GCSE requirements for teaching are stupid

OP

Original post by KirstinTMH

They’re not that much harder, we were doing foundation paper questions as we went through the topics and were passing in year 8 at my school, and it’s a pretty poor public school. The fact that you called GCSEs pointless shows you don’t want any real world advice.

If you are looking things up in your training you will fail your education degree. It’s as simple as that. Your excuse doesn’t work.

Well they must be different from mine then. There’s been other students saying that the questions were so hard, not even our teachers could do them. And I remember my teachers struggling to help with some questions, especially towards the end of the paper.

That’s the whole point though? Research? If you don’t look things up, you don’t learn..

It’s not an ‘excuse’ it’s an opinion on why I think the requirements are stupid and the GCSE content is over the top. Accept my opinion.

Reply 22

Original post by lucyjane1233

I don’t understand why you need passes in GCSE English, maths and biology/ science to be a primary school teacher, especially when teaching the earlier years. Like 4 year olds aren’t gonna be finding the volume of a prism or doing algebra are they? They don’t even accept functional skills as an alternative when it’s actually more relevant and still shows the same skill/ knowledge. I mean, I sort of understand English, but maths and science- no.. just no

The rules for teaching is that you need go have the qualifications above the level you want to teach (just what ive been told from my friends whoa re studying to become teachers). The lowest formal qualifications are GCSE's. Plus I was doing algebra in year 6 and finding volumes of 3D shapes like prisms.

Reply 23

username5835980

18

Original post by lucyjane1233

Well they must be different from mine then. There’s been other students saying that the questions were so hard, not even our teachers could do them. And I remember my teachers struggling to help with some questions, especially towards the end of the paper.

Are you talking about GCSE Maths here?? If your maths teacher can't do GCSE maths that's a serious concern, it's pretty simple.

Reply 24

OP

Original post by rose.clm

Are you talking about GCSE Maths here?? If your maths teacher can't do GCSE maths that's a serious concern, it's pretty simple.

You can be good at maths but not good at exams or whatever.. doesn’t mean you’re stupid and can’t teach basic maths to 4 year olds..

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 25

Original post by lucyjane1233

You can be good at maths but not good at exams or whatever.. doesn’t mean you’re stupid and can’t teach basic maths to 4 year olds..

Okay but primary school isn't just 4 year olds. Its up to the age of 11 and there is a good chance you will have some very very bright students who will need to be challenged in lessons

Reply 26

OP

Original post by flamingolover

The rules for teaching is that you need go have the qualifications above the level you want to teach (just what ive been told from my friends whoa re studying to become teachers). The lowest formal qualifications are GCSE's. Plus I was doing algebra in year 6 and finding volumes of 3D shapes like prisms.

Surely for early years that would be below level 2/ gcse pass though

Reply 27

OP

Original post by flamingolover

Okay but primary school isn't just 4 year olds. Its up to the age of 11 and there is a good chance you will have some very very bright students who will need to be challenged in lessons

But you can specialise in younger or older years and specialise in certain subjects. Teachers won’t be amazing at every subject

Reply 28

Original post by lucyjane1233

Surely for early years that would be below level 2/ gcse pass though

Yes but if you are training to be primary school teacher you have to be qualified to teach all ages of primary school which is up to age 11

Reply 29

Original post by lucyjane1233

But you can specialise in younger or older years and specialise in certain subjects. Teachers won’t be amazing at every subject

Yes but you still need to be able to teach everything at a decent level. A lot of primary schools are small so you will be required to teach everything. My primary school had 1 teacher per classroom which was 2 year groups so that teacher had to be able to teach everything. Yes they were suited for the age group but people cant be sure where you will end up when you begin training so you need the basic skills for everything

Reply 30

OP

Original post by flamingolover

Yes but you still need to be able to teach everything at a decent level. A lot of primary schools are small so you will be required to teach everything. My primary school had 1 teacher per classroom which was 2 year groups so that teacher had to be able to teach everything. Yes they were suited for the age group but people cant be sure where you will end up when you begin training so you need the basic skills for everything

But then that would mean having a gcse in all of the primary subjects- geography, pe, art, music.. literally all of them but they don’t

Reply 31

Original post by lucyjane1233

But then that would mean having a gcse in all of the primary subjects- geography, pe, art, music.. literally all of them but they don’t

I think geography should be but oh well. It's because maths, English and science are considered core subjects and they are setting students up for success alter down the road. If your teacher sets good foundations in primary school students are more likely to perform better later.

