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.

what, you mean you actually have to know some content to teach your personnel?

how exotic.

totally unnecessary in a school.

FYI lack of an education does not mean thick. My grandfather is incredibly bright, but only educated to a primary school level. he is not stupid, but he would have no business dissecting a novel with bright A level students, or transkating Ovid, or teaching oxidative phosphorylation.

I think in principal it is a good idea. To be honest I think there is a lot that can be learned from someone who has been in the forces (aside from their subject) including self discipline, motivation, teamwork, leadership and focus

Portrait where do you get your bullshit facts from?

I've been married to DH RAF (same job as Monica) for 20years and have met many, many people in the Forces who would be very suited to teaching. DS1's German teacher was exRAF, learnt all his German from being in Germany with the RAF and was one of the the few who could hold the attention of the class, took no messing about and also put on extra revision classes in the holidays when it was near to GCSE time.

I would prefer someone like that teaching my child than the Food Tech teacher who has a degree in Physics and sent home a half cooked cake that had been on the side all day, with a message to me to finish it off it the oven later, or Ds2's form tutor who is an IT teacher who couldn't work out the percentages of the Year 11's coursework so asked DS2 to show her how to do it!

I want academic standards raising for teachers not falling. As someone who interviews potential teachers we will not even look at an application if they do not have at least a 2:1 in a Degree which is linked to the subject they wish to teach.

It is all very well training ex military with no degrees to be teachers, but who is going to eventually employ them. Good schools will not employ teachers without degrees.

I wonder if this is the start of a return to grammars and secondary moderns. The grammars will be filled with proper teachers with proper degrees and the secondary moderns, who may struggle to get staff, will be filled with ex military staff with inferior qualifications, but who are expected to bark commands at children .

It is completely missing the point to say that officers have degrees, it would be quicker for them to do a PGCE. This scheme is not aimed at officers with degrees.

There is not even a shortage of teachers, there are more than enough teachers with degrees out there.

Principle even!

andi123 that wasn't the point I was making, sorry if I'm being unclear - of course you should have the relevant experience and understanding of the course you would teach, I am just mad that lots of people assume that it is a bad idea (this particular scheme) because all we do in the forces is discipline. I am not trying to get into spats, just making a point.

I have nothing against people from the military going into teaching, I just want them to have at least a 2:1 in a degree linked to the subject they are teaching. They can do a PGCE like anyone else, or something like teach first

Usual MN hysteria that ex service personnel are going to be barking orders and thigh slapping.

We have 3 ex service personnel - who have retrained. Amazingly they they have quiet authority, natural presence (not 6'6" thug presence) and above all a natural gentle respect. They don't react when a 13/14/15 yo goes dipshit either. They aren't the old school PE teachers either - these are scientists and mathematicians

They have leadership qualities AND the academic capability to teach AND an inherent respect>

but if MN collective wants to think an ex squaddie is some form of grunting knuckle dragging cannon fodder with , well what can I say other than OMG sterotypes.

Monicalewinski I understand. I don't think that military = stupid man. My granddad was in the US airforce and he is one of the most intelligent people I know. My point was that not everyone in the military falls into this category, how will they distinguish between those that have a good understanding of the subject they want to teach and those that don't? I know that a first class degree doesn't necessarily equate to a good teacher, but it's an indicator that the person is bright and understands their subject. I just wonder how this will be measured with military people. Also why fastrack them? I think that undermines teachers who have taken the traditional route.

Our local Primary was in a mess and undesirable. A new Head arrived who used to be in the Army - there was a TV show on about the school and how much he had changed it. It now gets 'good' Ofsteds, the kids are smart (part of his approach is no tolerance on sloppy uniforms) and happy and they get some amazing perks from his contacts. A friend of mine told me he got a helicopter to fly over and parachute a hamster out onto the playing field!? Something about teaching gravity I think no hamster was hurt but I don't want this to derail into animal rights etc but the kids have never forgotten it. It has really made a difference and the parents have really rallied around because they can see what a change for the better his strict but fair leadership has done for the school.
Sadly it is now over-subscribed and 4000 houses to be built practically next door to me, so doubt we will get a look in when DD needs a primary.
I think a lot of teachers are great, but having some who are slightly imposing may help enforce manners/rules better than some schools are currently achieving, which in turn helps them focus on the school work.

this scheme is not aimed at ex services personnel with relevant degrees

no one objects to that

it is aimed at ex services personnel without degrees in relevant subjects

people object to this

if they are selected despite having no relevant qualifications in the subject they are to teach, purely on the basis of 'life experience', then why only them?

why not have then have a cashier at tesco (who left school at 16) teach A level physics after a crash course in how to teach? this person would also have a lot of relevant life experience, in a customer facing role.

