Science teacher at secondary - should it be a specialist?

[Hollyhedge]

Hi all,

DS shortly taking GCSEs. On for triple science. His mock grades seem to have come down in chem and physics but gone up in bio. My mum, who was a teacher, thinks they should have specialists for triple science GCSE. DS’ teacher this year is Bio grad. I am not blaming him (not going to get us v far with 8 weeks to go!), it may just be DS is struggling. Also, the school has to use the teachers they have and we have generally been v lucky

However, what are your thoughts on bio grad teaching Chemistry and Phyisics??

Thank you

Not on this thread

I used to be a school governor. Finding physics and chemistry specialists is like finding hen's teeth. Of the dozen or more science teachers in our school, 2 had physics degrees (and one of them was very part time), 1 had a chemistry degree and 1 had a biochemistry degree. The 4 teachers who weren't biologists taught all the A level physics and chemistry classes. That meant that the kids in y11 and below mainly got taught by biologists. Although the chemistry and physics specialists did teach the y11 top sets.

One of the teachers offered DC1 some after school tutoring in chemistry. It obviously worked because DC1 ended up doing a degree in chemistry.

Ideally that should absolutely be the case. At GCSE level they don't necessarily need to have degrees in their specific science discipline but they should have advanced education in their specific discipline and they should have extensive training and education in teaching their specific subject. The latter is one of the difficult things... an aptititude and extensive education (and even professional experience) absolutely does not mean that someone will be good at teaching that subject, particularly to younger students, so teachers should be trained/educated in both the specific subject and in education for that specific subject. Currently we have a system that struggles to manage even one of those two things.

What we've done to our education system and teaching profession is profoundly upsetting.

I think people conflate high level scientific knowledge with being a good teacher.

As someone working in academia, I want to point out that undergrad/post-grad level science has almost nothing to do with what is taught in school (especially at the level of GCSE and below). Our lecturers in most STEM subjects are not good teachers, they are good scientists/mathematicians. They are great at doing research, publishing papers and networking. There is no way they could teach teenagers how to ace the GCSE science course.

You do not need a good scientist to ace the GCSE science course, what you need is a good teacher. What is more important to discover in your child's case is whether they actually understand the teacher, do they have a good relationship with their teacher, does the teacher make your child aware of their strengths and weakness in the subject, has the teacher given them specific ways to rectify their knowledge gaps?

These skills are specific to the teaching profession and has nothing to do with scientific degrees.

They should be both, it should never be 1 or the other

At our state comprehensive high school, the gcse science teachers all - or all so far in my experience of two teens doing GCSEs there - have specialist subject specific teachers for each science subject at gcse. I don’t know what degree subject those teachers all had, but teacher x is known for being a biology teacher, teacher y for being a physics teacher, teacher z for being a chemistry teacher. They have needed to use alternative subject science teachers for cover / mat leave.

Up to gcse all the sciences have been taught together, ie they’d have one science teacher for all y9, 8, 7 science lessons. So all the science teachers have to teach up to y9 min in other science areas.

The main issue I have is that people think having a undergradate degree is something you have to have in order to be a good teacher of that subject. That's completely not true for the reasons I've outlined above.

Most students who ace their undergrad in science do not become teachers for multiple reasons:

1. Pay is poor compared to what they can earn in pharma/banking/academia (yes even academics earn more than teachers now)
2. Academia provides far more flexibility and in some people's eyes more prestige.
3. Personality - no need to stereotype but geninuely a lot of people do not want to spend all day with children.

Demanding that every science teacher has an undergrad degree in their subject is prohibitively restrictive - you will not have any where near enough science teachers.

It is also completely unnecessary. The level of scientific knowledge required for GCSE is really very very basic in the grand scheme of science. This can be learnt as part of the teacher training course and does not require 3 years of intensive study at University.

The thigns that actually make a difference to students are the teaching skills not the higher level scientific knowledge.

Interesting because I would prefer teachers to teach something they have a passion for, or at least an interest in. We all know that in current crisis there are teachers who are being forced to teach subjects in which they are only a 1 session ahead of the kids they are teaching.
How do you enthuse young people about a subject in which you have no, or only limited, knowledge?

I absolutely agree teachers need to have the appropriate amount of subject knowledge if they are teaching that subject. The ethusiasm and passion is also great to have but as a realist I can understand if not all teachers are have the energy to be ethusiastic.