Reply 32

username5319484

19

While being more educated doesn't necessarily make someone better at teaching, it should be expected for a teacher to understand the basics, especially GCSE content. Teachers need to be able to push students to achieve their potential; that includes year 6's who can tackle more advanced content than their peers.

Reply 33

1secondsofvamps

If you don't understand the importance of having the basics maths, english and science gcse, then are you really suited to be a teacher...I think not.

I'm a primary school teacher myself.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 34

Callicious

Original post by lucyjane1233

Not 4 year olds because I hope they don’t use mobile phones..
My point is, teachers don’t know everything with or without a gcse. There are teachers with A*s and teachers with only Cs, that doesn’t mean one teacher is better than the other. I have an English degree, that doesn’t mean I know everything about English as a subject..

My brother gave his daughter (5) a phone and she's quite good at using Google... sadly. Poor thing is going to have horrible arching back and eyes later in life.

Original post by lucyjane1233

Well they must be different from mine then. There’s been other students saying that the questions were so hard, not even our teachers could do them. And I remember my teachers struggling to help with some questions, especially towards the end of the paper.

That’s the whole point though? Research? If you don’t look things up, you don’t learn..

It’s not an ‘excuse’ it’s an opinion on why I think the requirements are stupid and the GCSE content is over the top. Accept my opinion.

General rule in any sort of education- to teach something, you have to be a degree above. Teach a 5 year old? Have GCSE. Teach GCSE? A-level+. Teach A-level? Undergrad minimum. Teach undergrad? Postgrad. Teach a postgrad? More senior/PhD/etc.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 35

OP

Original post by 1secondsofvamps

If you don't understand the importance of having the basics maths, english and science gcse, then are you really suited to be a teacher...I think not.

I'm a primary school teacher myself.

I do understand the concept of having them at a basic level, but gcse is not basic or it wouldn’t take 2 years to learn

Reply 36

KirstinTMH

Original post by lucyjane1233

Well they must be different from mine then. There’s been other students saying that the questions were so hard, not even our teachers could do them. And I remember my teachers struggling to help with some questions, especially towards the end of the paper.

That’s the whole point though? Research? If you don’t look things up, you don’t learn..

It’s not an ‘excuse’ it’s an opinion on why I think the requirements are stupid and the GCSE content is over the top. Accept my opinion.

I’m sorry but as everyone else has said, it’s not a good opinion. You have to have a higher qualification to teach lower and if you don’t pass the core GCSE subjects then you have no qualification just like the students. Looking things up is okay but not in the class. You need to be able to answer questions on the spot. I won’t just “accept” your opinion as you’re not qualified to make the criteria. You need a pass in core GCSEs to study anything at any uni, including education and become a teacher.

In training and observation you will get questions and they’ll expect you to able to answer. The senior staff themselves will ask you questions in what you’re teaching to test you, and if you can’t apply the knowledge you should have to answer them then you will fail. This is even the same at special needs primary schools, which I have worked in as a TA before uni.

Reply 37

Muttley79

20

Original post by lucyjane1233

But you can specialise in younger or older years and specialise in certain subjects. Teachers won’t be amazing at every subject

The difference is that Maths and English are taught every day but other subjects maybe once a week. With Sports funding schools often bring in experts from outside for PE.

How did you get into uni without a Maths GCSE - that's shocking tbh.

As I said, resit your GCSEs - they are basic to a good education.

Reply 38

Mesopotamian…

21

Original post by lucyjane1233

I do understand the concept of having them at a basic level, but gcse is not basic or it wouldn’t take 2 years to learn

It requires 2 years in most schools to complete GCSEs because most students are juggling 7,8 or 9 other subjects at the same time. You could easily do a single subject GCSE within a year or less.

My school (state school) taught GCSE topics from year 7 onwards which just demonstrates that GCSE isn’t advanced at all and passes should be a requirement for teachers. I sat my first GCSE in year 9.

Personally, if I found out the school I could possibly be sending my child to had teachers who hadn’t even passed their maths, English and science GCSEs, I’d be running a mile in the opposite direction.

I would even go so far to argue that having the pass mark at 4 is too low a standard.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 39

OP