher qualifications than the lowest requirements, but I know that dd1 had a better understanding of maths than her year 6 teacher did, and while she's bright she's not exceptional.

My children's middle school is just swapping to two tier system and last year, when DD was in yr 7 (which required a specialist French teacher) she had a woman with GCSE French and who was actually a specialist maths teacher!! I was fuming....especially when she insisted to DD that 40 was not quarant !!

Would it work if there was a 3 school system like some areas had (have?) with middle schools.

So age 3-8ish with 1 teacher, 9-13 with the system you suggest and then 14-18.

We do it at our school (yes private sorry ), increasing from one or two lessons a week in Nursery to fully subject taught in Years 5 and 6.

It works very very well. I think subject teaching up to Year 2 or 3 would be too disruptive for the little ones. Not to mention the time moving around school - unless you could get the teachers to rotate classrooms rather than the pupils...

We have specialist teachers for:
Maths
English
Science
Art
French
Mandarin (yeah, I know)
IT / Computers
Humanities
Music
PE

Science teacher doubles up as D&T, Headmistress teaches PSHE, Humanities teacher does RE.

But we are tiny as class sizes are 24 or less.

Dad's school has specialist teachers at primary. The school is part of the senior academy so the teachers work between the 2 schools ( atm language, music, pe weekly and occasional maths and science).

It works really well and as a bonus dd1 already knows some of the teaching staff in our preferred senior school.

Wouldn't specialist teachers from year 1 ensure a better quality of teaching ....especially in core subjects?

Not sure about this. My specialism is science, but tbh it's not actually my favourite subject to teach. Maths and phonics/reading I love teaching, and I suspect my knowledge about teaching the latter is probably better than a lot of English specialists. I suspect there are a lot of non-specialists out there that can teach science better than I can.

I'm not sure subject specialism is the most important factor in raising attainment.

They are getting rid of Al middle schools dixie.....too e pensive to run and most secondaries are becoming academies.

That private system sounds cool.

I really believe that from say year 2, it would actually be more beneficial for the kids to start the secondary multiple subject teachers thing. That way, they are getting used to that way earlier and will then be more settled when it comes to the exam/SATS years.

I'm pretty sure, it is better than a teacher knows their specialist subject inside out and concentrates on that curriculum subject than having to plan for multiple subjects they aren't trained in depth in (to degree level).