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?

Kids are being short-changed when schools can just drop random subjects onto the timetable of any teacher.

I agree on this. However I wouldn't want to extend that to the extent that we say no teacher of any subject can ever teach any other subject, as I do think that, pragmatically, given the workforce size in many schools, there is some scope for targeted subject to subject sharing of teachers for the younger years. If we demand subject specialists for ALL subjects for ALL years, in smaller schools it would mean an unacceptable narrowing of the curriculum, because for example there may not be sufficient staff for there to be a specialist in EACH branch of DT, or there may only be 1 humanity or 1 MFL taught,. or no Drama etc.

I’m not saying that teachers shouldn’t teach outside of their specialism, I’m saying if they do, it should be done properly.

If you want to get into a PGCE and your subject knowledge isn’t up to scratch you have to do a subject knowledge enhancement course. But then you could be asked to teach other subjects with no checks!

So for example with you teaching Physics, if you had had training in setting up and carrying out whole class experiments, and any other science-specific pedagogy and had had an opportunity (in your own time, or in school's time) to acquire the subject knowledge or refresh yours from A-level, that would be OK?

But just putting it on your timetable for the coming week, without an opportunity to observe good practice, have any specific training needed and get to grips with the subject content, is not OK?

I'd go along with that. Subject knowledge acquisition is, IME, always expected out of school time, not in school time, but CPD to develop subject-specific pedagogy, through staff meetings, observation, mentoring, INSET, self study etc, is pretty normal

@noblegiraffe I would say no to maths because I have always been ridiculously bad at it, but I have taught KS3 Geography, RS and English (some KS4) to a good standard using the research skills I developed at University/during my career so far. I think it is important for HOD/HOF to keep a particular eye on the books of non-specialist teachers, and keep up to date with meetings and observations. But, I think the suggestion that teachers can only do a good job in their narrow subject area is selling us short as professionals.

I think the idea that we are somehow jacks-of-all-trades and don't require any particular extra training to adequately pick up other subjects is selling short the teachers of those other subjects.

Penggwn,

I think that we have established that NOBODY supports a random allocation of a teacher of 1 subject to a totally unrelated subject, and where that is happening it is wrong. So Music / Drama teachers teaching Maths are, within the context of the thread, a straw man.

The question is whether teachers of 1 subject, particularly those with e.g. an A-level in the related subject, can teach a related subject that requires similar pedagogical skills to the early years of secondary school / final years of middle school where those exist.

With suitable CPD, I would contend that for 'related subject pairs' this is possible, and in many cases already happens with no comment (e.g. Chemistry teachers teaching more than 1 Science subject to lower years, rather than having a subject specialist for each part of Science).

In my view, this is referable to, for example, some subjects or some aspects of subjects not being taught in the lower years of smaller secondaries because of the lack of, or perhaps departure of, a particular subject specialist. For example, I would prefer Textiles to be taught by an experienced Art or general Design teacher than not to be taught at all, and I would prefer an MFL teacher with a degree in 1 language and an A-level in another to teach both languages rather than only 1 being available to some year groups within the school.

any teacher can turn their hand to any subject

I think we have established that, except for trained primary teachers teaching primary age pupils, nobody supports this 'random' allocation.

Agree it shouldn't be happening, but I don't think that we help if we start getting absolutist and saying 'nobody can teach a subject other than the one they originally qualified in' or 'everyone must take a test in the subject knowledge contained in school's current SoW for KS3 before they teach a lesson other than in their specialist subject to Y7 or Y8'.

A pragmatic approach that formalises a teacher's right to an allowance of study time and appropriate CPD before teaching a new subject would be a better thing to fight for.

Teachers teach out of subject, not because they want to particularly but because of timetabling and allocations by the school. The onus should be on the school to provide the support and CPD to enable a teacher to take on a new subject.

The problem with taking on a new subject is not subject knowledge, as the teacher will make sure they are at least one lesson ahead of the students. It's the extra knowledge and little anecdotes, and being able to field left-field questions.

So Noble, if a Chemistry teacher teaches a particular class Science (all aspects) in Y7, is that 'selling short' the work of the Biology teachers and Physics teachers? Or is it just one possible timetabling decision - given that those same biology and physics teachers may well be doing the same for other groups within the same year - for 1 teacher to know a group well, rather than 3 teachers bobbing in to teach only a lesson or 2 for the group each timetable cycle?

If the school has no Textiles teacher (or if the specialist teacher has a full timetable, including both GCSE and A-level), and there is not enough work for a second full timer, is it 'selling Textiles teachers short' for the school to use an Art teacher or a general design teacher to teach some lower year groups, or would it be preferable not to teach the subject to some years or classes?

Stronger regulation to prevent this is a good idea.

However, by your own admission, the outcome of this would be redundancies or not offering subjects or not being able to make the budget balance - none of which are desirable.

Again, given my earlier example, if there is space and budget for a half time art teacher also teaching half time Textiles, but not for a full timer of either, then is it better to preserve the job, keep that teacher employed on a fulltime timetable OR to say that that isn't possible, so the art teacher must go part time and either an alternative Textiles part timer be found OR the subject be cut? Stringer legislation aout being used across subjects would not allow the pragmatic 'one teacher fills timetable by covering both' solution.

Or cant, the art teacher is given adequate training and doesn’t just have textiles dumped on them?

Exacty, noble. I think we essentially agree - working across related subjects is entirely acceptable IF appropriate CPD is provided, but neither working across completely unrelated subjects, nor being given subjects at short notice without time for self-study and any critical CPD, is acceptable.

sil was called in before the summer holidays and told she was teaching Spanish in the Autumn term. She didn't know one word of Spanish! She taught French. Nevertheless, come September she was standing in front of the class having learnt a bit in advance of each lesson. I would have been raging if I had been a parent if I had discovered that. (But said nothing because I am a coward!)

I also was speaking to a woman who was a TA at a local (not very high achieving) school. She said she was called in and asked if she could teach Maths, as they'd spotted she had A Level Maths. She was very nervous about it, as she had sat the A Level 30 years previously...

That being said, the dcs tell me I know more than a lot of their teachers but I don't have a teaching qualification so I'm useless.

How do schools in Scotland cope if teachers have to be qualified in the subjects they teach?

I do think that schools in England are hiding a lot of DfE sins behind their ability to stick any adult in front of a class and say that it's staffed. If parents knew...

I had wondered that, Noble - especially for very small rural senior schools, where maintaining a qualified specialist for each subject while maintaining an adequately broad curriculum must be something of a challenge?

So for example I've found a secondary of 90 pupils - the list of staff is quite restricted, so either there is some significant doubling up, or the curriculum is limited to the staff that they have.

cantkeepawayforever

Presumably you will be able to look at their results on the governments website and find out what they teach and what their results are like.