I think we are discussing two different things:

Subject knowledge for GSCE science teachers - I agree with you this is a must and if a teacher is going to teach a subject (e.g. physics) they did not initially train to teach in, they have to come up to speed on the subject knowledge so they are on par with other specialist physics teachers. For GCSE this is not very difficult and therefore not having an originally trained specialist teacher for say physics is unlikely to affect the children's attainment unless that teacher has subpar teaching skillls as well.

For A-level this becomes more difficult and I definitely advocate specialist teachers who were specifically trained in that subject to teach A-level. e.g specialist physics teacher for physics. However I do not think they need to have done an undergrad degree in physics, they just need the A-level subject knowledge and high level teaching skills/experience at A-level.

Educational qualifications for science teachers: should be the same as all teachers, and does need to be subject specific.

I did always find it odd I was qualified to teach GCSE physics when I don't even have an A level in it. I taught biology to A level and chem GCSE (my degree was biochem). Physics not a clue, luckily my school had sufficient physics teachers and didn't have to ask me.

To provide some context to this discussion: www.nfer.ac.uk/press-releases/government-spending-review-is-last-chance-to-meet-6-500-new-teacher-target-as-unfilled-teacher-vacancies-hit-record-high/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nutr

The 6500 teachers was always a distraction/justification/populist soundbite for VAT on education. It was never, ever realistic based on 40 000 teachers leaving the profession each year. They can't even hit the basic recruitment figure, let alone an additional 6500!

I was doing a stint of supply teaching a few years ago. I am an MFL specialist but was in state schools covering various subjects.
I was offered a job teaching Marhs in a girls’ faith school in west London and a job teaching Physics at a state school in South London. (For my cover work I was using crammer books I bought in WHSmith ‘GCSE A.* …. in a week’)
These excellent state schools could not recruit specialists so were happy to recruit good teachers of other subjects.
I declined both as was offered an MFl job in an indie which only employs subject specialists.

@Hollyhedge I agree that, in an ideal world, all children should have subject specialists for the 3 individual sciences. My children have had specialists from the age of 11, but they’re at an independent school. In the state sector, I think it probably varies across schools. There are some which have subject specialists, but unfortunately it’s getting harder to recruit STEM teachers. Some children end up being taught STEM subjects by teachers with no STEM experience whatsoever, so the fact that yours have a science specialist is better than some.

Unfortunately this situation will only get worse under the current government who are cutting funding for STEM education

schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-cost-cutting-spree-now-hits-stem/#:~:text=Funding%20to%20help%20science%20teachers,hubs%20have%20already%20been%20axed.

Exactly. There was a thread a couple of months ago with a parent threatening to go into school and hit the teacher! I mean, I'm sure it was just bravado, but still. Although, I have a friend who was actually punched at the end of day pick up by a parent. They broke her glasses.

No one on this specific thread has criticised teachers!

I suspect the criticism of teachers mainly concerns primary teachers.

I can't imagine the furore that would break out in the community if my local high school (in US) hired a non specialist to teach a science subject (or any other subject for that matter).

I thought this thread was going to be a complaint about the PE teacher teaching science, but a teacher with a science degree teaching GCSE is absolutely fine.

More important that they are a good teacher and good at conveying the subject material. I'm sure someone with a biology degree has greater subject knowledge of GCSE chemistry or physics than is covered in the course.
It's not like a kid is going to ask a question about the structure of an atom and the teacher will shrug and say they only know cells.

Not on this thread but on plenty of others.

My DD moved back to state and has a subject specialist for bio, chem and physics and she's doing combined, but I've been really shocked by that and would never expect it. I know schools that are currently teaching Y11 science in the sports hall as there's not enough teachers. At GCSE it really shouldn't matter, the material isn't that advanced, there's just a lot of it.

Sure, but it's part of the backdrop why fewer people (of any specialism) consider teaching to be an attractive career.

What happens with the practical element of the course? Although it's all exams, IIRC the syllabus at my DC's school includes the teacher "signing off" (or something - the course booklet we got is vague) various practical skills. Are non-science teachers allowed/insured to cover those bits?

Why wouldn’t they be?

It will be things like “did x follow the correct order and use the right quantities “

@SheilaFentiman tbf I think I am confusing cover with having a long term non- specialist. My DC (pre-GCSE) has had practicals cancelled when the teacher was away and they had cover. Looking back it's more likely that they didn't want the cover teacher to have to deal with it (fair enough! 😂)

I have a degree in chemistry and experience working in laboratories, trained to teach secondary science and the school treated me and the other newly qualified teachers so badly... I went back into lab work!

I now train new staff and apprentices. Much happier.

The problem is the systems and bully mentality if more senior staff, plus the time expected to give up outside of work marking and lesson planning.

Want professionals? Treat them right