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,

Honestly, I really don't need a degree in English to teach reading and writing to KS1 children effectively.

You are also going to have an issue finding enough maths graduates to have specialist maths teachers in every primary school. They can't even find enough to staff secondary schools properly.

Singapore and Shanghai both do very well in international testing. AFAIK only Shanghai uses specialist teachers for maths throughout primary. And their international data could be described as unreliable.

Knowing what you are teaching well is important, but well doesn't necessarily mean to degree level.

Well my local very high achieving private girls school does have some specialists from year 2, but by no means all lessons are taught by specialists. I believe from when I visited that the "core" subjects are taught by their "form" teacher for at least years 3 and 4.
Just like my DCs state primary, the girls school does have specialists for: MFL, Music, Maths, PE (and the state school, for SEN). Actually my DCs Infant school had a specialist come in to teach French, and a specialist for PE.

My children all loved going to secondary and having multiple teachers, and moving around a lot. But at primary transitions can be a source of lost time, and I have seen a really efficient Primary school teacher move seamlessly from Expressive Writing to French, losing 1 or 2 minutes in the change, whereas changing teachers would have lost 5/10 minutes.

Just as I and my children adapted from little homework to senior school levels, and then to exam levels with few problems, I don't believe children need to always practise from a young age to handle things when they are older (and developmentally ready).

And then there are the "other" things that are being taught at school. A lot of this "curriculum" is about social interaction, which is why we still use schools not personalised "home learning". This is much better monitored by a single teacher who knows the pupils well, and at younger ages is around a lot of the time.

I disagree. Our local private school does this, and it certainly doesn't seem to give them any advantage in terms of attainment. Personally, I much prefer the very strong interdisciplinary emphasis that they have at dd's state primary. I think it's really important for kids to see the links between subjects, and to understand how things fit together.

I also think it's important for primary school teachers to build strong relationships with the children that they teach, and to approach things holistically. Our school does have specialist teachers for music/PE/French, and I think that works well, but I definitely wouldn't want that extended to other subjects.

I don't think you need a specialist degree to teach primary. Some of the best (secondary) teachers I've worked with have been the least impressively qualified, academically speaking. Almost all of my Oxford languages degree (which looks good on paper and probably gives me an advantage when applying for jobs) is entirely irrelevant to anything I've ever taught in secondary school classrooms. My degree certainly doesn't make me a good teacher. I am currently teaching Spanish at my dc's primary school, even though I have no qualifications in it, and in fact don't really speak more than a tiny bit of holiday Spanish. I do have 20 years' teaching experience though, and I know more Spanish than my pupils!

I'm sure lots of private schools employ specialist subject teachers, but from my experience in private schools I'd say that the high standards have very little to do with the quality of teachers.

Cooking, gardening, and DIY - these shouldn't be taught (specifically) in schools. Those are your responsibility as a parent.
My children's schools have specialists teaching in primary (fee-paying schools) and it works well, more so in the junior aged classes.
However, for my youngest, it is the cross-curricular teaching that he has benefited from most this year. So topic work encompassing English, history, geography, maths, art, dt, and science. He has made so much progress, though this was new and a trial in his school.

And I do think in lower primary, a teacher is a substitute mummy (hence them having so little respect nowadays) and one person consistently is important. As above, an English degree is not at all necessary to teach children to read. I taught my children, just as my mother taught me, as her mother taught her. None of us have English degrees.

Small schools couldn't afford it.

Until yr4 Dd definitely had a mummy thing going with her teachers, she needed that to feel secure.

DS did okay socially but had nightmare behaviour until he finally made a decent set of friends (yr5). He kept them because they were in the same class & not constantly changing. He's going to barely have friends or see his only friend in yr7 & his academics will plummet as a result. So in a large school with setting, he might end up being more isolated from whatever age this plan kicked in. DS is a complete PITA & teachers did better with him the more they got to know him, not trying to cope with him in bits & pieces and never getting a sort-of picture of what he's like.

So I vote Nay.

oops, meant that DS did okay academically... edit button required.

I can see it working for music, PE and French. There are three small primaries within 2 miles of where we live (small villages) - I fail to understand why the county council doesn't employ specialist teachers to cover those three schools, doing a day in each, for example. Surely there would be people biting their hand off to teach 3 days a week with a half day/day for prep time?

Interesting reading your replies. So ok, I get the not all subjects require a degree (I'd be really annoyed if someone who doesn't speak the language other than pigeon Spanish was teaching my child Spanish/French though).

Perhaps then specialist maths teachers would make a difference to higher GCSE grades at C or above then.

Also, at our primary school, they not only give them a new teacher each school year, they swap the classes around and so the poor kids are all mixed up. Goodness knows where they think that helps (to reduce bullying?) but that's what has unsettled my two the most.....not having different teachers. In fact, having different teachers I feel (as do they) gives them some respite if their form teacher isn't great.

Depends on the individual though. I just 'get' maths, as does dd. And yes, the way someone who scraped a c problem solves trying to teach her would frustrate her and has. I even sometimes felt like that at a-level, although it was more the teacher explaining the normal process than their own ability. However while I'm patient, the way I think makes it harder to explain any maths concept to a child that doesn't think that way, I have to really think about it. Neither dd or I are off the scale genius level either by any means. I think it's more beneficial to have a teacher that is capable of following a childs individual thought process and teaching to it, which not everyone good at a subject necessarily has. I'm way better at maths than dds y6 class teacher, yet no way would I have been better teaching it.
I can understand why it's a benefit to more able kids, and I do think it sucks that some state schools leave them and sometimes kids just above average, drifting and frustrated. But I think where that happens the teachers/schools attitude is the main factor above their own ability.

