This may well get me into trouble
and should probably have ended up in the Prejudice QOTW instead, but...

I don't reckon it's right that teachers are allowed to teach if they only have a qualification in education, rather than having a degree and then a PGCE on top. Practically, it means they essentially stopped studying a subject at any depth at the age of 18 (or 17 here in Scotland.) Having visited around 200 primary schools (for work, perverts) in the last sixth months I've come to the conclusion it doesn't work - the level of ignorance of the teachers in some cases was actually shocking. Seemed like all a lot of them knew how to do was shout at the kids and get them to line up in single file - they had little interest in or knowledge of the subject(s) they were actually supposed to be teaching.

Simply put, absolute power over the bendy and fragile minds of children should not be wielded by someone who studied papier mache and handwriting as part of their sole qualification. Soz.
(jennymnemonic, Wed 14 Jul 2010, 23:42, 22 replies)

So you're alright with idiots teaching children, as long as they're (upper) middle-class idiots.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 0:43, closed)

Only upper-middle class people can have degrees?
Shit, I'd better hand back the old Ph.D then and get back to that council estate...
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Thu 15 Jul 2010, 0:50, closed)

Good idea, you'd probably just use it to justify your appalling bigotry anyway.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 1:11, closed)

I'm guessing coherent arguing is not your strong suit?
I'm not the one suggesting that degree holders are all upper middle class.
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:41, closed)

There's got to be some hint of irony in there?
In my experience, people studying worthwhile degrees come from all sorts of backgrounds...
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 10:36, closed)

"Look at me, I'm Woodside
I'm so ghetto. Considerably more working class than you- I can't even afford the calendar to see that it's the 21st century and not the 19th."

Nowadays, people of ANY background can and do go to uni. Middle class, working class, upper class, whatever. A couple of guys on my course were from a family (which I guess defines your class before you settle into one yourself later in life) who'd spent their entire lives on benefits- so not even working class.
Some people go because they're interested in a subject, some people go to get a qualification, some people go because they have no idea what else to do and want a few more cheap, easy years before making a big decision.

But yeah, before you can teach you should have at least a degree in the subject. That way you can teach it properly and be fairly confident that you know what you're talking about- and parents can be sure of this as well.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 11:19, closed)

Yeah, but as pointed out below
What should one have a degree in to teach primary school kids?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 11:36, closed)

Hmm..
I think the point of this post may have been that children shouldn't be taught by idiots. Or have I missed something in the reading?
And you seem to have some interesting prejudices, only (upper) middle-class people can get a degree? I think that may be a lie...
(badgerlikespeed, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 6:19, closed)

Think
you might be right. But I also think that being a good teacher does not necessarily depend on what type of qualification you have. It's more about your enthusiasm, knowledge and passion for teaching really. Although I appreciate that sounds like a cheesy statement someone would give at an interview.

And fully agree with your point on the interesting prejudices. It still amazes me how many people think you have to pay more to go to certain universities, or that you must have come from a specific background to do so.
(Picotee, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 8:57, closed)

You could probably
make the same argument in regards to parenting.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 3:34, closed)

You probably could
Except that parents aren't paid by the state to facilitate education. Sure they have responsibility for their own children but not for entire generations of the local community. Theoretically the National Curriculum should ensure that a certain level of standards should be maintained, but of course that doesn't always cover the random questions kids come up with.

Personally I'd be more worried about faith schools, which discriminate over belief as well as having an inherent bias in religious teaching (as well as sometimes promoting dubious ethics all in the name of 'God').
(Captain Skippy pooed in a bag and left it on your doorstep, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 6:27, closed)

Primary school teachers...amazing displays of ignorance you say
it's not the lack of degrees, it's because they're female.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 15 Jul 2010, 6:53, closed)

Whereas...
Someone who has a degree in geography and a PGCE is better equipped?

I don't think so. I'm sure it's more to do with the individual than their qualifications.
( CaptainCrackerjack live trout, slow motion, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 7:31, closed)

you've visited loads of schools....
in the last 'sixth' months have you??

Physician heal thyself.
( Sallyrsm, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 7:33, closed)

good point
Not sure how that happened - but then again, I'm not a teacher so am allowed to be stupid.
(jennymnemonic, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 7:48, closed)

Daft
Primary school teachers are responsible for teaching the entire curriculum - would you have them gain a degree in every single subject, in order to teach the very basics?

I believe the qualifications requirements are higher if you wish to teach A-level - I'd not swear to it, but I'm reasonably confident you always need to be at least one level of qualification above those you're teaching.

Finally, teaching is its own skill. I've got degrees, industry qualifications, etc - and by your (lack of) reasoning this should make me a better teacher than any of teh teachers I see every day. It doesn't - because teaching, imparting knowledge, is entirely different from retaining knowledge. It's its own skill, and one I don't have - whereas the teachers I work with do. They connect with the kids, make the lessons interesting, engaging, and most of all - memorable. I'd write it down on a chalk-board and make them copy it on slates.

You can't automatically teach, simply because you know your subject - and furthermore, once one has acquired the ability to teach, it's fairly simple to bone up on the actual curriculum you'll be teaching. It's not very in-depth.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 9:13, closed)

I call bullshit
My mum went to teacher training college in the 60s and is retiring this year as a much-loved and well-respected headteacher. She still gets ex-pupils (now grown up with kids of their own) visiting her to tell her how much she changed their lives etc. etc. I'm not a teacher, though almost everyone else in my family is, but I do have a degree which by your reasoning would make me better qualified than the rest of them. I know I would be a terrible teacher, which is why I work with computers instead.

I can sort of see where you're coming from but broad generalisations like this aren't helpful.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 9:15, closed)

I second your call...
... on several grounds.

One of them is this bit:

it means they essentially stopped studying a subject at any depth at the age of 18 (or 17 here in Scotland.)

If you're in Scotland, and visiting Scottish schools, then why not say "17 (or 18, in other countries)" or just "17"? It would look nonsensical if somoene from England had written:

it means they essentially stopped studying a subject at any depth at the age of 17 (or 18 here in England.)

Just very fuzzy thinking, or perhaps a touch of the cringing Scot syndrome.

Oh, and on the less annoying but more pertinent points:
1. Primary teachers are generalists for a reason.
2. It is ridiculous to state that you have visited 200 primary schools in 6 months to the extent that you are able to infer a causation or even correlation between individual teachers' educational backgrounds and their ignorance; it is far more ridiculous still to add a further link to their general teaching ability.

In short, complete nonsense with a bit of national insecurity thrown in.
(snopesthetruth, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 12:59, closed)

It's not whether or not you've got a qualification in the subject
It's whether or not you can beat them into behaving in the classroom.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 10:22, closed)

I think it cuts both ways
and depends heavily on what you're teaching

If you're doing primary school, it's probably more important to have a detailed understanding of child development and how kids learn than it is to have, for example, an in-depth knowledge of Chemistry attained by four years' study at University.

On the other hand, if you're teaching A level Chemistry....
(SnowyTheWereRabbit the Leporid from Hell, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 11:30, closed)

Equally
I don't particularly like the idea that someone is teaching a subject just to get a golden hello, but as needs must, I suppose.
( SigmaX0 Dear Die Hard. You rock!, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 12:11, closed)

I think it's something to do with not being able to recruit teachers
as all kids are such spoilt, violent little shits, protected by simpering, idiot parents and their simpering, idiot social workers.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 15 Jul 2010, 12:21, closed)