You are undermining your own argument by adopting an emotional position that is in conflict with your reason.

I disagreed with Paulzolo's claim that primary school teachers are experts in a huge range of fields. You don't agree with it either.

I also claimed that there is nothing in the primary school curriculum that children aren't expected to be able to learn. And therefore the teachers should be able to learn it as well. We all seem to be in agreement that teachers are jolly clever people, so why are we expected to buy the story that they can't learn something the kids can?

There's no point getting pissy at me, show me where I am actually wrong like a good teacher would.

If you must get grumpy at somebody, I would suggest it should be Paul. He's the one who either implied that teachers are too stupid to understand the material, or else are ossified relics who value education so little that they aren't prepared to learn new things.

Yeah, I never bother listening to them these days. By the time I was 18 or 19, I had worked out that most of them, on most topics, were talking out of an orifice that normally has little to do with verbal communication.

The worst were things like the so-called experts that Watchdog and the like would pull in to talk about the computer industry! You'd listen to them and think, well, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about! If they can't give a remotely accurate picture of this so-called problem, how can I trust Watchdog etc. when they are talking about a topic I don't know so much about?

That is why, IMHO, a teacher has to know more about a subject than the average person in order to teach at primary level.

I agree, expert is a provocative term, which can be used by either side of this argument to prove their point.

Could you underline it for me in red biro? I'm struggling to see it.

As long as the teachers can inspire the kids and know enough to answer the vast majority of the questions then that should be enough. For those questions that the teachers cannot answer as long as they can be allowed to find out from someone else that should be enough. In Swedish primary schools they simply learn nursery rhymes and counting alphabet etc. The basics. They learn foreign nursery rhymes as well, so get started in French and English, very early. They do not start anything more advanced until they are 7. So while they may be way behind us at 7 they are level with our kids at 11. Most kids there can speak a couple of foreign languages by 16, and far better than we can.

Easily done. I hope you won't mind if the font colour changes too though.


You see all you did there was loudly express your general allegiance to teachers. I believe after all you are no more a real professor than I am IRL a waffle. You didn't bother to consider what the reasoning of my point was, you just saw disrespect for teachers and reacted in a Pavlovian fashion, resorting to standard formulaic vituperations that fall neglectfully wide of the mark.

I'm afraid I can't give you a very good grade. While in the first paragraph you did address one of my points; all you did was concede it apparently without noticing. In the second you entirely failed address the questions set and simply tried to impose a new argument on me that is utterly unrelated to my point.

If you are able to explain how teachers are ever so clever but cannot be expected to learn the same things their students can be expected to, please feel free to address this very simple question. You people are conspicuously avoiding it.

I'll have a go, pay attention at the back.

Fundamentally, as others have pointed out (I don't mind if you want to flip back through your notes at this point), teachers at this level are expected to deliver a variety of subject matter. Very few subjects enjoy a splendid isolation, and it's important that they be fitted within a framework and given context. What is biology without chemistry without physics without maths?
Therefore, given the overall lack of training teachers are given with regard to computers in general (and here, if I may deviate slightly, I was visiting a primary school last Friday and had to show a teacher how to copy and past a few files from her USB stick to a shared drive) to suddenly expect them to deliver a course on the subject of programming and such is perhaps, aiming too high.

So, taking my tangental instance above, how do we go about making sure that the teacher who was struggling with a simple copy and paste, but had otherwise given a good lesson in art, maths and acted as a counsellor for one child, a disciplinarian for another can grasp the topic and deliver it well?

Training of course.
Except the issue here is that the time and money isn't available to send teaching staff on dedicated courses for which they would lack the aptitude.
I think it's safe to say that if they had a talent and ability for computers and IT, then they would be displaying those skills.
Some people can no more be taught and made to grasp the concepts and practice of IT and programming than I can be taught how to teach Dutch or a course on draftsmanship.
If I go away and study for some extended period, then perhaps I could reach a position where I could deliver an extremely basic and elementary level. Would it be good? No.
The quality of teaching delivered does matter, because after all, OFSTED are terribly keen on the topic, and this does inform the spending locally on schools.
For some reason (and maybe this can be your homework) we tend not to ask ICT teachers to deliver subject matter like French or Art.
Can you think why?

I won't set a deadline, but I expect to see your working.

They aren't primary school teachers are they? If they were they would be expected to teach multiple subjects to a very basic level. As they aren't, they are expected to teach one to a higher level.

You've attempted to address the point this time, which is to your credit. And the interconnection between subjects could possibly be expanded into a worthy point. But algorithms are a mathematical concept as much as a programming one, so it might not work to your favour if you do. Algorithms are lists of instructions with an objective, you can teach them in cookery classes too.

