Only 32 Troops to Teachers

I think you need to read some comments on the thread. I have resurrected this because the last scheme failed but the government seems to want to (very quietly) resurrect it.

My main issue is the erosion of the qualifications required to be a teacher. And the throwing of (a lot of) money at a scheme similar to one that patently failed. A few years on we can now say the government's plans for the first scheme was to get thousands - thousands!- of ex military personnel into classrooms! There were obviously many more attractive prospects!

I am not suggesting someone leaving the military with A levels and a degree should not be able to take up teacher training.

I am not in teaching but do have some knowledge of how hard it is for troops to retrain into any other profession and I would say that retraining 32 troops to be fully trained teachers is an accomplishment within itself.

I think you need to view it from a different angle in terms of creating a career for personnel that may not find transition into a civilian career that easy.

My DD is possibly looking at a career in teaching (although only in Yr11). I would dearly love to see some positive press on teaching to encourage more of our younger generation into this field... We need positive role models and I actually think EX Military personnel are positive role models (one of DD's teachers is EX Miltary and she is a very positive role model helping out with Dofe outside school etc)

I know it isn't the done thing to resurrect an old thread @noblegiraffe but I found some buried news in today's Sunday Times (so I can't link) that there is a plan to rejuvenate this failed , defunct scheme. They plan to attach a bursary of 40k as an incentive to leaving military personnel (3 years' training, two years with bursary: not sure why other than expense).

Couldn't see what the differences were from the previous scheme tbh... it wasn't a very detailed article! Even the ST was at pains to point out its spectacular failure last time round!

The government refuse to admit there is any sort of crisis or even slight niggling problem, so they certainly aren't going to stop interfering.

I couldn't give a shiny shite if we recruit ex-army or not, as long as they are good colleagues doing a good job. Recruitment might be a big issue, but it's nothing compared with retainment. The profession is haemorrhaging.

And it's definitely not stress-free.

Given we have teachers leaving schools in droves wouldn't it be a good idea to recruit people that can cope with stress?

Or maybe - bit radical I know, but - the government could stop interfering in a profession it clearly knows little about, and let teachers get on with teaching? Then you wouldn't need to seek out people you think could put up with the stress.

My dad was military - RAF from age 17 to 44. You are trained to both give orders and take orders. He was a Flight Sergeant by retirement which meant he gave orders to many and took them from few. He found the civilian workplace very difficult initially and couldn't believe the 'defiance' (as he called it!) of ordinary people. He'd have lasted, by his own admission, 'three minutes in a comprehensive in Dagenham'.

The difficulty some ex military have when teaching is that they expect the students to follow their instructions, we had one who simply didn't know what to do when a pupil refused!

Jeremycorbyn some ex military would be good teachers, some wouldn't.

You do realise that just because you can cope on a battlefield doesn't mean you can cope with the stress of a classroom and vice Verse?

Totally different skill sets. This post was not about teachers or the benefits military teachers - it was about the failure of a scheme that cost lots of money.

I certainly don't see any reason why soldiers can't become teachers. But surely it's a better use of money for them to go through normal channels? There is no money in education right now, that money would have been better used elsewhere.

I completed teacher training last year and one of my colleagues was ex army (not STEM). Erm... His stories of his cushy army life explained why he did the barest of minimums. Not every soldier is on the front line! This wasn't through this scheme.

I was comparing teaching jobs to being on a battlefield. I was not meaning to imply that teachers don't have stress, or don't work hard.

I just think it would be a good way to reduce the numbers in our armed forces without making any of them redundant. And into a profession where it would be easy for them to be reservists, in case they were needed in an emergency.

Given we have teachers leaving schools in droves wouldn't it be a good idea to recruit people that can cope with stress? Of course we could pay 'regular' teachers a lot more so they wouldn't feel put out. And it wouldn't cost anything because the expense would be recouped by the reduction in the defence budget. Its a win win situation.

Nobody saying teaching is any more or less stressful than being a soldier on active duty. People we responding to the claim that teaching is a stress-free job.

"Stress free"

Totally different sorts of stressors.

It would be foolish to underestimate the stresses military life even when they're not on active operations. Also to try to draw comparisons generally.

And you'd look a bit of a tit of you tried to make a comparison to an operational tour.

Your posts are doing my head in when juxtaposed against your username. jeremycorbyn

When I worked in a lively comprehensive in East London there were some days when a week in Kandahar sounded somewhat appealing.

Where I have no issues with retired or redundant military in our schools, I think money could be better invested attracting the tens of thousands of ex teachers back into the profession. No training costs for them, no culture shock to deal with. Make conditions better (pay at the top of main scale is not too shabby, far less upper) and back they'll come. I finished training in 2007 with 22 other people. Only 4 of us still teach now!

I don't agree with you about a short work day, sorry. The timetabled school day is short but teachers are in before that, stay after and work in the evenings and weekends.

The pay looks comparable too, for the types of jobs that they were looking to attract to teaching. And stress free is wrong as well. It's clearly not the same as being shot at, but it is not a stress free job at all. I left teaching because it was too stressful, and many many others have done the same.

Stress free?!

Read any thread on the Staffroom board....

Compared to the military, yes teaching is a good job its well paid, long holidays, stress free, plenty of sick leave and a short work day. If we moved soldiers into teaching they could be reservists and then we cut back army numbers significantly without making anyone redundant.

"....could have easily gone through normal teacher training avenues and saved money so that, you know, pupils could have buildings that don't leak etc."

The threads on MN at the time showed that this was an immensely unpopular scheme, and bile was spewed at the very idea that ex-military should be in the classroom. Even though there were some who were coming through the usual training avenues.

There was very little faith shown then in either the selection or training/assessment procedures, and there was a fairly widely hell assumption that unsuitable people would reach the classroom by this route. (At least that angle has gone away).

IIRC, it was very much aimed at STEM subjects, and would permit non-graduates to have their other qualifications and experience individually assessed to see if they were fit to proceed.

Anyone know how many applicants/trainees/actual teachers of this scheme were STEM related?

Which implies that teaching is a good job!!!

It does sound like a good idea, rather than have our army in a foreign country killing innocent Syrians, we should employ them in our schools. I think they have a right to a good job after what they have been through.

I wonder are teachers against them because they might have a backbone different union affiliations and wouldn't strike?

What does this mean?

Bolognese-you are being selectively obtuse in your posts. Noblegiraffe is NOT saying ex-military should not be teachers and automatically not respected in the classroom.
Just why did an extortionate amount of money be spent on a 'gimic', when the 32 who succeeded could have easily gone through normal teacher training avenues and saved money so that, you know, pupils could have buildings that don't leak etc.

They initially had over 1,200 applications, only 41 were accepted in January 2014, with another 54 in September 2014.

How has this thread turned into ALL TEACHERS ARE MiSERABLE
It was just a discussion of the waste of money put into a scheme that ended in 32 nqts.