Only 32 Troops to Teachers

When I said ‘a couple of months’, that wouldn’t need to be learning ow to teach. Why would a school manager/MAT leader need to know how to teach? That’s my point. You can know how to run a school/company inside out without being a teacher. I know you disagree.

If you look at CEO/ops director/quality manager jobs etc, those recruiters aren’t asking that the person has worked for that compnay at base level before they’re allowed to apply. You don’t need to know how an aircraft carrier is built, bolt by bolt to know how to command it for example. You need to know what everybody’s job on that ship is and the protocols needed to enable them to do their job within the team.....Exactly the same for schools.

I think it’s naive to think MATS and schools can only be run by teachers and heads.

piggy, I didn’t presume that all MATS and schools are poorly ran. I was explaining why many ex officers could do the job well.
I understand what you’re saying about having education knowledge but for high flying leaders, learning new ‘programmes’ is not difficult.

And no, I really don’t think many teachers are best equipped to run schools and MATS.
In a prefect world, MATS wouldn’t exist and schools would be ran how they were when I was little.

Anyway, as many have said, I don’t think the scheme mentioned above is able to achieve what it set out to do.

I am not sure people who run hair salons can't cut hair, to be honest!

Schools have unfortunately been run like large conglomerates for the last 15 -20 years and are huge employers. Anyone from a high flying background (LOL)would indeed cope with this issues but otherwise I'm with noble on this. Most teachers are waiting and waiting for the day when the education secretary actually knows anything at all about schools or - perish the thought - has taught. The decisions they make are sometimes so teacher and student unfriendly that it beggars belief : and this is surely largely because of lack of empathy and insight about the profession on the ground . I do think verbena that you are thinking the issues are all structural. One of our big complaints about our recently departed head was that he hadn't taught for 15 years at least so was making policy that was increasingly sort sighted and draconian because he had lost sight of the nuts and bolts of the job.

I would not begin to resume that I could go and run a military unit! And you did lose me a bit on the couple of months to learn everything about teaching and learning and schools. Goodness.

And, anyway, talking of sweeping generalisations, not all MAT heads are bad at it. Many are superb. Do you not think teachers who have worked their way through layers of management and years of teaching can do many of the things your senior officer can do, and more educationally specific things besides? And know about crucial things like actually how to deal with and inspire children!

But anyway we digress, as the new scheme definitely will not be aimed at solving the crisis in recruiting heads : that's the real eason why so many heads are not great . they were often the only applicants for their job.

All Academy Trusts are the spawn of the devil should go on the MN myths thread currently running!

Out of interest, who were the other people (non doctors) who ran the hospitals? Were any of them military officers?

I just think that your way of thinking about leadership and management is flawed.
Take my FIL for example....was an operations factory manager for a large ready meal company. He couldn’t work the machinery or cook the food but he ran the factory extremely efficiently. On any scale, it could work.

A person can run a hair salon without being able to style and cut hair.

Take for example a management consultant who spends 6 months working for John Lewis....they have never sold clothes or iPads on the shop floor but they’re expected to help John Lewis remodel their staffing structure.

Yes noble I did see your post about specific technical knowledge but high calibre officers can easily take on continual, new knowledge.....especially with a couple of months of training.

There's a trainee primary school teacher on Masterchef at the mo who used to be in the Military Police! Dying to know if she is on a 'scheme' !

Interesting! Schoolsweek just tweeted a link to the breaking news story of Troops' bursaries. By the time I clicked on it, it was 404 page not found.

Conspiracy theories abound!!

I think that’s a bit unfair.

It’s a bit of a sweeping statement to assume military personnel can’t empathise. My DH spent every day empathising with his soldiers.
It’s not all war games and getting muddy every day....it’s supporting your soldiers with suicide prevention, it’s standing up for them in court, it’s helping them save their marriage, it’s helping them understand the education system for their children who are constantly moving schools, it’s being parent governors or community school governors, it’s supporting them to get training to move their career on, it’s making extremely tough decisions for the safety of other people where your own safety might have to be compromised, it’s making sure the entire fleet of army helicopters doesn’t fall from the sky or it’s taking control of an entire aircraft carrier for 9 months in a secret location, it’s flying sortie after sortie, not knowing if you’ll see your wife and kids again, it’s plannning operations and the movement of 10000 troops into and out of a war zone......
All of that whilst being a leader and motivator of people!

I’m pretty sure I could name dozens of officers who could successfully run a MAT.

Oh no... some of them were In Business.

Of course a big issue in the huge MATs is indeed that they are being led by non teachers! It's jolly hard to empathise with a teacher if you haven't been one. It's like the recruitment drive at the mo into police top brass from civvie street. Very much resented by the rest of the force.

piggy....generally, they’d be there to get the job done.....the job would get done.

Pretty sure DH told me that the British Forces put more training hours into personnel than any other department or civilian company in the world. Not sure if that’s 100% accurate but even if it’s not, it’s a LOT of training and CPD.

Officers (and soldiers) are taught from day 1 to look at the bigger picture; see what needs doing and get there.....and mostly, they do.
Leadership and people management is the main thing civvie companies love about ex officers.theyre also used to managing huge budgets and using them efficiently.

That’s not to say they wouldn’t make great teachers...many would also bring many positives to teaching but for officers in particular, leadership is their greatest skill.....something MATS and LA’s desperately need!

verbena I am fascinated! What changes would the top ranking military officers bring to the world of education leadership and management? I am all agog! To be fair, they couldn't be worse...

Even if they take their pension and don’t get a high flying job, I cannot see the huge attraction in teaching for high ranking officers. Did the govt exoectbthrm to turn around failing schools when they have no deep knowledge of education?

So if it is more likely to be the junior ranks who are to be encouraged into teaching, how is the gap in knowledge likely to be bridged? It seems like a project that should be started before suitable candidates leave the forces.

Bubbles you’re right. If, for example, a Lt colonel can leave on £80k and walk into a civvie job for between £100-120k, why on earth would they choose to lose almost all of their salary and choose the stress that is education?!

Oh and to add to that, the govt. would be bette off leaving teachers to teach and employing ex military officers to run schools, academies and the whole department of education!

That’s when the real changes will happen for the better.

It’s really only geared to soldiers not officers....stupid when you think officrs are far more likely to have degrees already (so therefore would only require one year of teacher training) becasue that’s how training and entering into the forces is set up. Of course, this doesn’t mean soldiers cannot have degrees but the majority won’t due to joining up at 17/18.

The £40000 is payable in the 2nd and 3rd years only (if I read it correctly) so for the first year, guessing they’re supposed to be dependent on a spouse/Family?

Moreover, higher earning soldiers (let’s say they’re coming up to their 22 years will be earning significantly more than a newbie teacher .....as an example, a British army warrant officer is earning approx £47k.

Do they honestly think a warrant officer is going to drop that much in salary to train to teach?

Sadly though, the further up the chain they go, the more the army has invested in their training and so their wealth of experience to become potential teachers is first class...and these are the people who most likely won’t be taking it up.

I get the impression bubbles and noble that this is where their plans fall flat : I don't think they know WHO they want. Yes, they have highly articulate and qualified officers but teaching, unless very fast tracked may well have limited appeal for many of them. The only qualifications I can see cited are GCSE maths and English but then there are some mentions of point being picked up for other qualifications joined while in service. That bit obviously I could not follow.

It will also not serve its purpose if ex officers then head off to a public school to head up the CCF. Not really its intention.

Sorry bold fail!

Yes 8teen* I am quoting though what the ex military themselves said . remember they weren't all on active service. They said they really struggled to adjust to the demands of teacher training. make of that what you will!