Should secondary teachers have to pass a subject knowledge exam before being allowed to teach that subject?

[noblegiraffe]

Something I've been wondering lately. The threads about unqualified teachers, teachers teaching outside their specialism, whether requiring teachers to have a degree is meaningful when many teach a subject not relevant to their degree.

I know subject knowledge isn't all, and people can be very knowledgable and still be crap teachers, but can you have a good teacher who doesn't meet a minimum standard of subject knowledge?

cantkeepawayforever

All you have done with your list is show how little you know about teaching and teachers.

That's quite funny, since I am one....and teach upper KS2, so children only a year or so younger, on average, than the Y7s I was describing.

I can see that if you are used to teaching a fairly 'fixed' core curriculum that has not varied hugely both since you were at school and since you started teaching (so algebra, for example, is fairly unchangeable) then the idea of teaching a subjec with different subject knowledge sounds scary and tricky.

However, if you anyway have to learn new subject knowledge in most subjects quite often, as pretty much all primary teacher have had to - as a PP said, ancient civilisations in Benin, anyone? - or if you teach a subject that evolves rapidly such as computing or some Science or Politics, then the process of 'acquiring new subject knowledge in order to teach it well' is embedded in your professional routine. It is probably also true of those who specialise during their degree - e.g. historians who narrow down on a specific period - but who may have to teach wholly different periods to GCSE or A-level students.

I will emphasise again - precise subject knowledge, or at least knowledge of a related subject such as a different period but still history, or earlier versions of Computing or Media or Politics - is definitely preferable for all subjects from Y9 upwards if at all possible. Particular skills knowledge is critical to teach maths, music, art, most DT and PE well.

cantkeepawayforever

Interesting then that you post this

Pretty much any DT subject by a teacher of any of the others. Art / Textiles also probably interchangeable.

and know this

Particular skills knowledge is critical to teach maths, music, art, most DT and PE well.

*now not know

I have taught another subject though, so I'm not just thinking it sounds tricky, I know it is. Perhaps I did an ok job in the scheme of things, but because I had a subject that I knew inside out and knew what it felt like to teach completely competently, any comparisons were going to be negative. I didn't even get to observe any teachers so couldn't copy what they did, I was just making it up as I went along, from what I remembered from school.

The kids all came in, got some project work out and got on with it
Yep 5 minutes or so... then the unmotivated ones start distracting the easily distracted and they all bother the ones who are trying to get on with it... I think jobs are safe

noblegiraffe

I think that what grins my gears about this is those that don't know the subjects, yet still think that they would be easy to teach.

Its bad enough when its the government or parents, but teachers should know better than to dis other subjects and say that they can be taught by anyone.

I don't think it's a case of 'some subjects are so easy to teach' more that we simply don't have the resources to have subject specialists delivering all the time.
Like most science teachers, I teach outside my specialism every day. Is it harder than teaching stuff I know really well? Of course it is. But there's no other option. The last time I formally studied geology was my geography GCSEs. Now I teach it in chemistry GCSE. They're not my best lessons, but they're OK.

Do you think we should have massive US style schools where teachers deliver the same lesson 20 times per week?

we simply don't have the resources to have subject specialists delivering all the time.
Interesting as some countries do managed to have said specialists....

I would say it's more if an issue about budget restriction and school being too small to allow having specialist teachers.
But then what we are talking about are not siecialiat subjects either (history, English, re are all part of the curriculum. We're not talking about the school giving the opportunity to choose between 3 or 4 MFL) so really I dont think there is an excuse.

I'm not teaching anymore, but used to teach History in a school where lots of our ks3 lessons were covered by a variety of non specialist staff, and you could tell when they reached GCSE. Despite v v thoroughly planned departmental SOW, the ever changing rota of staff assigned the odd history class here or there meant that teachers had to focus on getting subject knowledge up to date, and the skills took a back seat. Concepts of interpretation for example weren't taught effectively enough.

I know there's a huge debate about skills/knowledge in History teaching and that every subject teacher thinks that there's more to their subject that just the facts - but that's why we should have specialist staff!

BoneyBackJefferson

I don't see any inconsistency in cantkeepawayforever's posts. She is saying that particular skills knowledge is needed to teach DT but, if you have that knowledge, you can probably teach any of the DT subjects. Similarly, if you have the skills knowledge required for arts you can probably also manage textiles.

Trafalgar,
i think it depends what you mean by 'specialists'.

If I had trained as a secondary science teacher, you would probably regard me as 'specialist' - I have a very high class Science degree + a PhD in an area that overlaps with 2 of the 'school' sciences.