I work in a middle school (in the UK - not many of those left!) so have seen it both ways. In the past, when the children arrived at Y5 they were treated just like secondary kids - set for subjects, every lesson with a different teacher etc. It didn't work for the majority of the kids, it was just too much to cope with having different teachers for every subject. We found a lot 'slipped through the cracks' (ie it was hard to pick up those that struggled with reading etc, if the teacher only saw them once a week it was difficult to notice)

Gradually we've changed so that the youngest are working in a primary way and our older years in a secondary way (so that the change is gradual) We've found it works much better, the children have a teacher that knows them inside out when they are year 5 and 6 but they have the benefit of specialist teachers at secondary age. It's improved behaviour and results too.

I think in short, there is no 'correct' answer, what works for one child doesn't for the next. The hard part is trying to find the best medium!

I went to a middle school when I was at school, many years ago so it's probably changed a lot since then. I really liked the way we were treated as older than being in primary, but there was still a lot of time all together. I think we had sets and specialist teachers for English, maths and science, them our form teacher for "topic" lessons, which covered pretty much everything else, usually with quite a bit of English involved in our work. It was a great half way point between the whole class teaching of a lot of primaries and the secondary way of having different teachers for everything.

I worry about dd2 because her primary has 3 form entry and do seem to set them very early, so dd2 has had different teachers for phonics and maths from half way through reception As well as having a supply teacher for a term. That may be fine for a confident child (not really ideal though), but for a very shy child like dd2 its been a nightmare and has stressed her out completely

Perhaps you should consider that non specialist maths and English teachers are managing to teach primary pupils so that they attain the standard expected for 14 year olds

I'm amazed at them mrz, I'm a secondary maths teacher and am absolutely in awe of primary teachers who manage to teach their classes up to level 6 (obviously level 6 is going, but the same standard is being taught).

I do think it's rather stressful for those teachers who struggled with a subject themselves to be expected to teach it to such a high level. I have a couple of friends who teach upper primary, and they find their specialist subjects much less stressful to teach than the ones they find tricky. They would prefer to swap classes with other teachers with different specialisms for part of the day. Obviously, they are just a few people and don't speak for everyone, but I thought that sounded like a good idea to me.

How would it work in schools with one class per year : so only 7 teachers in total?
As there is no budget for more teachers than there are funded pupils?

How about smaller schools than that : the hundreds and hundreds of schools with mixed year classes because of small intake?

Why does having a degree in a subject magically make you great at explaining the basic bits of it to a 6 year old?

Which MFL would you pick as primary schools will only be able to afford one specialist unless they are massive?

I confess in UKS2 we have subject teachers for English, Maths and Science and it works well for us.

What would make a difference is that children are ready to learn, and able to listen. DD had a terrible Y6 teacher, and it made her life hell for that last year. I do think some children are ready to leave junior before others, maybe if those that obtain level x by year 5 could be fas tracked to a year 6 class else where leaving junior y6 to teach to the middle/lower and allow the movers to be pushed.

Exactly msmermaid.
I just think more specialist teaching in core subjects would really help boost projected levels for GCSEs.

Can't remember who said that cookery, DIY and gardening shouldn't be taught at school.......surely the applies to RE??
Of course cookery and gardening should be taught at primary (and secondary). We used to have Home Economics and it was done really badly and then phased out completely. I'd much rather my children had weekly cookery lessons or gardening than sit in RE week after week. Even my ten year old doesn't understand why RE could not be taught for a week in primary and a week at secondary in total.

I truly think the primary curriculum should be much more varied and that it needs updating big time.....especially the history curriculum (yawn).

I don't mean get rid of current primary teachers but a change in training could be phased in......so all new primary teachers wanting to teach primary have to choose a primary specialism and then do a PCGE. Currently, a primary teacher could have a degree in a totally non primary curriculum subject (American Studies for example), scrape through the maths and English obligatory tests, yet still and then have to teach all curriculum subjects.

You do realise that primary teachers have subject degrees or have studied subjects to degree level don't you?

Mine are at public school and some lessons are taught by specialist teachers right from the outset. In reception they have specialist teachers for french, spanish, music, swimming, PE, IT and science. Their class teacher does English, maths and humanities. It stays like this until Year 2. After that they have specialist teachers for every single lesson and have timetables, different classrooms to get to, masses of books etc. They cope with it astonishingly well.

talkinpeace my original post was only a theoretical idea.....I hadn't ironed out the detail yet .

Guessing it would require a revamped pay scale system and funding.

Mrz yes, of course I realise that most teachers have a degree (not all if they did a diploma back when they were popular) and I also understand that it needs much more than a degree on paper to teach children well.

My own belief is that pastoral care at school is just as, if not more, important than academics and I want my children to have as much enrichment as possible. However, looking at schools where GCSE grades aren't great (until this yr that was my Dds secondary), I was just pondering over ideas as to how to I mprove maths, science and English results.....sadly for many children, more confidence and better teaching lower down school could have helped. (Obviously I'm only using examples from children I've known or from what parents and teaching friends have told me).

troublewith because those children not reaching the average grade from yr 6 SATS are projected to not be on target for getting good grades at GCSEs.