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

iWork with a couple of (primary) teachers who have terrible spelling and grammar - mistakes on displays etc. One is actually a great teacher despite struggling with it, the other isn't.

I also know teachers who have great spelling, grammar and numeracy but are shit teachers. You can't generalise.

You need to have good spelling, grammar, numeracy, general knowledge AND all round intelligence AND be able to teach. That makes a good teacher.

Yes I see what pica describes. We have a lot of TA teachers and my friend specifically went back into teaching only on the proviso she was an HLTA, already turning down an offer to be a teacher at her school. (She knows what she doesn't want!)

Though some TA teachers have worked their way back up to teaching (as the rest of us cut back)

Planter, in my setting teachers must write detailed psych reports. My head has to spend time correcting mistakes.

I agree though it's mostly about the interaction with the children and lesson delivery.

I get irritated though when I am given 'directions' which are badly composed.

Primary school teachers should have to have a degree in a subject and then teach that subject.

Primary teachers have to teach the whole curriculum, around 10 subjects.

No, but it depends is my answer. You could have somebody more intelligent and better 'qualified' without the degree. E.g. My primary school teacher friend has a degree but it's a third class degree, along with two 'E' grade A' Levels and minimum GCSEs. Another teacher, a relation actually, has a similar degree with no A' Levels or GCSEs, just an access course onto the degree.

Em are they decent teachers?

I don't think someone who can't manage a couple of decent A levels should be teaching anything

Iguana, I know, but it would be better IMO if they followed the secondary school model and taught one subject only, at least for key stage two onwards.

In my country, primary teachers normally goes to teaching college(4 years) or major in education in uni and get degree(4 years), and secondary above have to have a degree at least in specialist subject(4 years) along with 2 years educational degree.(qualifications?). Even nursery teachers have to have at least 2 years junior college degree, I think.
I would like primary teachers to have general knowledge of all the subject.
But I don't think degree means good spelling though.

I get your philosophy but it wouldn't work.

We have far too much of a pastoral role to play in primary.

We have the 3 tier system near me with first schools up to year 4 then middle schools catering from y5 to y9 (?) then high schools.

In the middle you get teachers go cussing more on one or a few subjects. Most children do very well but there's a few for whom it's still too soon to be swapping and changing. It's very popular around here; parents wouldn't let it change.

I believe more people who work with young children should be better qualified too. For example, early childhood studies degrees would be advantageous to childminders and day nursery workers.

Ten,

In some parts of the country, e.g. the rural area in which I used to work, there might be 4 teachers in the entire school in a small primary. Even in the big school I now teach in, given that every child learns maths and english every day and some other subjects are taught only once a week, it simply isn't possible to organise teaching by subject. The music teacher might only teach for 7 lessons a week in an all-through primary, whereas the school would have to cover 35 Maths and 35 English lessons each week. Much work is 'cross-curricular' with e.g. History, Computing, Art, DT, Music and the English for a term being taught in a very interconnected way around a certain area, then the next term it might be a Science / DT / Maths / Geography mix. IME, young children learn much better in that 'interconnected;' way rather than having a disjointed 'History' lesson once or twice a week.

In today's money yes but MIL went to teacher training college in 1955 and got a cert ed. She was a clever girl but in those days the teeniest proportion of people went to university and obtained a degree. MIL remains far better educated than the majority of people born after about 1966 who have degrees and more.

I was horrified at how badly educated some of my children's degree educated teachers at primary and secondary were - mostly at primary though. They were sorely lacking in both literacy and numeracy skills to be perfectly honest.

Teacherwithtwokids. I really don't agree. What made school fees worth paying from 9 was specialist teaching. Maths specialists teaching maths, science specialists teaching science, French specialists teaching French, etc.. Against a background of outstanding nurture and pastoral care.

I am willing to bet my entire mortgage that those specialist teachers were regularly teaching outside their specialist areas.

BoboChic for Education Secretary!

Someone mentioned tests above. The QTS tests in Maths, English and ICT are ridiculously easy. You can take them as many times as you like until you pass them. I knew a primary school teacher who had to take her maths QTS test seven times. That person simply isn't equipped to teach maths to the top end of primary. There are many, many primary school teachers who can teach English fairly adequately but do not have a good enough grasp of maths to deal with their pupils' misconceptions and address them properly. This is because those teachers do not understand maths themselves. If we have a problem with maths in this country, and many researchers say that we do, then this must be a significant factor.

No, I don't think they were.

Maths
Science
Ancient History/Latin
History
Geography
Art
Music
RS
French
English

I could still add the teachers' names and don't believe there was any overlap.

My friend teachs at a highly sought after London prep. She's a maths specialist, only teaching maths. She has a GCSE Grade C in maths.

To be fair even if you've only got a GCSE in maths, if it's all you teach and you know the syllabus inside out and backwards, I imagine you get pretty good at it...

No further maths qualifications I should add. She's a perfectly good teacher I'm sure but is that what you had in mind when you said specialist?

Her degree is in theology but it's cantab which is of course on the prospectus.

In Scotland, those wanting to teach Primary must have Higher English and a good pass in Mathematics indicating that they would at least be quite literate and numerate. At the interview you are given a basic written test as well. The PGDE courses for Primary are very competitive so a good honours degree is definitely a prerequisite as well as experience in a school.

You can take them as many times as you like until you pass them

3 times maximum in UK.

sweetkitty I have a friend who converted to primary Scotland (very well thought of independent school) and her A levels were not in English or Maths.

At my son's London prep his maths teachers had maths degrees.

You can't take the maths and literacy tests unlimited times

They also aren't ridiculously easy