However, for teaching the curriculum of any of the 'school' sciences, I would in fact be teaching something I had not studied since A-level / 1st year university.

Equally someone who studies English at university, and perhaps specialises in 20th century literature during their degree. When teaching Shakespeare, they would be teaching something they thrmselves had not studies since A-level.

Or a Historian, teaching 20th century German political history despite taking no courses at university that covered anything posy 1800 - in fact, there are A-level routes that also do little or no modern history, so they could be teaching material they hadn;t touched since GCSE.

Equally a Human Geography graduate teaching the Geography syllabus, which includes physical geography.

In almost all subjects, teachers will be teaching content for which they are actually non-specialists.

Without having a very, very large number of flexible part-time teachers - a geologist to teach the relevant parts of Chemistry and Geography, a wide group of History teachers each with specialist knowledge of different parts of the syllabus etc - there will be parts of every subject where even a 'nominally qualified' teacher will be teaching subject content that they have not studied post A-level, in some cases not post GCSE, and in some cases - e.g. Politics, some aspects of the modern computing syllabus - not formally studied themselves at all.

prh47bridge

You may be correct, but at the moment anyone that that is in the bottom bucket of progress 8 is going to be touchy about how their subject is perceived by others.

Especially at a time when we should be rounding the wagons and defending education as a whole.

Thinking about it, I suspect that the subjects where a 'qualified teacher with an appropriate degree background' will NOT have to acquire additional subject knowledge to teach the full syllabus, or to adapt to a changing syllabus, are probably rarer than those where learning and then teaching new subject content is a normal part of the role.

Maths, probably. Art. Possibly music, though again the teacher's qualification may not necessarily match the particular requirements of the syllabus chosen, and certainly won't match the breadth of musical instruments / styles used in the practical elements. Someone with a general degree in one of the 'school' sciences, so Physics / Chemistry without specialisation?

I think that's why a 'knowledge test' may not be a practical way forward for all subjects. What knowledge do you test? Do you test the current curriculum / schemes of work being taught in that particular school? Do you test current GCSE / A-level specs? Or do you,. more generally, test 'subject skills / teaching skills'? How do you adjust for the fact that someone's current knowledge may overlap very well with current curriculula / schemes of work but may be very poor in an adapted curriculum that might be adopted in a few years' time?

Boney, the point I was making was exactly as prh states.

I think we are all touchy in our own particular ways - as a primary teacher, I get a bit touchy when secondary teachers claim that they cannot teach a single other related subject to the same 11 year olds I and my colleagues are expected (and measured against our ability to) teach the full range of subjects to! Apologies.

But what about the fact that you are trained to do that, cant, and secondary teachers aren’t? (I’m assuming that science teachers are also trained to teach all three sciences - is that right?).

I totally agree. I will be asked to teach an a level subject next year than I haven't studied since a level myself nearly 20 years ago. Getting my ducks in a row ready to leave. Not fair on the students. Not fair on me.

Do you test current GCSE / A-level specs?

Given how short-lived many teaching careers are, that would probably be the best place to start.

Noble, it depends what you mean by 'trained'. I had 3 sessions about teaching Dance, for example, which I now do for 2x8 week blocks of 1 hour lessons every year. Equally, most subjects like History, Geography, Music, Art were covered in a single course of lessons during PGCE, obviously wholly inadequate for acquiring the subject knowledge to teach any and all periods of history (and a completely new curriculum) to any of years 1-6!

I am a history teacher, and I did pass subject knowledge exams. At university.

Part of being a teacher is utilising the research skills you gained at university to make sure that you have good subject knowledge on all areas you teach. E.g. I did not study the history of medicine at university, but I teach it well because I have done the reading and facilitated my own understanding

So I suppose we were 'trained in the expectations of the job', in the sense that we were taught subject-specific SKILLS (use of artefacts or sources in teaching History for example), but that it was assumed that we would always have to study to acquire the subject KNOWLEDGE for the year group in whichever school we were going to end up teaching.

Part of being a teacher is utilising the research skills you gained at university to make sure that you have good subject knowledge on all areas you teach.

Exactly.

But you had training and you had teaching practice. The training you had to teach dance probably supported your teaching of PE if you see what I mean.
Maybe instead of a knowledge test, what I want is like in Scotland, that you have to have some training in that subject.
Kids are being short-changed when schools can just drop random subjects onto the timetable of any teacher.
I guess that would also rule out the hiring of unqualified teachers.

Tea, but asking you to teach history is reasonable.

What if you were to find maths on your timetable for next year?