do higher degree qualifications make you a better teacher ?
oldwelshman
Posts: 4,733
Heard it all now, David Cameron's next wonderful policy statement, he has decided that no gradutes with a 3rd Class degree will become a teacher.
So what does that mean for graduates who studied for a teaching degree and achieved a third class degree? They have to sign on the dole?
Why does he think a higher degree qualification will make a teacher better qualified for teaching arithmetic to primary school pupils?
There are some people I know would make very fine teachers who are not graduates and having a degree does not ensure you have necessary skills to become a teacher.
What next, only first class graduates to become MP's? Only ex Eton schoolboys allowed Tory party? Hmm let me think almost there already
So what does that mean for graduates who studied for a teaching degree and achieved a third class degree? They have to sign on the dole?
Why does he think a higher degree qualification will make a teacher better qualified for teaching arithmetic to primary school pupils?
There are some people I know would make very fine teachers who are not graduates and having a degree does not ensure you have necessary skills to become a teacher.
What next, only first class graduates to become MP's? Only ex Eton schoolboys allowed Tory party? Hmm let me think almost there already
0
Comments
-
This may be an example of what I would call "correct problem, wrong answer".
Standards in teaching do have to be addressed.
The solution isn't as simple as making 2nd class degrees a minimum qualification.
I hope that his thinking on all things isn't so skewed - otherwise, we are in for a rough ride after the next election!!0 -
I pretty much agree with penugent. It is certainly the case that the quality of teaching in this country is something that needs addressing but upping the necessary qualifications is only going to result in fewer candidates in an already undersubscribed vocation.
Teach first has gone some way to attracting a lot more high quality graduates (something that has also been helped by the economic downturn) and I think that the Tories are looking to build on that but their proposals seem both coarse and heavy handed. It is interesting to note that Carol Vorderman, the Conservatives' maths education tsar, would not have been granted funding under the new Tory proposals.
Then again, my Director of Studies did have her photo on the wall to demonstrate what would happen to us if we got thirds.0 -
Does this mean they will be throwing money at the problem, because the business and banking world reckon that only by paying top rates do you get the best talent.
Well, that's the excuse we keep being given for their huge salaries and bonuses anyway.... and apart from early retirement options, teachers don't get a great deal. 0 -
In my experience, experience makes you a better teacher.
I agree with Le Commentateur that if we apply the banking solution by paying a higher salary some more highly qualified graduates may be enticed to join the profession. However, being a graduate with a 1st class degree doesn't guarantee you'll be a good teacher. Sorting out discipline policy in schools would maybe help entice skilled and intelligent people who at present wouldn't dream if teaching. Mind you, in order to sort out school discipline you have to attend to general standards of public behaviour........Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
This is interesting question (assuming the OP wanted to discuss the issue not just take potshots at the Tories, which looks like a big assumption).
As a teacher who would easily pass the degree class test I can say from personal experience that academic ability on its own does not necessarily help you teach well. Most of us can remember good teachers and bad from our own school days, and I doubt the good ones were all geniuses, or the bad ones stupid.
But to teach effectively does take a lot of thinking, analysing, understanding and strategising (is that a real word? looks a bit ugly!). I've met some teachers who certainly don't have outstanding academic records themselves, but have the knack, however acquired, of getting insight into the kids' needs, and then communicating effectively with them.
Most teachers will have had many occasions where they're inwardly screaming "the answer's 4! It just is, it's ********* obvious! Why can't you see it you stupid ********!". By definition, if you're teaching Maths, say, you have probably had some degree of success in it at school (can I stick my head above the parapet and say that if you have a third in maths, it's probably worth a lot more than a 2.1 in a lot of arts subjects?), but that doesn't imply that being able to empathise with dunces necessarily enables you to teach them either.
Enough rambling, I need to finish preparing today's lessons, and of course write a couple of reports, set an exam, plan a couple of courses for kids not bright enough to do Standard Grades, and finally do a couple of paper exercises preparing for the new Scottish curriculum (google Curriculum for Excrement).
