To wonder why on earth Troops to Teachers is considered to be a great idea?

[ballinacup]

Before we start, I'm not armed forces bashing, I'm sure there are some troops out there who would make excellent teachers. But why on earth offer a fast track course to troops without a degree?!

It seems like sheer madness, why not offer the fast track course to anyone? Am I missing some glaringly obvious fact that makes it all make sense? Or has Gove got a vision in his head of classrooms running with military precision if he has soldiers at the helm?

Can someone please explain it to me, because I'm genuinely puzzled.

(Sorry, I meant more interesting as in, a special interest for me personally, not that teaching is boring.)

Duffers is a bit harsh, but there are some who aren't as good as they should be. Not suited to teaching would be kinder.

Ah well, let's wait and see what happens.
I've given up feeling truly impassioned about what happens on a national level, that way lies madness I have found. I've hidden Primary Ed on MN, and my life is richer for it. Though I do miss reading mrz and Feenie as often as I did.
Instead I will teach the individuals in my class to the best of my ability and as effectively as I possibly can. That's it really, that's my line in the sand.
If the new input of forces personnel make a positive difference, that would be wonderful, if not, I'm sure a government as talented at U turns as ours appear to be will make a swift about face.
To use one of my father's favourite quotes: 'Lions lead by Donkeys'
They should fit in rather well.

I think it is a good idea, can't be as bad as letting the bankers in after 6 months.
The private sector use unqualified teachers and nobody seems to complain.
I really don't think its as harmful as the constant changes gov make to the system and curriculum tbh. Our dc are nothing more than guinea pigs and this has always been the case with education.
So a few soldiers teaching isn't going to rock the boat too much.

I am a qualified teacher in Post Compulsory Ed. I worked in a 6th form of a high school.
I have no GCSE's and was asked to teach (not cover) extended Maths. The dc were more advanced than me.
I was also regularly asked to cover long term years 7 - 11 something i am not qualified to do.
I wouldn't have wanted somebody teaching my dc like me, so I left teaching.
The ed system and curriculum are a joke, and I am so pleased that with a bit of luck we will never have to deal with schools again.

Sorry - teachers don't want standards raised? What is your reasoning for that?

And yes, OK we are behind Cuba - we are at 99% and they are at 99.8%, hardly a yawning chasm. And that percentage is

"the percentage of the population age 15 and above who can, with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life."

Hardly equivalent to 5 GCSE's. But Mr. Gove would fully appreciate your use of statistics there, given how many official warnings he has been given for using misleading data.

It's a shit idea, if only because there is quite a large number of unemployed NQTs at the moment who need jobs. We don't need ex-military people fast-tracked into teaching, we need the good teachers we do have not to go to waste.

There has been some talk about standards on here - I used to be an FE teacher, and can shed some light. One of the reasons I left was that my marks were often overturned, and I was compelled to pass students who did not deserve their qualification. This was not due to fluffy liberal values, it was to do with the recent policy change that meant that courses with a lower pass rate than an arbitrarily chosen figure had their funding reduced, and were put on a list to be phased out. This did not take into account the reason for failure, or the baseline level the students came in with, and any improvements they did make.

This also meant we were compelled to "include" students with serious behavioural problems, serious mental health problems which impacted their learning, and that of others (which not all MH problems do, granted) and SEN which prevented them learning effectively in a group environment, even though there was no practical support for most students with SEN. We were just expected to pass them regardless, and would be accused of "bullying" if we did not. All of this was to retain the magical pass rate figure which would allow us to continue to offer that subject.

Why don't we play - what other professionals could be fast tracked into teaching! While we are at it let's also play what other professions could fast track to other professions!

Forget soldiers in schools. How about we leave the teachers to do their jobs, which many are actually very good at (sorry to bust your bubble fuzzysnout).

We then take all those kids who are unable to follow mainstream discipline and authority and send them off to do National Service. If they did this now it would sweep all those 16+ year olds that go from school to the dole queue and end up on ASBOs or in prison. The money it would save the courts and police service would cover the costs I'm sure.

ParsingFancy exactly!! My BIL is a head of history at a secondary school. He got a good degree in history, which he is passionate about, then a PGCE, joined a school, and worked his way up.

He 'controls' his class because he is strict but also very bright and has a sarky sense of humour. He also reads around his subject constantly, keeping up to speed with current historiography. That academic knowledge is part of what makes him respected.

Starlight your post makes me despair. Teaching is not about making children do STUFF, LOTS OF STUFF which can be broken down into 'tasks'. It is about introducing ideas, debating skills, ways of thinking, and different approaches.

If you don't know what those different approaches are, if you haven't sat down and read through them thoroughly yourself, you can't teach them. You won't know them well enough.

Teaching is not about stuffing information from Wikipedia into children's heads.

And no, you cannot keep ahead of them through the textbook. Believe me. I teach (not children) and you will always, always have the smart alec who tests you on the first day by saying 'But I read X which contradicts what you just said'.

How do you deal with that? Making them do tasks? No. You deal with that by knowing the answer which makes them respect you. By being able to think on your feet in your own specialist subject.

Who are these 'teachers' who oppose this, that and the other? No one canvassed my opinion, yet I appear to be lumped into a group.

My parents both left school at 14/15.
My mum has no quals at all (rural Ireland) and my dad has 2 - in English and technical drawing.
Their teachers had no expectation of them and for them and I am sorry to say it's a view thatx still prevalent in some schools.
Not every child is academic. That's obvious. But they all deserve to be taught to a high standard and given more choice after 16.

Which post makes you despair revolting?

You don't think teaching how to develop debating skills, ideas, ways of thinking and different approaches can be broken down?

You don't think teaching children how to find and use information is important and that they should be denied this skill in favour of a 'teacher is god' model?

How would you address G&T like this? How would you address SEN like this? How would you harness the significant contributions available to a school from their community and parents like this?

Oh MrsdeVere I didn't know! Did you say earlier?

The one where you said that tasks should be broken down.

Yes, of course I think developing skills (etc) can be broken down. But the idea that you can just 'get information', transform it into a task, and away you go, is IMO, really naive.

I very definitely do NOT think teachers are gods. I think good teachers are highly competent, passionate people who inspire not through gimmicks but through communicating a real love of their subject.

I work with people who could be considered both gifted and (some) who have special needs. Tasks are fine, but they aren't the sum total by a long way. You actually need real subject knowledge.

Also, nowhere in my post did I say that children should not be taught how to find and use information. How absurd. I'm a professional researcher.

You can't simply invent things to argue against, you know.

You invented me saying that you could stuff children's heads with stuff from Wikipedia!

You started the imaginary argument.