If a teacher doesn't know how to cut and paste then we tax payers thank you for providing that remedial education. However it has little to do with the curriculum. If you had showed the teacher how to use Scratch to demonstrate simple algorithms for a class of 10 year olds, that would have been enough.

No great level of IT talent is required for this task. A willingness to learn a new thing is, and so is the ability to comprehend the apparently complex in terms of the simple. I believe both are reasonably to be expected of teachers.

Again, you're wildly missing the point.
A primary school teacher doesn't spend all day, every day with the same group of children.
Schools employ teachers who are rounded enough to deliver, if need be, a wide range of topics.
However, most teachers come from a background with a specification, a life before teaching - whether that be industrial or academical. So again, I ask you 'do you send an ICT teacher to deliver a French class?'
I think what you're demonstrating is a lack of practical understanding of the area.



Again, my instance was simply to illustrate that there needs to be context and frameworks for the content you're delivering to the class, with an eye to it's future development before you ever stand up in the classroom.
Your position appears to be that to teach, you simply need a few GCSEs relevant to the material. On the most simplistic level, yes you're correct, and I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
Can you think why it might be that the entry qualifications for a teaching qualification are significantly higher than GCSE level?



Again, you've skated over the surface of what's written without taking on board what's been said.
This happenstance was mentioned to simply illustrate that many teachers beyond NQT level do not have the relevant skills to teach ICT with any level of competence. This does not make them bad teachers or terrible, stupid people.
The other point I made was that there is a distinct lack of money and time to train the staff to do the job, which is a problem as this government are expecting great things without equipping the workforce to produce it.

These moving targets only make the topic even more absurd.
If various teachers have their own subjects then...
A, that demonstrates even further that mister Zolo's claim of wide ranging expertise was nonsense as teachers don't even cover all that stuff he said they did. So you are again on my side here.
B, it is not unreasonable to expect such teachers to be well grounded in all the subjects they teach; there are fewer of these subjects than I was led to believe, and therefore a certain degree of specialization must be factored in.

If ICT is part of a teacher's niche, they should be willing to take on any subject matter within it that extends their pupils' knowledge and challenges their budding intellects. Assuming that is that we take the view that schools exist primarily for the benefit of the pupils.



You are misunderstanding my point entirely then.

To teach one needs two sets of complementary skills as far as I can see. One is the general ability to engage the interest of children in subject matter to be inserted later. This is accompanied by all those soft skills such as discipline and pupil evaluation etc.
The other is enough understanding of the subject matter to make use of the former.

I remain unimpressed if any teacher claims they should ever be excused the secondary duty. A GCSE level understanding of history is easily enough to meet the requirements for teaching primary school children that subject. It is clearly not the case that it is the only knowledge a teacher would require, but it is the only history knowledge they would need if they are teaching to a much lower level than GCSE, which is what primary school teachers do.



Is this a change to the existing ICT curriculum, which will be taught by the existing ICT teachers, or is ICT a whole new subject in primary school?
Teachers who don't have the skills to teach the subject already shouldn't be.
Teachers who already teach it surely ought to be able to adjust given, I don't know, shall we say a whole year in which to master primary school algorithms? Something that kids are expected to learn in weeks.

Okay, I'm convinced. You are Michael Gove and I claim my five pounds.

I'm not moving the targets, I'm attempting to illustrate why getting many primary teachers to teach an area that they're not comfortable with and sometimes haven't even been given the training to make their own work flow easier might not be a great idea.

Paul's illustrative example is that at primary level, a class about maths may end up cutting across other areas, which they're expected to be of a sufficient level of familiarity to deal with.
I can use a spanner to put a nail in place, but a hammer will do the job rather better.



How you've arrived at these points escapes me. I support Paul's assertion that a primary teacher needs to have a good, wide level of knowledge across many different subjects. This is not contrary to anything I've written so far.
As for your second point, I feel you would be well served to spend some time actually speaking with teachers or volunteering in a class, as in fact I have to assume that presently you are speaking from an position where you believe reasoning with a handful of facts can somehow be better than the combined experience of people who do the job.




Whether you're impressed or not by a teachers claims is not at question, and frankly doesn't matter. It doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Your attempting to reduce the issue in a marvellously simplistic way - I can only assume you work at a junior level in local council or government, such is your failure to take on board the experiences of the people who actually do the job.
Primary teachers do a lot more than merely:
Enter room.
Stand in front of class.
Insert knowledge into child.
Leave.

You asked of that I "explain how teachers are ever so clever but cannot be expected to learn the same things their students can be expected to, please feel free to address this very simple question."
I'll go out on a limb here, and assume that you've collected a bit of paper that lets you put letters after your name.
An institution has deemed the work you performed over a period of time as being satisfactory enough to give you a certificate. Well done.
Now, as all teachers are required to hold a degree, let's safely assume that they are indeed bright enough to teach it - so long as certain things are put into place for them first.

