tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post57493471304638307..comments2023-10-30T11:46:43.284+00:00Comments on Musings of the Cosmic Calamari: Those That Require SchoolingSpaceSquidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09760939592584995876noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-28039590956409574262010-01-20T09:25:35.747+00:002010-01-20T09:25:35.747+00:00I'm not worried about primary school teachers ...I'm not worried about primary school teachers being a few steps ahead of primary school kids. I'm concerned that with barely a C in GCSE (or equivalent) English and Maths, a teacher can't properly understand learning and teaching methods. It might be better put that I don't think two Cs is enough to truly understand and pass a PGCE or similar training. I don't like to think that reports about learning or methods are being written or read in C level English or that methods are being evaluated with C level maths or science. If teachers are to teach modern languages properly to primary school teachers, they absolutely have to be *currently* above a GCSE C in that language.<br /><br />As for the degree, I have rarely found that the best scientists make the best science teachers. Teaching is a skill a degree level doesn't indicate. However an above average level of basic education is very important in training and being the best teacher possible.Chemiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05608504177967398816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-46404724957595206292010-01-19T09:54:23.807+00:002010-01-19T09:54:23.807+00:00But if you have a C at GCSE (especially back in th...But if you have a C at GCSE (especially back in the day when that was relatively less due to drilling and more due to understanding) then you can do everything a primary child needs to know and a lot more. And as long as you're at least two steps ahead of them, you've got no problem. I can explain all manner of basic Psychology issues to people even if it's stuff I barely touched on at degree level, because I understand it more than them, and just enough to get it right.<br /><br />Similarly if you have a third in maths, and suck at hydrodynamics (all my engineering friends hated that!), that isn't going to impair your ability to teach 17 year olds to integrate.<br /><br />I agree with R's main point: that solving the problems in teaching primarily requires taking action to improve teacher's stress levels, which would also require less neuroses about paperwork, less emphasis on league tables and more on trusting teachers to produce rounded students. Which Cameron will never suggest because it was his political grandmother who decided we couldn't trust teachers in the first place...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-12321430855997448832010-01-18T16:08:16.378+00:002010-01-18T16:08:16.378+00:00Good point that the better qualified are more like...Good point that the better qualified are more likely to leave the profession. <br /><br />But shockingly (even to me) I do agree with the policy that primary school teachers should have higher than a C in GCSE (or equivalent) in English and Maths. I'm appalled they could be teachers with just a C.Chemiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05608504177967398816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-27774773243437623062010-01-18T14:47:55.605+00:002010-01-18T14:47:55.605+00:00Oops. That's me being careless. I realised i...Oops. That's me being careless. I realised it was a quote, but I figured using it so many times implied they were consciously putting the boot in.<br /><br />Having re-read the article, you're quite right, the quote comes from the Tories themselves, which makes hammering it home entirely reasonable.<br /><br />I'd agree entirely that there are a narrow range of situations in which having a good degree is useful in terms of explaining various pieces of mathematics, most particularly the connections between topics. On the other hand, that can actually be a double-edged sword. Once you get to the point that you can see how the subject fits together, it can actually become <i>harder</i> to explain things to children, because you can't see things in isolation like they do.<br /><br />An obvious example of this involves an argument I had when quite young about 1 not being a prime number. Having been told a prime can only be divided by 1 and itself, I suggested that 1 most certainly qualified, it was simply a technicality that 1 <i>is</i> itself in this case. Rather than tell me that I should think of a prime number as having exactly two factors, my teacher (presumably because of how well I tended to do in maths otherwise) told me about prime factorisation, and how if 1 was a prime number, then unique prime factorisations would no longer be possible.<br /><br />That makes sense to me now. At the time, though, I couldn't see a single reason why I should care. 1 was either prime or it wasn't; I saw no earthly reason why "it helps elsewhere" should be considered a valid reason for excluding it from the list of primes.<br /><br />Of course, for evidence that being too comfortable in one's subject makes people worse at answering questions, simply see pretty much 99% of all academics.SpaceSquidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760939592584995876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4505812700967330296.post-54354166158975726402010-01-18T14:19:09.063+00:002010-01-18T14:19:09.063+00:00To be fair to the Guardian it's a quote, not a...To be fair to the Guardian it's a quote, not a charge. The Tories themselves are selling the plan as brazenly elitist.<br /><br />I can see how academic achievement might be important in the sense that the more comfortable you are with a subject, the better equipped you are to answer students' questions about it. But above a certain threshold I agree it's insignificant compared to the level of your general teaching skills.Tomskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04755416032777655782noreply@blogger.com