An oath on British Values?

@ Ana Because a Postgraduate Certificate in Education isn't subject or key stage specific.

I can't teach PE or practical subjects, because I haven't done the Health and Safety courses for insurance purposes, but a state school teacher's contract states that he/she can be required to teach anything else. Obviously, a school would rather that teachers are qualified to teach subjects and are happy to do so, but I've taught all sorts in the past to plug holes in the timetable. With budget cuts and increasing difficulty in finding teachers in some subjects, there is a frightening number of teachers who have no qualifications in the subjects they're required to teach.

@roses

No, I'm not going to do it. I've found other ways of making money, using the qualifications and skills I already have.

Well, I'm glad you're making money somehow, daphnedill, I had been under the impression you were having to live off your savings.

(Not that it's any of my business of course, but you did mention it)

I do, because I don't make enough money to live. I'm always on the look out to earn more.

(Sorry! This is off topic.)

In Scotland Higher English has always been a requirement for PGCE. Also to teach any subject to Higher level (or current equivalent) a teacher must have studied that subject at degree level.
I was horrified, when working in educational admin in London to discover that teachers could teach a subject in which they had only an o level qualification.

There are all sorts of anomalies in the area of qualifications.
I was able to be a headteacher in a primary school with my MA Ed (and I have a specialist teaching qualification in Early Years Education) but I was not able to be an assessor for NVQ students training in my school as Nursery Assistants because I had not done the course myself. The assessors had less experience than me and my EY staff but did have an NVQ Level 3 (= to 2 A levels).

p.s I could, and did, assess teachers!

They don't even have to have O level, mcem. The PGCE means that a teacher is technically qualified to teach any subject at either primary or secondary level.

For example, many science teachers are required integrated/balanced science, so have to teach biology, physics and chemistry. In England, there is a desperate shortage of physics teachers with A level and few with a degree. Consequently, biology teachers are usually required to teach physics. Many science teachers who did O levels before 1988 do not have a physics qualification. Maths is similar. There are thousands of maths teachers, who don't have more than O level/GCSE maths. Not only that, but there is an increasing number of TAs, unqualified teachers and cover supervisors taking full classes. Technically, it's legal if the headteacher is satisfied that the people are competent. Budget cuts sometimes mean that headteachers kid themselves that people are competent.

During my career, I've been timetabled to teach maths, science, history, English, Spanish, social care, health education in addition to the subjects in which I have a degree. I did the best I could, but I'm sure I was never as good as a properly trained teacher in those subjects.

Don't you now need GCSE English and Maths or equivalent to go on a PGCE course to become a teacher?
When I was training, it was the maths that some students had problems with, not the English.

All teachers now have to have GCSE maths and English C or above (or current equivalent!)

dd That most certainly is not the case north of the border. In secondary education a teacher may well be asked to supervise a class during a free period due to the absence of a colleague but would not be timetabled long-term to do so.

I was timetabled to teach some of those subjects, but only in years 7 and 8. My degree was Education anyway, and we studied middle school level science and humanities. So I actually quite enjoyed teaching those classes.

Teachers in England and Wales have to have GCSE (or equivalent) maths, English and a science subject, which I do. Nevertheless, I don't regard that GCSE level is adequate to teach any of those subjects at secondary level. My degree is in French and German (and I have history and general studies A level), so when I did my PGCE, I concentrated on methodology for teaching foreign languages and I did humanities methodology as an extra. I know from evaluating my own practice that I could teach those subjects much more confidently and competently than the other subjects I've taught.

Sorry! This is way off topic.

To bring us slightly back on topic in my experience the training and preparation /qualificatons for primary teaching is much better in some other countries. It is a more academic approach. They really focus on pedagogy, child development and psychology far more than happens in UK which is now a more narrow "skills training" than a professional /academic route. I suspect that also contributes to the high fall out rate of young teachers.

I would say the same about secondary teaching. The government has deliberately set out to undermine university education departments, so teaching has become a 'colour by numbers' job.

One of the huge strengths of the Finnish school system is that teachers are all educated to masters level. Postgraduate education lasts two years and is highly competitive, followed by a time as a newly qualified teacher with mentoring/support.

Finnish teachers aren't paid significantly more than British teachers, but the job is more satisfying.

I can't contribute to this thread except to say I am an admirer of the Finnish education system

I'm going to try and bring this back on topic, because I realise it's mainly my fault it's strayed.

Teacher training is a political matter, because the way teachers are trained has an influence on British values.

In autocratic countries, teaching is highly prescripted and that rubs off on the kind of citizens children become. British education has historically excelled at being 'liberal' - educating young people to think for themselves, but more in grammar schools and for the more able. It has not done so well at vocational/practical education.

I doubt if people will ever agree about the purpose of education, but there is some evidence that neither teachers nor pupils are being allowed to think for themselves. Inevitably, there will be an effect on the consensus regarding 'British values'.

So we're back to deciding what exactly British values are.