For some, this is going to be a LOT of training in computers. That's going to take time, and money. A lot of teaching has nothing at all to do with computers, but rather more to do with concepts like literacy, mathematics, geography.
So perhaps teachers that have been doing the job for a period of time from before we thought computers were the last word in everything, they might not share the belief that algorithms in a computer based framework are relevant to their teaching.
Some will be fine with it, and get on with it.

What you are doing is loading an already overstretched system with another requirement which is frankly fatuous when we're struggling with English and Maths.

Now, your certificate came at the expense of time and money. Any training involves cost both financially and in time. We know that the education system isn't well financed, nor are there an abundance of hours in the days when teachers are sat doing nothing.
Their work is scrutinised to a degree I don't believe you see anywhere else in industry, which naturally has a successive cost to their working day.

So, hopefully, I've now nailed my colours to the mast, and answered your question (again).

Q: "explain how teachers are ever so clever but cannot be expected to learn the same things their students can be expected to, please feel free to address this very simple question."
A: They are clever, but they're an oversubscribed resource as it stands, and it will require investment in time and money, and many will justifiably question it's value in a time when we can't even get Maths & English right and there are more 'troubled' children than ever taking up teaching time as it it.

Well then it's no longer up to me to answer why the ICT teacher doesn't teach French. You are arguing both that they can and they can't.
Agree with yourself first and then we'll see what the target is.

Either the teachers specialize or they are generalists. They have expertise in a limited number of subjects or in all. Just make your mind up please.

I can tell you what is taught in primary education at the moment as ICT. It's not programming, but I will say that the scheme my wife introduced and tailored for her school does indeed include using Scratch. I'll also add that she was taken out of normal classroom duties to do this.

ICT in her school now included making animations (using Scratch), a newspaper, a video,l email and using Google. However, as far as a necessity in the curriculum, the notion of programming was not addressed, and this is because at the time it was not needed. The main thrust of ICT is basically mouse shuffling and Microsoft products. If I told you that when I was at school learning computers (this was 1984/5), those of us who were programming were told to book computer time and go. The rest of them were taught word processing and databases.

I think we need to look at ourselves for a moment, because I know that the people on this forum fall into a small, specialist bracket, and knowing where we are in the context of a wider society is important.

We are all, in some way, involved with computers to a level that is higher than the national average. Some use them for design work, some for scripting, coding, writing software. Some even build their own applications and make money from the. It is very, very easy to assume that everyone else has those skills, or even has the aptitude to gain them. It's a pit that can be fallen into all too easily.

Now, if we were to take the notion of history as a subject that a primary teacher may be required to teach, we can easily assume that that person has had some kind of exposure to the subject. It will have been taught in school, it's on TV, maybe it's been taken as far as GCE or GCSE; maybe further. The thing is that it's a subject that we can all relate to. So dropping the need to teach it on someone who may not have done no more than read Sellars and Yateman since leaving school is reasonable. It's a familiar subject.

However, programming and associated topics is not something that everyone is exposed to. It's an alien subject, with a lot of odd, peculiar abstract concepts. There is no social saturation, no constant exposure. Software engineering is not a normal subject. I have yet to see a Sunday evening TV programme that has done for that subject that Time Team did for history. Maybe Tony Robinson can address this now he's out of a job.

The thing that is being missed here is not that it's hard, but that it is so different that it's not something that anyone can just be parachuted into a classroom to teach. I would say that you need to wait a generation for that to kick in.

So, what is needed? Training. Support. Stuff that will point your erstwhile teacher in the right direction, and give them the confidence to teach the subject to an acceptable level. Right now, and I say "right now" as I am assuming that that will be addressed by the usual suspects, there's nothing available.

However, cash is tight - education is being squeezed. I really hope there will be budget sace for introducing teachers to the subject and giving them what they need. If not, then it's a failing that goes beyond the chalk face.

No, I'm not.
I'm arguing that if you have a generalist teacher with a background or degree in languages, it makes sense to get them to teach the language stuff. They'll be stronger doing that than the maths class, which they are also competent enough to teach.

Like children, there is no cookie cutter teacher. There are simply people qualified to have your child's education placed in their care.



Your reliance on a black or white model of teaching is your failing here.
Many do have competence in a limited number of subjects and are expected to teach all. Some are very good in one area, and the school nudges their time into the appropriate areas.
No two schools and their group of teaching staff are the same.

Well then only the ones who are competent to teach this upgraded ICT syllabus will be asked to. And the ones who can't cut and paste won't be.

After all...
For some reason (and maybe this can be your homework) we tend not to ask French teachers to deliver subject matter like ICT or Advanced Cannibalism
Can you think why?