Read on Twitter
At some point we will need to talk about degrees and QTS 1/
It is pretty much creedal orthodoxy to say teachers need degrees. This is for various reasons, but ultimately probably because we have tacitly accepted that having a degree confers an element of subject specialism 2/
That assumption is beginning to fall apart with some of the more thoughtful thinking that has gone on around curriculum 3/
In short, degrees don't necessarily confer curriculum knowledge, & therefore don't necessarily guarantee subject specialism, in sense of being prepared to deliver a curriculum. Can easily go through degree & never study much of anything that tends to be on a school curriculum 4/
Even where there is overlap between curriculum content and degree content, the distance between possessing knowledge and being able to effectively confer it remains a big one - whilst knowledge is essential for informed development of skills, it is not enough on its own 5/
In other words, *even if* your degree did give the knowledge required for curriculum, there is still a world of difference between knowing content and knowing how best to sequence it, for example, according to the tacit assumptions and requirements of that domain 6/
Meaning demanding a degree is at very best hit and miss, certainly if the assumption is it develops one's knowledge the better to deliver a curriculum. Which naturally leads to the question: what is the real purpose of the degree? 7/
Lots of reasons for this I think. In first instance, often breaks down into statement of desirability of generic skills – eg/ if someone is ‘trained historian’ (tbh this vastly overplays what a degree actually does) they presumably have requisite skills to teach history well 8/
Or at very least have enough to know what history is all about, to see it from the inside, so to speak. This might be true to a degree, but it’s not sufficient – we’ve spent an age establishing that teaching is as much about knowledge as skills to give up on that now 9/
The second argument is often made indirectly – a degree gives a kind of quality assurance, and someone who has been able to come through an academic pathway successfully is best placed to work within that pathway 10/
Leave aside whether degree courses still do this – which is a legitimate question amidst lowering entry requirements, grade inflation, and ‘massification’ of higher education – it is probably still a reasonable, if not absolute, assumption 11/
But this means a degree is more social-signifier, or perhaps 'character-signifier' – a blunt tool for ensuring the *kind of people* who teach are kind of people who are or have been successful within education more generally. It provides no more concrete assurance than that 12/
May be something in this, but it’s clearly not absolute; workplace training and external experience could just as easily provide same assurances, sometimes more effectively so, and it prioritises a very narrow pathway which also has a cultural edge 13/
*As an extended point, it does make one question the focus (and money) that has gone on to getting graduates from RG universities, or with top class degrees, into teaching 14/
Since the content doesn’t necessarily overlap, and since the job is as much (more?) about content than skills, then one can reasonably assume this focus is either about presumed character-signifier, or *gulp* an element of elitism 15/
I don’t say that in a bad way – nothing wrong with desiring the best – and there is prestige that comes with it. As such, there is an an internal logic to it (though one can see why some scent a sort of snobbery and are sceptical of claim it’s about teaching quality per se) 16/
Not convinced it’s about snobbery (these schemes are ultimately benign) but wonder if routes like TeachFirst and similar (often so metropolis-focused) are about trying to get the dynamic, transient, sharp-suited high-flyers in who would otherwise go & be successful elsewhere 17/
And with this (the assumption goes) we bring into teaching the drive, standards and achievement that goes with these high-flyers – hence the rhetoric/brag about getting them into leadership within just a few years 18/
Imho this is ultimately cultural, not necessarily a bad thing, but it does create an understandable ripple amongst the body as a whole – and besides, the system doesn't rely primarily on these types, but more on the 'ordinary' teach (in a good way!) – https://michaelmerrick.me/2015/09/05/the-ordinary-teacher/ 19/
The third aspect is possibly practical – one assumes someone those who have come through an admin-heavy, bureaucratic system will be best prepared to work in an admin-heavy, bureaucratic system 20/
Tbh retention rates put lie to that, and anyway a healthy scepticism about the admin-heavy system is re-emerging - so not sure one can chart teaching excellence with administrative capacity except within narrow (& surely contestable) definition of professional responsibility 21/
The fourth aspect is probably political – we have spent a generation telling everyone they must go to university, and in response turned more and more professions into graduate pathways 22/
I think this has been problematic, and had some pretty undesirable social and cultural consequences, but in this sense there is a bit of job protectionism going on which the system kind of necessitates (why take on all that debt if you didn’t have to?) 23/
There is also an element of prestige, of social status – making a profession a graduate pathway sends a signal about its place within society, the esteem in which its adherent are held, and justifies the money that goes into it 24/
This is understandable, though also thinks it does a lot of heavy pulling in place of improved industrial relations and recruitment drives 25/
So of course we default to insisting upon a degree – it ticks the character-signifier box, it ticks the box whistling to the electorate that you’re raising standards, and it acts as a useful filter for sifting through those who would presumably perform well within the system 26/
These might well offer a compelling case for wanting degrees at a system-wide level, but... not convinced any/all are sufficient for suggesting they are necessary. And wonder if insisting otherwise it is doing a better job at locking out talent than protecting standards. 27/
Or perhaps to put it more provocatively, are we sure a 2:2 degree in a non-curriculum subject is really a better foundation for entry into teaching than (say) the life experience and accumulated skills of someone who took a non-graduate pathway?
Or again, if we insist every child can learn with the right effort and support, a sort of educational blank slate-ism, then why do we construct entrance barriers to keep out people who, with the right effort and support, could be learning on the job?
For me it's a mix of all those things outlined above - character signifier, grad protectionism and political expediency.
