Difference between a ‘qualified’ teacher and ‘expert’ teacher

The article by Chilcott raises questions about the qualifications of teachers within high-schools using data which suggests that a large percentage of teachers are unqualified for the subjects they are teaching to students. Focusing on data from high-schools in Queensland, reports revealed that teachers were teaching for subjects they were not qualified for, in particular science and mathematics, leaving students at a disadvantage. For instance, one report from 2010 by the Department of Education, Training and Employment revealed ‘one-third found a large number of state high-school maths and science teachers’ who claimed they had ‘no qualifications in the subject’. This brings forth a question as to whether teachers within any schools are qualified for the subject they are currently teaching. Although there are several factors which may account for a student’s achievement outcome, one key influence on their education outcome are the teachers themselves. Despite how many policies or funds the government provides, overall, it is always the teacher who implements the information and provides for the student’s learning. This article categorises teachers as being either qualified or not qualified. As this article illustrates, unqualified teachers are those who teach students topics not within their domain. They are portrayed as being the lowest level of effective teaching students can receive as teachers may not be confident or comfortable with what they’re teaching, thus unable to provide students an efficient means of education. This contrasts with a qualified teacher who is able to provide students with their expertise in the particular subject they are teaching ensuring the ‘best student outcomes’. Although this may be true, I agree with this notion to a certain extent.

In the Billings’ reading, Billings provides us with three broad propositions which may constitute what one would consider an expert teacher. These three factors include: ‘the conceptions of self and others held by culturally relevant teachers’, ‘the manner in which social relations are structured by culturally relevant teachers’, and ‘the conceptions of knowledge held by culturally relevant teachers’. These categories further branch off into more specific actions which are reflected in an expert teacher’s method of teaching within the classroom. Although an efficient teacher is experienced in their domain of teaching, I believe an expert teacher should reach further taking into consideration their instructional quality and class environment.

Through a comparison between Chilcott’s definition of a good teacher and Billings’ three factors, we establish the difference between an expert and qualified teacher. An expert teacher being engaging towards their students, developing an understanding of students’ cultures and backgrounds, and challenging the traditional notions of education and knowledge. She describes an expert teacher as not just having academic competency, but also learning from students and in return moulding teaching methods and techniques to better suit each individual within the classroom.  I agree with this concept and believe teaching should be encouraged as a reflective and interactive activity in which teachers learn as much from their students as students learn from teachers.

Reference List:

Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 32 No. 3. pp. 465-491.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/unqualified-teachers-put-student-education-at-risk-in-queensland-secondary-schools/story-fnihsrf2-1226740600063