Should our Primary School teachers be subject specialists?

The subjects that are typically taught by specialist teachers are music, art and phys ed. In my experience these “specialists” can be absolutely hopeless. In grade 5 I went from a school where half the kids learned an instrument and everyone learned Kodaly to one where nobody learned any music at all even though it was a bigger school and could afford a dedicated music teacher.

So, yeah it’s not about getting the teacher up to scratch on a particular subject, it’s just about making sure they have high expectations of their kids, come prepared and do their jobs well.

Also have you seen primary school classes? Teachers write themselves a timetable and lesson plan but if the kids are too tired to do maths, for example, they change it up and pull out the story books instead and circle back to maths later on or do extra the next day. It’s only in high school that we expect kids to be, like adults, ready for whatever they are supposed to be doing, fitting the kids in to the system instead of keeping the system flexible to the kids’ needs.

Kelly74 said :

The most inspiring teachers I had and for my kids were not specialists but had led rich and interesting lives. They worked in other occupations and had traveled or done things other than stand in front of a class and so unlike the garden variety career teacher they could answer a kid when they asked, “how will I need this in the real world?”

Absolutely. I had precious few such teachers, but the ones I did have were interesting and taught in a practical and compelling manner.

Kelly74 said :

The most inspiring teachers I had and for my kids were not specialists but had led rich and interesting lives. They worked in other occupations and had traveled or done things other than stand in front of a class and so unlike the garden variety career teacher they could answer a kid when they asked, “how will I need this in the real world?”

You have nailed it.
If my French & Latin teacher explained to me when I was in high school the practicalities of learning and using a foreign language I would have embraced it.
Then again, it’s hard to blame the teacher because 50 years ago there were few language teachers who had travelled outside Australia themselves and fewer native foreign language teachers in Australia.
It’s all different now with language teachers accompanying the students on trips overseas and many of those students learn the language/s and enrich their lives and those of others they meet. Also, there are many native language speakers on exchange in Australia.

The most inspiring teachers I had and for my kids were not specialists but had led rich and interesting lives. They worked in other occupations and had traveled or done things other than stand in front of a class and so unlike the garden variety career teacher they could answer a kid when they asked, “how will I need this in the real world?”

It would be handy to have a specialist discipline teacher like Coach Buzzcut in every school.
Some teachers wouldn’t like it perhaps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJxRe_BEQ4

housebound said :

The specialisation for that age is in early childhood education. If you’ve encountered an early childhood kindy teacher vs a ‘normal’ primary school teacher, you’ll instantly see the difference (unless of course your normal teacher has developed skills in early childhood from years of teaching …).

Having put 3 kids through the ACT public school system, I generally have nothing but praise and respect for the teachers. It is a tough gig. Much is expected of our teachers – and child care workers too.

So, by using more “specialised” subject matter teachers, would that mean that primary school teachers would rotate through classes to teach their specialist subject ? If so, is that compatible with creating a broad, interconnected base of knowledge in young students on which specific interests/abilities are encouraged. Those can then become more specialised at College and then further Uni.

Also, just because a teacher is a “specialist”, I wouldn’t think that necessarily means that they would be a more effective teacher. It’s as much about the individual teacher as it is about their passion for a particular subject I think.

Its an interesting topic – I wonder what the practice is in country’s with high performing education systems (not that Australia’s isn’t but there must always be room for improvement) ?

“exactly – for children at the age of primary school [and of course far beyond] the primary (pun not intended. really) aim of their teacher/s should be to instill both a desire and love for learning and a pathway for that desire to be attained.
we should be instilling children with fuel to their flame of natural and un-prejudiced curiosity. of course, specific skills in a discipline will be a bonus, but i don’t think it should be the core.”

Okay I misunderstood this. I interpreted that writing to mean, as that the teacher should be instilling in the children “a desire and love for learning and a pathway for that desire to be attained.” And that specific skills in the children are a bonus. In other words it isn’t as important for the children to learn maths, English, etc, as it is for them to have a “flame of natural and un-prejudiced curiosity”. Showing a skill in maths, English and other subjects was a bonus, but not the core.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Maya123 said :

astrojax said :

housebound said :

The specialisation for that age is in early childhood education. If you’ve encountered an early childhood kindy teacher vs a ‘normal’ primary school teacher, you’ll instantly see the difference (unless of course your normal teacher has developed skills in early childhood from years of teaching …).

exactly – for children at the age of primary school [and of course far beyond] the primary (pun not intended. really) aim of their teacher/s should be to instill both a desire and love for learning and a pathway for that desire to be attained.

we should be instilling children with fuel to their flame of natural and un-prejudiced curiosity. of course, specific skills in a discipline will be a bonus, but i don’t think it should be the core.

