Do you think that primary teachers should have a degree?

[Rumpel]

I am relying on the wealth of experience and strong opinions of all you Mnetters out there to discuss this topic so that I can see how the general opinion lies. TIA

If having a degree had any connection to intelligence, yes, but even degrees are so dumbed down now :(
Ideally, bright with a masters level quals in education/teaching related subject

I thought all teacher training courses demanded a degree.
I did Post Compulsory PgCE and needed a degree.
iirc, the only people who didn't were those going to teach a subject, usually a vocational subject, where a degree wasn't available.
Here they had to hold the highest qualification that was available and as they didn't have a degree studied a B.ed instead of PgCE.

You do need to do a training course to qualify as a HLTA but it's nowhere near teacher training. However, they are allowed to teach now and then. Often used as a cost saving measure to cover the teachers PPA time.

Mrz, good to know you can't. But this thread gave me a impression like you can. Luckily, I never met a teacher that I question their education, but at least I would like teacher to be more educated than parents.

Yes, and it should be one with a decent entry requirement.

In my day (I have no idea if it has changed) a BEd was two Es at A level. The quality of the teaching students was abysmal as a rule.

I was shocked that unqualified people can teach in English schools! In Scotland secondary teachers have a degree in their subject plus post grad teaching diploma, and primary teachers have either a primary teaching degree or degree (prefer honours) and post grad. I def think primary teachers should be educated to degree level plus pgde- contact to what a lot of people seem to think (not on here!) it's a very difficult job that requires brains

To be a HLTA, you have to do an accredited course in a local college or, less frequently now, run by the LA. Some HLTAs are ex teachers.

I would have said yes in many situations but in Sen I think not. I know enough people who can talk the talk (write the write - eg one with a PhD) but can't actually apply it. And many of our support staff are excellent teachers.

Not necessarily no, at least not a generic degree. DD has a teacher who will have a degree but her knowledge is appalling. She's a primary school teacher and dd has come home about five or six times saying that she's been taught something that is wrong.
Primary school teachers should have to have a degree in a subject and then teach that subject.

Bed have almost disappeared. I did one - I did need higher qualifications than two Es though planter. I also needed to have a decent amount of work experience in schools and working with children. I'd already studied my subject beforehand at university - I swapped courses to the BEd a year after starting when the course became available. Also with my subject it was really fast moving and rather open ended - Computing - so when teaching at higher levels it becomes more of being a facilitator to learning at times.

The main advantage with the BEd over the PGCE was the amount of in school experience we had - it was far far more than students on a PGCE, and obviously over a longer period of time and in more schools. This did become obvious in the first years of teaching alongside other NQTs who had had less experience in the classroom.

Mind you, after ten years I had still had enough and left.

I now work as a HLTA in primary, rather than secondary where I taught. I think at this age the actual subject knowledge is less important to classroom skills, and knowing "how to teach' is one of the key skills. You can be the brightest, most intelligent person on Earth - but that doesn't mean you will be a good teacher. What makes the best teacher is very often not about having the highest qualification level.

I doubt they will make it compulsory for teachers to have MAs and above tbh. There are already huge teacher shortages across all age levels and subjects. And if you increase the qualification level you'd need to be looking at increasing salaries, etc too - can't see that happening either.

planter

A B.ed is a degree, (Bachelor of Education) so much higher than A levels.
I'm sure it wouldn't be sufficient for a Primary School but it is assumed that by the time students are at college or uni they have completed general level and advanced level education, so not applicable to lecturers or tutors.
In addition, you can't take a PgCE without a degree, so for those teachers where a degree was not available in their subject there has to be an alternative that is acceptable.

I don't have a degree as the qualification was a Diploma when I trained but I now work with teachers who have degrees but can't spell or use correct grammar (spoken or written)

I'm doing BEd at the moment -entry requirement is 3 Bs at A level plus a minimum of 4 weeks work experience in schools with the correct age group

A B. Ed and good GCSE Maths and English is fine for a primary school teacher.

At Secondary school a 2.1 in the subject you are teaching at Russell Group university plus PGCE should be mandatory.

NewLife I'm not sure why you're assuming I don't now what a BEd is?

Fair enough if the requirements have gone up. I actually did a PGCE and I was still shocked at the low standards of the students. No general knowledge, didn't read, just a bit thick generally sorry.

But all of them were passed by the college. No one failed, including one who I followed into a teaching placement and who was the butt of the jokes in that staff room because she was useless. All passed and went into the classroom full time.

Independent schools free schools and academies are free to employ who they wish but you need qualified teacher status (QTS) to teach in most state maintained schools. You must have an undergraduate degree to obtain QTS.

I don't know any 'converter' academies who employ any non-QTS teachers (and IME it is increasingly common for TAs to also be qualified teachers, who have chosen the TA route for the hours, and almost universal for all except 1:1 TAs for children with 'care' - rather than learning - needs to have degrees).

'Academies set up from the beginning' - I don't know.

Thank you mrz. That makes sense. Good to know.

planter

Like the dim wit I am, I completely read your post wrong, apologies.
I realise what you were saying now, apologies

What an absolutely horrible, toxic school that must have been, Planter, making a trainee teacher the butt of the joke, instead of helping her. Horrible.

I think all teachers should have degrees. Preferably subject specific for secondary. Though with 50% of the population graduating, it doesn't mean a degree is enough to make you a good candidate for teaching.

But I think that the direction primary schools are heading is to grind teachers into the ground. The teachers then leave, but many have a vocation for working with children. So they get lured back into TA positions, for the shorter hours and holidays, but paid a pittance. Then those TAs (a mixture of ex teachers and others) will gradually have their responsibilities increased (but not their pay). Et voilà, you have undermined the status of teachers and reduced costs. All at the personal cost of causing staff to experience extreme stress.

Flossie since when has an OU degree not been a proper degree?

Yes CremeEgg, happily I was only there 6 weeks on placement.

Actually I'm going to change my mind and say yes ALTHOUGH I don't think having a degree necessarily means you are therefore perfect teacher material.

I am thinking of the senior teacher with no degree who has excellent spelling and grammatical knowledge, as well as a deep understanding of her specialist area. I can think of several other teachers who have terrible spelling and grammatical skills and have a degree. I cringe at some of the things that get circulated amongst us.