Advanced search

Only 32 Troops to Teachers

(139 Posts)
noblegiraffe Fri 22-Jan-16 20:46:41

There were 180 places in the first round of recruitment, only 41 places were taken up and only 32 teachers have emerged at the end.

What a stupid waste of money.

Still, teacher recruitment crisis, what crisis? Eh, Nick Gibb?

OP’s posts: |
rosebiggs Fri 22-Jan-16 20:48:47

So 32 finished their many of the 32 will still be teaching in 5 years I wonder?

Bolognese Fri 22-Jan-16 20:57:26

Its possible that their military training means they have more staying power than civilians going into teaching.

Either way it sounds like a good attempt to retrain soldiers, why the negative comment about it? dont you think the military deserve to be teachers? I bet they have a LOT to offer children?

SuburbanRhonda Fri 22-Jan-16 21:04:53

I think the OP was about the low numbers compared with the target, rather than the merit of the scheme itself, bolognese.

I thought that was obvious but clearly not.

meditrina Fri 22-Jan-16 21:07:59

Troops to Teachers was like a subset of Teach Second.

Is that producing the numbers expected, or does it have a shortfall too?

noblegiraffe Fri 22-Jan-16 21:09:16

A quarter dropping out from the course doesn't indicate great staying power though, does it?

But all the money that went on advertising, recruitment, setting up the training....that could have been spent on retaining current proven teachers.

OP’s posts: |
Bolognese Fri 22-Jan-16 21:14:34

Yes I get its low numbers but that doesn't mean the scheme was a failure. New startups often have that issue. I was referring to the comment "What a stupid waste of money", why is it a waste of money? Soldiers earn less than teachers, work longer and put their lives on the line, I think they deserve a chance at a civilian job.

Scarydinosaurs Fri 22-Jan-16 21:17:33

bolognese the money spent targeting them hasn't paid off though, has it? I wonder how these numbers compare to a typical ITT cohort? Every year ex military join teaching- I bet it made no difference.

pieceofpurplesky Fri 22-Jan-16 21:18:01

IT is a waste of money as 180 were supposed to complete the course. 32 did.

carltonscroop Fri 22-Jan-16 21:19:41

"But all the money that went on advertising, recruitment, setting up the training....that could have been spent on retaining current proven teachers."

When this was set up (and funded) in 2010/11, if MN threads are anything to go by, there was no retention problem. Indeed the threads were all about the difficulty if securing a post at all and the number of people who could only work supply.

BrianButterfield Fri 22-Jan-16 21:22:25

Also, ex-troops were perfectly able to apply for and go through teacher training at any point before the programme if they chose, so it's not about them deserving the chance,

noblegiraffe Fri 22-Jan-16 21:29:58

There has always been a teacher shortage in areas like maths and physics, not just recent years.

OP’s posts: |
KarenLong Fri 22-Jan-16 21:34:24

I've taught with one. he was absolutely first class at delegating, issuing orders , demanding blind obedience.... he lasted less than 6 weeks.

Bolognese Fri 22-Jan-16 23:22:09

So a 78% success rate? sounds pretty good. Apart from hot air and bluster, what money has been wasted?

"...could have been spent on retaining current proven teachers" - why do you need to retrain teachers who are already teachers? The whole point is to get something different into teaching!

noblegiraffe Fri 22-Jan-16 23:34:34

Erm, 32 out of a planned 180 is an 18% success rate.

Retain teachers, not retrain them. Spend the money trying to make the job less crap so that fewer people quit.

OP’s posts: |
SuburbanRhonda Fri 22-Jan-16 23:58:52

The whole point is to get something different into teaching!

There are loads of different "things" you could bring into teaching if that is the objective. Whether they would be things that are needed or wanted by children and their parents is another matter.

ChristineDePisan Sat 23-Jan-16 00:06:57

Maybe give the teachers who have just gone through the scheme a chance before deciding it was a complete waste of time and money, eh?

noblegiraffe Sat 23-Jan-16 00:15:43

Really? Really?

Even if they are awesome teachers, it's quite a lot of expense and effort for only 32 of them, no? I wonder what the cost per teacher worked out as compared to other training routes. And with only an 18% success rate, it's hardly the solution to the recruitment crisis.

OP’s posts: |
Bolognese Sat 23-Jan-16 00:27:15

According to giraffes figures its 32 out of 41 teachers trained, a success rate of 78%. Spin it anyway you want but that's basic maths, I dont get why teachers are so anti military becoming teachers.

What money has been wasted? Read several posters complaining, but where are the actual figures?

So far that's 32 ex-military that have been found a new career, I would be proud to have them at any school my DC went to. Good teacher keep, bad teacher sack.

I wonder are teachers against them because they might have a backbone different union affiliations and wouldn't strike? Is this post just about politics?

noblegiraffe Sat 23-Jan-16 00:36:42

Bolognese, the scheme intended to train up 180 teachers. It managed to train up 32. That's 18%.

Just because they only managed to get 41 to take up the places in the first place, that doesn't turn a failure into a success when only a quarter of them don't make it.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm against military becoming teachers. I don't know why you'd be automatically proud to have them in your school, that's a bit weird, tbh.

OP’s posts: |
CultureSucksDownWords Sat 23-Jan-16 00:40:47

Really, Bolognese? Teachers are just threatened by these ex military types? Honestly? It pisses teachers off because 32 NQTs is a drop in the ocean and just because they're all ex-military doesn't automatically make them excellent teachers. I'm quite sure there'll be a range from excellent to scraping satisfactory as there is for other NQTs. It's just a headline grabbing scheme that doesn't actually help in the long run.

noblegiraffe Sat 23-Jan-16 00:46:54

I'm pissed off because the government probably thought 'we've got to make cuts to the army, what can we do with them all?' and someone else said 'there's a shortage of teachers' and some joker piped up 'that'd sort out the behaviour problem in schools' and lo, a shedload of money that could have been spent elsewhere was put into setting up a catchily-titled scheme without bothering to check whether the troops actually wanted to be teachers. Apparently they don't.

OP’s posts: |
Bolognese Sat 23-Jan-16 00:51:53

The scheme might have had a max limit of 180 but you dont know why it didn't get 180 in the first year. Maybe because it didn't spend any money pushing it to ex military, maybe because its new, maybe, maybe, maybe!

My point is that your deriding a new scheme with hardly any facts.

I would be proud to have military in a school because they are committed to success, they are willing to give their lives to protect our children/country/me. All I ever hear giraffe do, is complain she wont get a pay rise next year. Quite frankly I find that all very selfish weird tbh.

Bolognese Sat 23-Jan-16 00:53:51

I'm pissed off because the government probably thought .....
complete fantasy, political spin. Why am I not paid more?

noblegiraffe Sat 23-Jan-16 01:03:12

All I ever hear giraffe do, is complain she wont get a pay rise next year. Quite frankly I find that all very selfish weird tbh.

confused I don't know whose posts you've been reading but they're not mine. I've just got a pay rise, I went from UPS1 to UPS2.

I post a lot about how shitty government education policy is. Perhaps that's what's pissing you off and you're translating it into some moan about pay rises in your head to avoid my actual points?

OP’s posts: |

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in