But the moral of the story is that yes, of course we need more good teachers, it's maybe not so simplistic though to predict who is going to be one. One thing I'm sure of is that there are lots of teachers who are in it because it's perceived as the easy option (and it is, as long as you can go in to work every day and not give a toss) or the only option, and that at least is a good reason to up the entry requirements. But to do that you've got to give incentives that will attract the right people, and that's not an exact science: pay is certainly not the whole of it, working conditions - and I do mean discipline here, as well as resources and support - matter too. The self-interested whingeing that the unions often come out with is not going to help teaching to be perceived as a high status job either.0 -
bompington wrote:This is interesting question (assuming the OP wanted to discuss the issue not just take potshots at the Tories, which looks like a big assumption).
As a teacher who would easily pass the degree class test I can say from personal experience that academic ability on its own does not necessarily help you teach well. Most of us can remember good teachers and bad from our own school days, and I doubt the good ones were all geniuses, or the bad ones stupid.
But to teach effectively does take a lot of thinking, analysing, understanding and strategising (is that a real word? looks a bit ugly!). I've met some teachers who certainly don't have outstanding academic records themselves, but have the knack, however acquired, of getting insight into the kids' needs, and then communicating effectively with them.
Most teachers will have had many occasions where they're inwardly screaming "the answer's 4! It just is, it's ********* obvious! Why can't you see it you stupid ********!". By definition, if you're teaching Maths, say, you have probably had some degree of success in it at school (can I stick my head above the parapet and say that if you have a third in maths, it's probably worth a lot more than a 2.1 in a lot of arts subjects?), but that doesn't imply that being able to empathise with dunces necessarily enables you to teach them either.
Enough rambling, I need to finish preparing today's lessons, and of course write a couple of reports, set an exam, plan a couple of courses for kids not bright enough to do Standard Grades, and finally do a couple of paper exercises preparing for the new Scottish curriculum (google Curriculum for Excrement).
But the moral of the story is that yes, of course we need more good teachers, it's maybe not so simplistic though to predict who is going to be one. One thing I'm sure of is that there are lots of teachers who are in it because it's perceived as the easy option (and it is, as long as you can go in to work every day and not give a toss) or the only option, and that at least is a good reason to up the entry requirements. But to do that you've got to give incentives that will attract the right people, and that's not an exact science: pay is certainly not the whole of it, working conditions - and I do mean discipline here, as well as resources and support - matter too. The self-interested whingeing that the unions often come out with is not going to help teaching to be perceived as a high status job either.
I think the only people who would disagree would be Art teachers, and what do they know anyway!!!! Head Hands Heart Lungs Legs0 -
Some of the best teachers I have come across have been NCO's in the forces. They got their points across briefly and often with humour!
Don't think many of them had degrees!0 -
This is another example of the fatal trap we seem to fall into in every walk of life these days, namely that training makes people competent at something. If the training box is ticked you are allowed out to do stuff whether you are good or bad. The prime example some years ago was a Headmaster of Westminster School who retired and offered his services free, to help with maths teaching at a local failing comprehensive. Despite being acknowledged as one of the best maths teachers in the business he was not allowed to do this as he did not have a B.ED qualification!
Don't get me wrong, we need degrees, training and qualifications, but merely ticking the box to say you've done the course or read the book, does not address the quality problem.0 -
I agree with pretty much all the sentiment that a good degree does not a good teacher make.
However, as far as I understood it the background for the proposal is that students are finding that they are completing their degree and only achieving a third. Unable to find other forms of employment they are choosing to go into teaching.
The obivous result of this is a number of people in the teaching profession who are there only because they cannot be anywhere else - which does not necessaruily mean they will be good teachers.
Issuing an edict that you cannot go into teaching with a third can prevent some of this, but also likley means you loose good teachers. Surely beeter to dientify people with the neccesary skills and desire to educate and help them develop?0 -
The problem is slightly more complicated.
Over the years, mainly through degree inflation - 2:1s are increasingly the norm, with the majority of students leaving universities (at leat, the top 20 universities, which is what Cameron is refering to) leaving with a 2:1 degree. As a result, a 2:2 degree is considered a fair bit worse than it used to, say, 20-30 years ago, when 2:2 was the majority grade.
Most people in charge of this kind of thing probably graduated when a 2:2 was the majority grade.
In that sense, you can sort of see vaguley where Cameron is coming from. It's still b*llocks however.