Not degrees, but the DofEd page about this says they have to have been trainers (something you would not get as a cashier); it's a bit like taking FE lecturers and putting them in schools after a Teach First type training package.

Thank you Holly.

Andie, they will find out that information by interviewing suitable candidates who apply...like any prospective teacher.

In fact all military staff have annual reports and gratings done. They are made very aware of strengths and weaknesses.

No one is saying that all ex military personnel are going to be retrained as teachers. There is nothing wrong with fast tracking people. A fair few doctors are fast tracked because they hold qualifications already that enable them to do so.

I am not sure why the degree is such a big issue. Historically teachers did not need degrees, in particular primary school teachers. Academies and independent schools do not even require teachers to have QTS! Suggesting they are not NECESSARILY interested in a persons ability to teach but rather other qualifications.

Really chibi? They're just going to let someone with absolutely no experience in the chosen subject go right into teaching it? Really? Don't be so ridiculous. Have you looked at the criteria for it at all?

I am of course not 100%, but I would presume that the Tesco cashier you mention had not done a shed load of leadership and technical courses already?

You are just being deliberately provocative now.

Someone up thread posted a story about a 22 yr old person that "fell" into teaching, yet a 40 yr old ex forces would work hard.

It seems strange that this thread has had posters who agree with this yet they fail to see that an Ex forces person is effectively "falling" in to teaching in exactly the same way.

Yet the Ex focres person will be soooooooooooooo much better.

chibi- I haven't a clue about what % of independents employ ex military, but a educated guess would be that a significant minority do. It was/is a recognised second career path for ex-forces personnel (mainly officers) and many schools like the connections that it brings. Depends on what people want- it didn't pay nearly enough for me to look at it, but those on a full pension (ie those who have 16 plus years) may find the salaries attractive.

Portrait- your post is ill informed and highly offensive, particularly to the serving and ex-serving people on this thread. I quite understand you disagreeing with this scheme because you concerned about educational standards, but to write off literally millions (because that is what the current and ex forces population amounts to) of people as effectively dysfunctional psychopaths is breathtakingly stupid and arrogant. You wouldn't want your children near us? Best tell that to ....ooh perhaps your GP (mine is an ex-RN doctor); the Brown Owl I deal with (ex RAF corporal) or perhaps any of the numberless pleasant and well adjusted people who you may interact with daily without realising the latent aggression and horror we carry with us. We could be anywhere....anywhere...all around you, crazy lady.

I have nothing against fast tracking, I was a teach first entrant fast tracked into management. I think it is wrong to have teachers without good relevant degrees.

Offering suitable military personnel with a degree a funded place on a PGCE? Grand idea. This scheme? Half baked.

I find it laughable that people would "probably" be able to teach a range of subjects just because they've had some vocational or professional experience of it. To be good a secondary teacher you need to have a degree in your subject area. DH's department has taken on two PGCE students this year who have done a physics conversion course for people who have a degree in another subject - they do several months 'top up' to be able to teach physics. The results have been a disaster - DH says their knowledge just isn't up to scratch and the kids can tell and run rings round them. He also thinks it's a travesty that some desperate school will employ these teachers (his will not employ teachers without a degree in their subject) and it's the kids who will miss out.

SuffolkNwhat I was not paying particular attention to grammar etc and would probably have paid more attention if I was aware I was being graded, apologies.

I said before, I am NOT trying to argue, was just pissed off with the stereotyping. I made the references in that post to a particular question from someone else asking what subject I would be qualified to teach due to the courses I have completed during my career.

schools employing ex military who have a relevant qualification in the subject they want to twach = YES

schools employing ex military with no relevant qualification/experience in a very narrow area tangentially related to subject = NO

any school that hires people to teach subjects in which they themselves hold no qualification is in essence saying to students,

'we don't give a shit what or or indeed if you learn. this is a holding pen for young people'

i would avoid such a school at all costs

I was married to an ex Navy medic he would not have felt his experience allowed him to teach GCSE English Literature. This is all about subject knowledge; I have no gripe about service personnel teaching but the minimum academic qualification must be a degree.