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.

Wondering that is exactly what I think is going on,

In Scotland, the GTC controls eligibility to teach, afaik. They are not happy about people teaching subjects they are not specialists in, so bloody sure they wouldn't be happy with teachers with no degree at all. Is there not a professional body like that in England?

In fact this seems to be reversal of the teach first programme. The teach first programme send the highest qualifies teachers into the tough schools, this seems toe sending the least qualified into the toughest schools.

"This does seem suspiciously like a half-cocked plan to place "tough" teachers into deprived schools, where the powers-that-be think it doesn't really matter if the teacher has a degree or not"

Well the current approach is not a resounding success.

Fwiw I do think you don't need a degree in the actual subject to teach up to GCSE, just a related subject - A level IMO is a different issue. But a degree is not enough to teach, you do need to be able to hold a class.

Yes Bue, the sad fact is that a lot of the parents of the children in these schools would be quite happy if they dished out army style punishments to their children for poor behaviour. Hardly progress is it.

Lazeyjaney, what is the current approach that you think is unsuccessful?
Are teachers entirely responsible for the difficulties schools in areas of deprivation experience? Funny I thought that was down to poverty, reduced aspirations and lack of positive destinations.

sassy, it sounds like your degree still contains some subject relevance though? I am talking about people with degrees in e.g. history who do a conversion course and are then 'qualified' to teach chemistry or physics etc.

Iggi101, you're correct, in Scotland the GTC specifies not only that applicants to a PGCE/PGDE must have a degree but also which modules their degrees must and must not contain. The curriculum in Scotland is much less controlled by legislation than in England, but teachers' qualifications, working conditions and even class sizes are much more tightly controlled in Scotland than England, by both the GTC and Holyrood.

England has a GTC, nonetheless.

Thank goodness for Scootiseh education being devolved and not reserved.

Never quite sure why it's thought it's all right not a have a degree up to GCSE. The teacher should know what's needed at A level, so they're prepping the most able.

In my school all teachers who teach Year 7 of the accelerated programme are A level teachers in their subject too. You have to know what you're preparing children to do, and developing those skills from day one.

Teachers should be academically excellent AND good classroom managers. It's not too much to ask.

I know a teacher who did the maths conversion course from a philosophy degree The school which employed her for a year as an unqualified teacher (I think they were desperate) decided not to keep her on because she was deemed to not have the ability to teach A-level. She ended up becoming a prep school teacher, which she is fab at.

The current approach is not a resounding success, LazeyJaney, because there are a huge number of children being brought up by parents that simply don't show them any kindness or respect. They then go into school and act out. The school then has to pick up the pieces, the equivalent of teaching not just the curruculum, but another alternative curriculum to do with how to be a decent human being.

This is not acknowledged by the powers that be because it's not scientifically measurable. Free school meals statistics are just a tiny part of that equation and although concessions are made and schools get extra support for that, it is going to take twice the resources to teach, for instance, a girl whose parents are in prison and who has a sub-standard foster carer and has been separated from her brother, free school meals or no, who is essentially in a post-traumatic situation.

These things need to be acknowledged by the government but never will be because they reflect the appalling state that this country is now in. It's so much more simple to send in the squaddies and shout some sense into that girl.

"Lazeyjaney, what is the current approach that you think is unsuccessful?"

Are you arguing the current approach is working and doesn't need changing???

For everybody who says about bully-type discipline...what a load of rubbish. The armed forces have a far wider and multi-disciplinary/transferable skills set and training history than most people in civvie street. The amount of money that is put into each soldier/officer is substantial and so could be put to excellent use in schools.

My husband would have quite liked to go into teaching (albeit fast track to head teacher, which I don't think they do any more) when he leaves this summer following 22 yrs as an officer however, we couldn't afford the massive drop in pay.

I (and my husband) think that the best way to help failing schools is to put ex-personnel (ex-officers) into management positions within schools/academies, rather than just a head. Not all head teachers are good managers and this is often where schools fail. Putting ex-officers in to manage schools could be the answer.