Teaching under 16s has little in common with academic prowess. Obviously you need to be confident and smart enough in your subject to thoroughly understand it, in order to teach it, but that's unlikely to be a challenge to most university graduates.
The thing that struck me in that Cameron speech was that he was going to give those who get good degrees from good universities in "maths or other scientifically rigorous" degrees the chance to get their debt struck off. :shock:. I take it the Tories see no value at all in any arts degrees, which are already suffering from lack of interest, despite that, in the long run, having either an arts or a science degree has little bearing on your lifetime income.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
DrewDubya wrote:I agree with pretty much all the sentiment that a good degree does not a good teacher make.
However, as far as I understood it the background for the proposal is that students are finding that they are completing their degree and only achieving a third. Unable to find other forms of employment they are choosing to go into teaching.
The obivous result of this is a number of people in the teaching profession who are there only because they cannot be anywhere else - which does not necessaruily mean they will be good teachers.
Issuing an edict that you cannot go into teaching with a third can prevent some of this, but also likley means you loose good teachers. Surely beeter to dientify people with the neccesary skills and desire to educate and help them develop?
Because universities are increasingly competittive, and due to degree inflation, universities are reluctant to fail students. A third is increasingly becoming synonymous with a fail.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
pottssteve wrote:can I stick my head above the parapet and say that if you have a third in maths, it's probably worth a lot more than a 2.1 in a lot of arts subjects?
Umm not sure about that.
I do History (proper subject) and have taken electives in maths (for fun), and can say that a 3rd in maths is just as easy/hard as a 3rd in history.
In fact I would say that when you get to 1st grade standard, History is harder. In maths it's just the difference between getting some more questions right, whereas History, the jump in the quality of thinking and writing up to a 1st, is very high.
Back to the OP..."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
I got the impression this applied to PGCEs? I know of several people who scraped a dodgy degree, couldn't get a decent job, so did a PGCE and are now teaching. Some of them may well have turned out to be excellent teachers, but I doubt all of them did.
The problem to me is not the degree that someone has when they go into teaching, but how easy it now is. With these accelerated post graduate courses you can be teaching within a few months. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a girl I used to work with went off and did a 9 month on the job training course, and was on her own in a class a month after starting. It's too easy to get into teaching, I'm not sure how the best potential teachers can be identified, but I think that needs to be addressed rather than using a blunt no "Douglas Hurds" in.
I have to be careful as my wife is a teacher, but to be honest I'm surprised some of her colleagues have any sort of degree when you meet them. Actually some of them don't.0 -
nolf wrote:pottssteve wrote:can I stick my head above the parapet and say that if you have a third in maths, it's probably worth a lot more than a 2.1 in a lot of arts subjects?
Umm not sure about that.
I do History (proper subject) and have taken electives in maths (for fun), and can say that a 3rd in maths is just as easy/hard as a 3rd in history.
In fact I would say that when you get to 1st grade standard, History is harder. In maths it's just the difference between getting some more questions right, whereas History, the jump in the quality of thinking and writing up to a 1st, is very high.
Back to the OP...
Because history never involves analysising data, even imperfect data, or uses any rational or logical thought... :roll: Why else is it called an arts degree?Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Term1te wrote:I got the impression this applied to PGCEs? I know of several people who scraped a dodgy degree, couldn't get a decent job, so did a PGCE and are now teaching. Some of them may well have turned out to be excellent teachers, but I doubt all of them did.
The problem to me is not the degree that someone has when they go into teaching, but how easy it now is. With these accelerated post graduate courses you can be teaching within a few months. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a girl I used to work with went off and did a 9 month on the job training course, and was on her own in a class a month after starting. It's too easy to get into teaching, I'm not sure how the best potential teachers can be identified, but I think that needs to be addressed rather than using a blunt no "Douglas Hurds" in.
I have to be careful as my wife is a teacher, but to be honest I'm surprised some of her colleagues have any sort of degree when you meet them. Actually some of them don't.
EASY?!
I take it you've never tried to get on one of those courses. I can only vouch for history teachers, but it's fiecely competitive to get onto the PGCE courses. Seriously fierce. You make out people just walk into those courses. Pffft.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
-
As a fairly ardent free market capitalist, I'll be the first to say that better pay is a really innefficient and inneffective way of attracting better teachers.