“specific skills in a discipline will be a bonus, but i don’t think it should be the core.”
So as long as the children have “un-prejudiced curiosity” (whatever that is), being able to do maths and write well isn’t that important? I found when I was at school my interest in learning increased when I was actually able to do/understand the maths, etc first. I would have thought it preferable that children learn to do and understand the basics like maths, English, etc. Then when they have success and can understand the basics they are likely to be more enthused and curious as to where that might lead. Otherwise they are likely to switch off.

But specialists in disciplines such as maths/english/etc have far more skills in an area than coiuld ever hope to be taught to primary school aged kids. It is why specialist teachers don’t really exist in primary schools, but do come in in high school.

Teachers choose to specialise at university, those specialties being a range of subjects taught at high school, as well as the speciality “early childhood education”. The reason for this is that it is most definitely a specialised skill to be able to engage a cohort of young children min education as a whole. These specialists take on the responsibility of a childs education for an entire year of their school life, forminga realtionship and understanding of how their students learn best.

There should not be anything, subject matter wise, at a primary school level that someone who has done a teaching degree of any format should not be capable of teaching. There is however, a lot more to teaching and engaging little kids than just an indepth knowledge of the subject. As someone mentioned earlier on, it is as much psychological as anything, understanding the dynamics of a cohort of young children, the different methods of instilling the same knowledge in children who learn best in varying ways and an understanding that at that age, there will be a wide variety of aptitudes across most subjects.

indeed, and to respond more specifically to maya123, as this response notes, trained teachers should be able teach anything required to this age cohort – so including reading writing and ‘rithmatic. just as adults with a reasonable grasp of adult language skills can learn other skills to then teach english as a second language – primary school teachers teach it as a first (or second, shan’t deny that often happens)

in a word? no.

The scheduling, movement of these teachers and just plain logistic nightmare that this idea generates instantly rules it out. It’s enough to have specialists that provide release to the classroom teacher and provide their own program (library, PE, Arts, LOTE for example).

Anyone that has spent more than a day in a primary classroom knows that this idea is not feasible.

Maya123 said :

astrojax said :

housebound said :

The specialisation for that age is in early childhood education. If you’ve encountered an early childhood kindy teacher vs a ‘normal’ primary school teacher, you’ll instantly see the difference (unless of course your normal teacher has developed skills in early childhood from years of teaching …).

exactly – for children at the age of primary school [and of course far beyond] the primary (pun not intended. really) aim of their teacher/s should be to instill both a desire and love for learning and a pathway for that desire to be attained.

we should be instilling children with fuel to their flame of natural and un-prejudiced curiosity. of course, specific skills in a discipline will be a bonus, but i don’t think it should be the core.

“specific skills in a discipline will be a bonus, but i don’t think it should be the core.”
So as long as the children have “un-prejudiced curiosity” (whatever that is), being able to do maths and write well isn’t that important? I found when I was at school my interest in learning increased when I was actually able to do/understand the maths, etc first. I would have thought it preferable that children learn to do and understand the basics like maths, English, etc. Then when they have success and can understand the basics they are likely to be more enthused and curious as to where that might lead. Otherwise they are likely to switch off.

But specialists in disciplines such as maths/english/etc have far more skills in an area than coiuld ever hope to be taught to primary school aged kids. It is why specialist teachers don’t really exist in primary schools, but do come in in high school.

Teachers choose to specialise at university, those specialties being a range of subjects taught at high school, as well as the speciality “early childhood education”. The reason for this is that it is most definitely a specialised skill to be able to engage a cohort of young children min education as a whole. These specialists take on the responsibility of a childs education for an entire year of their school life, forminga realtionship and understanding of how their students learn best.

There should not be anything, subject matter wise, at a primary school level that someone who has done a teaching degree of any format should not be capable of teaching. There is however, a lot more to teaching and engaging little kids than just an indepth knowledge of the subject. As someone mentioned earlier on, it is as much psychological as anything, understanding the dynamics of a cohort of young children, the different methods of instilling the same knowledge in children who learn best in varying ways and an understanding that at that age, there will be a wide variety of aptitudes across most subjects.