But why would an ex-officer know more about managing a school than someone who has trained as a teacher or a manager and has spent years working in a school?

Really, there is nothing wrong with schools at all - the thing that schools are not managing to do at the moment is deal with the childrens lack of engagement / difficult behaviour coming from home. That won't change by bringing in squaddies or even officers. It will only change if there is more time and there are more resources. Teachers should teach, and they can, but they need more of them and fewer students.

"Really, there is nothing wrong with schools at all - the thing that schools are not managing to do at the moment is deal with the childrens lack of engagement / difficult behaviour coming from home. That won't change by bringing in squaddies or even officers. It will only change if there is more time and there are more resources"

I disagree, a major issue in many schools is poor discipline and disempowered teachers.

There are no more resources, the UK starts it's kids very early and has long days so there is no more time, so we need to do something different.

I don't know if Gove's idea is it, but it has worked elsewhere - and carrying on doing things that aren't working and expecting different results is not a workable strategy.

because wondering a school doesn't have to be managed by a teacher to be ran efficiently. You do not have to be a teacher to be able to run a school as a company would be ran. That would then leave more time for teachers to teach and a manger to take care of staff management, budgeting and everything else.

As you say yourself, teachers should teach

and going along with what lazy is saying, a good civvie manager could put some self esteem and lust back into disheartened teachers as well as increasing discipline and getting students back to having respect for adults and each other/themselves.

I'm not saying that a school needs to be run differently or by anyone different. There are thousands of good teachers out there who in their previous careers were bankers, managers, shopkeepers, allsorts. They are not all academics, the problem really isn't the staff. The problem is what the staff have to deal with, and in schools in deprived areas there is so much more to deal with even the best teachers struggle. I don't think a squaddie will do any better at all, given they don't have teaching qualifications, what are they going to actually be able to do? They won't be able to actually teach anything as they don't know how to.

I would suggest that they have a role in mentoring or in behaviour support, but why would they need to be teaching when there are plenty of teachers able to do it that are trained to do so?

I've yet to meet an ex-Forces man who isn't wrapped tighter than a timebomb in clingfilm. And yes, that's blatant prejudice.

Are you talking emotionally or pectorially?

I just hope any ex-forces personnel joining this scheme have to go through a full mental health check before being allowed into the classroom. It's my understanding that many of the armed forces have been through a pretty rough ride in the many recent conflicts.

Sadly I think the awful combination of unresolved issues related to wartime experiences, appalling mental health support for ex-forces personnel & some children's often truly challenging behavior in a system that insists on inclusion for all, resulting in a tragedy at some point.

(Mainstream classes nowadays often contain the most complex SN's & support and training to help these kids both under resourced & as subject to political whim as any other area of education.)

I am pleased that people are finally waking up to the fact that Gove does not require Teaching to be a highly educated profession any longer. I was furious when I discovered that "free school" teachers are allowed to employ unqualified teachers several years ago. He slipped that under the radar.

At the end of the day a teacher who does not have full Qualified Teacher Status (which involves degree + PGCE or 4 years PGed + maths, english and ICT tests) is CHEAPER than one who is fully qualified! Teachers with lots of experience have found for a long time that they are overlooked for jobs in favour of fresh out of college candidates who cost less to employ.

The children of the elite will of course continue to be taught by high class graduates, from both the military and civvie street who are properly trained & vetted. It's everyone else who needs to be concerned. The yawning gap between the public and the state sector will continue to widen at a relentless pace.

Bochead: private schools can employ "unqualified" teachers.

I don't think it's just about whether they would make great teachers though, is it?It provably got to do mord with finding ex-forces personnel a job and a position in the civilian world. Just so long as they had a program in place to get these ex-soldiers some formal qualifications (like the U.S G.I bill) and there was continued counselling for trauma which might adversely affect their teaching style,, I don't think it's such a terrible idea.