In a way using better pay is a bit of a misnomer, when theres a raft of ancillary benefits that are more attractive. Long holidays, you spend all your time with people (not in an office cubicle), interesting and changing work, working with children (I like kids).
I always imagine the only ownside to be having to stop the kids from running riot.
And the idea of compulsory 2nds seems silly. You see graduate jobs with grade guidelines, but if you've got a strong application, loads of relevant experience, time spent in schools etc, then the idea you're immediately struck off for not have a 2.2 or better is getting rid of a potentially strong candidate."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
But this story isn't about education solutions, it's about getting David Cameron's face better known in the run up to the election and for him to show eh's taking education seriously. The proposals are incomplete and full of gaps where the details should be, hence the OP.
For politicians, the next 4 months are like their finals, and they'll be getting increasingly grouchy in the run-up to the big exam. Ignore everything they say because they don't mean it, they just want to appear to care because the average voter has a very short memory and no depth of analysis to what's actually being said (and more than half of them are women).0 -
teagar wrote:EASY?!
I take it you've never tried to get on one of those courses. I can only vouch for history teachers, but it's fiercely competitive to get onto the PGCE courses. Seriously fierce. You make out people just walk into those courses. Pffft.
Why is this? Do more students study history, in order to become history teachers, than there are places for them or history teaching vacancies? Or do they at a later date decide to do a PGCE? Supply and demand issues don't necessarily equate to high quality.
I come from a science background and I've worked with people in the lab who have degrees. After a while some realise how little money there is in science and that their career is not going anywhere fast, so they see the government asking for more science and maths teachers, and off they go. Better pay, pension, etc.
It would be interesting to see the statistics of the number of graduates with PGCEs who are still teaching 5 years after they've started. If it is relatively low I'm sure Brian de Gruchy et al will say what terrible pay and conditions teachers have, he may well be right, but I bet the majority left because they never really wanted to be teachers, just weren't cut out for it, or were no good at it.0 -
teagar wrote:The problem is slightly more complicated.
Over the years, mainly through degree inflation - 2:1s are increasingly the norm, with the majority of students leaving universities (at leat, the top 20 universities, which is what Cameron is refering to) leaving with a 2:1 degree. As a result, a 2:2 degree is considered a fair bit worse than it used to, say, 20-30 years ago, when 2:2 was the majority grade.
Most people in charge of this kind of thing probably graduated when a 2:2 was the majority grade.
quote]
My understanding of the allocation of grades was that unlike gcse's which I believe are allocated on marks achieved, degree grades were allocated based on percentages in that only a certain percentage of students were allocated each grade.?
I may be wrong but that was what I was told during my degree.0 -
I don't think that's the case. At least, at the universities I know of.oldwelshman wrote:
My understanding of the allocation of grades was that unlike gcse's which I believe are allocated on marks achieved, degree grades were allocated based on percentages in that only a certain percentage of students were allocated each grade.?teagar wrote:The problem is slightly more complicated.
Over the years, mainly through degree inflation - 2:1s are increasingly the norm, with the majority of students leaving universities (at leat, the top 20 universities, which is what Cameron is refering to) leaving with a 2:1 degree. As a result, a 2:2 degree is considered a fair bit worse than it used to, say, 20-30 years ago, when 2:2 was the majority grade.
Most people in charge of this kind of thing probably graduated when a 2:2 was the majority grade.
I may be wrong but that was what I was told during my degree.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7483330.stmThe number of students achieving a first class degree at UK universities has more than doubled since the mid-1990s.
Among last year's university leavers, 61% achieved a first class or upper second class degree.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
bompington wrote:This is interesting question (assuming the OP wanted to discuss the issue not just take potshots at the Tories, which looks like a big assumption).
quote]
Why such a response?
If I wanted to take a potshot at eiither party I would have. I thought the question in the post was quite clear?
I also speak as a person who would easily pass the degree class test who just happened to be interested in going into teaching previously, especially having 22 years experience in mecial and technical engineering, and many years experience coachin sport to children.
