Oh, yes, the field experience is useful. But the education classes themselves mostly are not. And in some cases, they work to decrease the usefulness of the field experience: Like, you spend so much time making the things they call “lesson plans” (fourteen pages for a one-hour lesson!), that you don’t have any time to actually plan the lessons. Or, they’ll prepare new teachers to teach high school by sending them for field experience in a second-grade classroom.
And yes, both of those are literal, exact truth from my own personal experience. I gather that the program I was in was worse than most, but such programs do exist.
Well, IMHO, of the four skills a classroom teacher needs, specific pedagogic training is probably the least important.
Sure, Cleese wasn’t trained as a teacher, but at least he’d experienced quite a few years from the other side. And had a fresh memory of that. So, sure, mediocre on formal pedagogy qualifications.
A teacher needs to know the material, and sure Cleese wasn’t a PhD in grammar or history, but, being a clearly bright guy, he could probably keep up with a class for 10 year olds.
I really have no idea whether he had the emotional maturity to be professional with a bunch of ten year olds. I think we can only defer to the judgement of the headmaster at the time.
And finally, a classroom teacher needs to be able to stand up in front of a group and, well, perform in public. I kind of think Cleese has demonstrated that he’s at least minimally competent at that.
The title of this thread reminds me of the scene in Goodbye Mr Chips (1939 version, of course - the only one worth watching) where a very young Mr Chips goes to teach his first class.
They do. I currently work in a relatively internationally renowned English public school which for obvious reasons I won’t name, and a glance down the staff list reveals very many of my colleagues to be lacking any sort of PGCE, BEd, or similar. They’ve got some lovely gowns and hoods, with their doctorates from all over the world and whatnot, but they aren’t actually qualified to teach. The fact that I am would appear to make me somewhat of a rarity here.
Well, the curious thing is, the older and more advanced the students, the less (perceived) need for pedagogic training before you’re considered qualified to teach them. A primary teachign qualification is a full bachelor’s degree. To teach in secondary school, typically a degree in any subject plus maybe a one-year Dip Ed or similar. To teach at third level, no pedagogic qualifications required at all.
Cleese was teaching at primary level where, the consensus seems to be, mastery of the subject-matter is relatively less important, and possession of education skills and qualifications more so. But he had none.
I dunno. While he has subsequently demonstrated the ability to “stand up in front of a group and, well, perform in public”, at the time of the appointment he may not have demonstrated it and, indeed, may not have had it - it’s an acquired skill. As Quercus points out, we do not know whether he had the appropriate emotional maturity for the role. All we’re really left with is that he probably knew as much English grammar and history as was likely to be covered in a classroom for 10-year olds, and I can’t really count that as an “educational skill”.
My point isn’t really about Cleese, though, but about the general practice at that time and in that environment of employing school-leavers as schoolmasters. It underlines the fact that these schools were not really about delivering a high-quality education.
In the 80s, when home computers were still new, we had special classes that taught us about them. The teachers did not know diddly, but we kids knew a fair chunk. It was clear the teachers were reading up on it days before giving the lessons.
They also didn’t know where computers would take us in the future (almost nobody could predict that really) so the stuff they did end up teaching was almost entirely impractical knowledge that I promptly forgot, and was never required in any future interaction with computers I had since.
But back in the 1950’s (when I was a ten-year-old) there was a shortage of teachers because so many had not returned from WW2. Note that the school was boys only and that all the teachers were men.
Clifton, as *“one of the original 26 English public schools” * was probably much less concerned that “tuition-paying parents would object to their kids being taught by less than fully qualified masters” than they were about finding enough teachers at a time when pupil numbers were booming.
I meant that they have no specific qualification or training in teaching. They don’t have Qualified Teacher Status (that’s an actual thing, I’m not being weird with capital letters). I was responding to an assertion that public schools would be unlikely to have teaching staff without teaching qualifications, because I actually knew the answer for a change. It doesn’t happen much on this board.
Not all of them have doctorates anyway, not that I mentioned that. I was hyperbolising the level of prettiness of their gowns for (clearly not comic) effect. Off the top of my head, of a staff of maybe 70 teachers, I can think of five with PhDs. Some of them have nothing at all, not even a bachelor’s degree.
No, a doctorate qualifies you to do research, but not to teach. That is a distinction which is still maintained on a formal level in some jurisdictions, which, in their tertiary education systems, provide for a level of academic qualification independently of (and usually after) the PhD, to serve as a qualification to teach (whereas the PhD formalises your research skills). This qualification is often called habilitation, or aggregation in some other countries. But I understand that even in countries which do not provide for a formal habilitation-level academic qualification, the post-doc years still serve a very similar function: Preparing a candidate who has, through their PhD, already demonstrated their research ability, for teaching independently, rather than under the supervision of another person to whom they serve as teaching assistant.
Really, the only evidence we have for Cleese’s teaching skills at the time is that a principal (whose job it is to evaluate such skills) thought that they were sufficient to offer him a job.
Maybe this goes some way toward explaining why – at the third-rate-or-worse English “public school”, all-male (all teachers were of “mature years”, none in their teens) which I attended at approx. the same time – I found a certain amount of cause for suspecting that the school recruited at least some of their teaching staff, from the local lunatic asylum…
We have the evidence of John Cleese’s own account in his autobiography. Reliable or not, it does give some insight into the school and his time teaching there. He spends more of the book than you might think talking about his years at school, and his time teaching.
Note that he taught at St. Peter’s prep school, not at Clifton. This is a mistake by the OP.
Cleese sums up his experience:
John Cleese is certainly not stupid. He graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in law, and was offered a job by a top firm of solicitors before he decided to go into show business rather than law.
Even while he was a student at Cambridge, St. Peter’s asked him to come back and teach again for six weeks, to fill in for another teacher who had been fired. The circumstances in which the school hired that teacher may shed some light on the school’s standards:
I appreciate the main point of this post is to make a joke, and that’s fine, but just in case a small misunderstanding lies behind it - the MCC isn’t really a ‘sports team’ in the modern sense, although it stands for “Marylebone Cricket Club”. Unlike most other cricket clubs, it doesn’t play in regular competitions - its role is more ceremonial, in that it owns Lord’s cricket ground, the home of cricket.
In the Cleese story, it wasn’t that Mr Tolson was a fan of the MCC cricket team, it was the fact that being a member of the MCC (and thus, having the tie) indicated one moved in the highest social circles and therefore no-one would think to question the honour or word of an MCC member. Except in this case, the sacked teacher had apparently taken advantage of this fact to fraudulently obtain employment (I assume). It’s very indicative of British social norms of the time, which to some extent still persist today, in various forms. We’re gradually getting better (or at least perhaps we were, but let’s not make this political).
I forgot this one. About 20 years ago our district was so short of Math and Science teachers they’d let anyone with a degree, no education training, to teach. Not sure if that is still applicable.
While not the same as the Cleese situation, it does indicate “flexibility” in regards to having teaching credentials.
(Note that this is not a backwoods sort of district. Our high school is considered one of the best in the state.)
Something like that happened to one of my brothers 40 years ago. The university invited him to teach after graduating with a math-related degree, don’t recall exactly what.
