Teachers should prove subject knowledge is up-to-date or lose qualified status suggests Ofsted boss

[noblegiraffe]

"Teachers should have to prove their subject knowledge is up-to-date at regular intervals to maintain their qualified status, a top Ofsted boss has said.

Professor Daniel Muijs (pictured), the watchdog’s head of research, said he supported a “periodic requirement” for teachers to demonstrate they know about the latest research and discoveries in their subject area."

schoolsweek.co.uk/ofsted-boss-calls-for-teachers-to-prove-subject-knowledge-to-stay-qualified/

Hahahahahahahaaa what planet is he living on?

Well, if he is going to provide the funding for top up courses and staff cover that would be fine

Nah do it in your own free time, when you're not marking/planning/buying resources/justifying your existence and of course pay for it yourself too out of the pay increases you've had over the last few years.

I am not sure either what he means by subject knowledge (more than happy if he'll fund me to visit the cinema or buy some recent Booker winner!) . What he seems to mean is knowing what the latest educational research says (which is in itself all the rage at the moment). All fine and dandy but that's not subject knowledge. I guess I could see in IT or science , where things might be ever evolving, parts of the CPD budget should support those staff to refresh knowledge . But , other than the constant revolving door of how things are assessed and examined, I can't see much has changed in the world of Dickens, Shakespeare et al!

I do keep finding these offensive articles recently in Schools week and other places having swipe at teachers of many years experience as if we have just crawled unformed out of the primordial swamp. (there was a massively offensive one on Teacher Toolkit this week) I would argue, having taught huge numbers of texts over the years and several different A levels and GCSEs that my subject knowledge is broader, richer and deeper in many ways than someone fresh out of university.

And do you know what my first thought was when I read this yesterday ? I thought : 'I bet noble will post this on Mumsnet!'

Because there are so many extra teachers around it makes sense to off-load lots more How will Ofsted decide what ‘up to date’ knowledge a ‘science’ teacher should know FFS? Specialist STEM lecturers in HE find it extremely time consuming to keep up with their fraction of ‘science’

What about the new recruits who haven’t got a degree? Will they need to prove they have the slightest idea about what they are teaching? Or those of us who end up teaching anything and everything because there isn’t any money to employ specialists or anyone with any experience? I already see nqt and even trainees who think they are coming into teaching to save children from all the experienced teachers who clearly have no idea what they are doing.

Maybe Ofsted leaders and Education secretaries need to show that they have any understanding of education before they are allowed to continue in their jobs.

This would have massive implications for science teachers, an area already particularly difficult in terms of teacher retention. I am a Biologist by training. However, my specialism is in one particular area of what is a vast science. Therefore, like all 'biologists', I know very little about huge swathes of biology. It is such a broad subject, that you couldn't possibly be a 'biology' expert. Hence, many Biologists become experts in one species, or the function of a handful of proteins etc. And, of course, there is the physics and chemistry that I am required to teach. I have A levels in neither, let alone a degree. This policy would bring utter devastation to science faculties. So many are being tempted into research anyway, this might be the final straw for a good few more.

In the article chartered teacher status is mentioned (although Alison Peacock interestingly distances herself from him!) presumably as some sort of carrot for Bright Young Things. having just supported a colleague through this I can safely say a) it costs money b) it involves huge commitment outside of a normal working week and c) is very demanding.

carrie you hit the nail on the head in your post about how younger / newer recruits are being almost brainwashed to distrust more experienced staff who they view as dinosaurs or coasters. I hate to say it, but I don't think it's the teachers who qualified 15-30 years ago that they need to worry about, what with all the watering down of entry points to the profession and the breaking up of ITT provision into school based hubs desperate to recruit.

In countries like Finland it is true they are expected to keep on top of educational research and thinking and in , I think, Japan or Shanghai, pay progression/ status recognises how much of this one has done. But in both countries teachers teach far fewer classroom hours...

I would love to have time to read even the TES yet alone subject specific articles (yes, I know I’m dicking around here but I’ve only two lessons tomorrow and I’m about to start work). As with recruitment and most definitely retainment it comes down to impossible workload. There is no spare time to do any extra without something else falling by the wayside.

I think I actually pick up much of my knowledge from MN!

You'll get no judgement from me about not working ...

I think the most useful thing I read about this lately was the idea that appraisal targets should be linked to a research project rather then to pupil outcomes or TLR fulfilment. I thought that sounded a really good idea. That would surely be enough evidence that staff were keeping up to date with educational research.