We always here about the lack of science/maths teachers, yet when I looked into becoming a teacher discovered I had to take a BEd to teach in Maths/Science, then after 4 years would get a salary 50% than the salary I was actually on, great incentive.
I was also told I could go down the PGCE route part time, but would have to do 13 weeks placement at a school which I would have to organise. How I was supposed to do 13 weeks placement whilst in full time employment is beyond me, so that put a grinding halt to my potential teaching career.
Interestingly I did do some lecturing in Maths in Uni which did not require me to do BEd in Maths, but that was a while ago so probably changed now.0 -
The defining 'quality' should be the PGCE OUTPUT rather than the INPUT. The PGCE should make sure that only those who are able to teach pass the course.0
-
teagar wrote:
I don't think that's the case. At least, at the universities I know of.oldwelshman wrote:
My understanding of the allocation of grades was that unlike gcse's which I believe are allocated on marks achieved, degree grades were allocated based on percentages in that only a certain percentage of students were allocated each grade.?teagar wrote:The problem is slightly more complicated.
Over the years, mainly through degree inflation - 2:1s are increasingly the norm, with the majority of students leaving universities (at leat, the top 20 universities, which is what Cameron is refering to) leaving with a 2:1 degree. As a result, a 2:2 degree is considered a fair bit worse than it used to, say, 20-30 years ago, when 2:2 was the majority grade.
Most people in charge of this kind of thing probably graduated when a 2:2 was the majority grade.
I may be wrong but that was what I was told during my degree.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7483330.stmThe number of students achieving a first class degree at UK universities has more than doubled since the mid-1990s.
Among last year's university leavers, 61% achieved a first class or upper second class degree.
Think your right, just been looking on the net and it seems like theres lots of discusion about grade allocation.
In my defence, mine was achieved many years ago and that was my understanding of it then Maybe I was just being fobbed off 0 -
GiantMike wrote:The defining 'quality' should be the PGCE OUTPUT rather than the INPUT. The PGCE should make sure that only those who can demonstrate a talent to teach are taken onto the PGCE course in the first place.
Corrected that for you.
Otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time and money.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
BBC news last night - carol vorderman got a 3rd...
There are potential issues with this policy...Lapierre Spicy 516 XTR custom (2013) -http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=129323320 -
Tom Barton wrote:BBC news last night - carol vorderman got a 3rd...
There are potential issues with this policy...
Actually she got a :-
10 x the 3 =30
30 - the 27 = 3
3 - the 2 =1
1 divided by the other 3 = 1/3rd."There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
how about an access course to determine qualities of a teacher before being allowed into the PGCE proper for those who have less than a 2nd class degree?
This would then allow those in who have a natural talent for teaching, but do not have the academic grades to automatically qualify for entry to a PGCE, whether they have a degree or not.
I believe that teaching is a vocation. It stems from a natural talent for teaching.
It would be a very unfortunate state of affairs if naturally talented teachers were excluded from their vocation becasue they got a 3rd.
but thinking about it...why not just remove the degree prereq from the pgce and make the access course a prereq for everyone no matter what their degree is.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
I teach in a university, some of the worst teachers have doctorates; bachelors's degree classification is an irrelevant predictor of teaching quality.
This is merely the latest attempt to grab a headline that will appeal to the target voters; people who like to blame the ills of society on the education system and on teachers in particular. Cameron's use of the "elitist" term in relation to education will also go down well with their core voters. Unfortunately, Cameron is very likely to win, and these "policies" that are really only designed as a political tool will actually be implemented. It shows zero understanding of education or teaching and is just window dressing. Of course, when standards drop, the tories can always blame single mums, they can always fall back on that one.0 -
alfablue wrote:I teach in a university, some of the worst teachers have doctorates; bachelors's degree classification is an irrelevant predictor of teaching quality.
This is merely the latest attempt to grab a headline that will appeal to the target voters; people who like to blame the ills of society on the education system and on teachers in particular. Cameron's use of the "elitist" term in relation to education will also go down well with their core voters. Unfortunately, Cameron is very likely to win, and these "policies" that are really only designed as a political tool will actually be implemented. It shows zero understanding of education or teaching and is just window dressing. Of course, when standards drop, the tories can always blame single mums, they can always fall back on that one.
Quite.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0