I would have loved to be able to pursue further studies in my actual subject. But no. If I wanted to do a Masters it would have had to be in Education, where it seems that there is no proper evidenced based research going on at all.

I don't think that's strictly true, born : it's just going on In very metropolitan pockets and on Twitter (it's become a who knows who club as is the way ) : and to get engaged in it, you need to attend conferences in holiday time and on Saturdays

I did try to start an education book club on here but no one seemed too interested!

I'm out now (retired nearly 5 years) and paddling in the quieter waters of FE, so not up to date...perhaps there has been an improvement in evidence based research.

I echo what catandfiddle said. I'm a chemistry specialist, but this year I'm working in a small department with only 6 staff, so all 6 science teachers are having to teach all 3 sciences. I'm OK with physics (I have an A-level in that), but I haven't done any biology for nearly 30 years, which was when I sat my GCSE in it. However, just because I happen to be in a science department I'm expected to just know everything there is to know about biology, even though the content is as different to chemistry as French is to German (i.e. there is pretty much NO overlap in the subject content)! And this school is massively struggling to find and retain science teachers...

I actually have more up-to-date subject knowledge of maths and computer science, but, again, because I'm in a science department, no one thinks to ask me to teach those.

I'd love it actually if someone came along and said you can only teach subjects that you have up-to-date subject knowledge in because then almost all science teachers would ONLY be able to teach their one science they have a degree in! I would LOVE to only teach chemistry. It would also cause chaos though, what with there not being enough chemistry and physics teachers.

Do you think the government would fund a second year abroad for me to pick up the latest slang in France? I could go for that. Something tells me that they’re not that keen for me this be up to date.

To, not this.

I'd love it actually if someone came along and said you can only teach subjects that you have up-to-date subject knowledge in
And even in HE in very specialist subject areas this doesn’t happen. A colleague of mine specialises in a particular type of bonding, she is part of a research group working at the forefront of research in that field. She would love to only teach that, but has got the first year enzyme kinetics series added to her workload this year, and had many sleepless nights re-visiting a subject she hasn’t covered since she was a 1st yr undergrad.

It's a lovely headline for him. After all, which one of us as a parent, wouldn't think it to be a good idea?

When I started teaching 30 years ago, we used to do this..... there were courses you could go on - twilights, evenings, days when you were covered. You used to be able to go on a course an learn practical stuff, before they brought in the requirement to write essays and turn any learning into a 'Masters' etc. I even did a course that was a series of Saturday mornings, to improve my skills in one subject (being Primary, you teach a lot!).
Then they brought in directed time and took away all the goodwill. Then they started gradually introducing the hours upon hours upon hours of planning and pointless paperwork and squeezed out all the energy from teachers. So, as I said, nice headline.

I'm not really sure the latest scientific research is of that much use when you're teaching children to pass an exam. Except for maybe A-level classes, I don't think students would have the level of knowledge required to access the latest research in any sort of meaningful way. I suppose a useful exercise might be looking at newspaper articles on a breakthrough and for students to work out how good the reporting was.

There's lots of parts of the science curriculum where things are (in my opinion) distilled and simplified to almost the point of meaninglessness.

Also, I agree with @CatAndFiddle. There's no way one person could keep up with all of biology, or chemistry, or physics, without it becoming a full time job (and even then they wouldn't have the expertise to understand it all).

If they mean keeping up broadly with educational research in your subject I think that's a little more reasonable- but obviously teachers have a lot of other things to be doing. Also, I do agree that some educational research I've seen is quite poor in terms of its evidence base- so would the researchers actually want it opened up to wider criticism?

Does he mean subject specific pedagogy? Like Christine Counsell at al are keen on? My DC's former head was a "knowledge based curriculum" Twitter luminary, and by following him I have ended up with a lot of that ilk on my feed. Nick Gibb loves them. Loves them. So does Sean Harford. Wouldn't be surprised if this gets picked up by the DfE in some format.

Ah back you have made me feel all nostalgic for the Good Old Days. I don't have a masters. We never saw that as a necessity. And I know exactly as much as your average teacher about teaching.

To be fair, Film courses which I sometimes go on are still good old fashioned CPD based on subject knowledge : but I am not always released on licence from the prisonschool to attend them.

I had four days covered and with course and accommodation paid on particle physics when I started teaching. Can you imagine that now? It was fantastic, methods of teaching I still use 20 years later.

Madonna knowledge based curriculum (which comes from Michaela et al?) is all the rage at the mo. I hear it said but don't really understand fully what it means. Other than teaching stuff. Like you do.

Whilst I am still finding errors in exam board text books and specimen papers, Daniel Muijs can do one.