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.

All the primaries I know now have bursars, no child-involvement but handle the paperwork and budget in collaboration with SLT and Premises Officer and Governors.

All this idea is about is providing a pathway into teaching for people with some exceptional experience which they can use to try and boost our poor educational standards. I remember when Teach First was first introduced teachers unions whinged about that, it seems to me that they dislike anything which threatens to upset the status quo despite the current performance being woefully inadequate.

I am a teach first teacher, I am not against threatening the status quo. I just want teachers to be highly qualified.

GoblinGranny makes a very valid point about the social aspects- and that is a point that may be difficult to grasp for politicians brought up in selective education.

State school teachers have to deal with absolutely everyone:

the autistic child who has meltdowns

the child with Downs syndrome who cannot understand the curriculum but still has to have an education that is meaningful to him

the blind child

the deaf child

the child with cerebral palsy who has to use a wheelchair and cannot hold a pen

the selective mute

the child who has frequent absences for cancer treatment but still needs to be slotted back into the class whenever he is not being treated

the child with extreme behavioural difficulties

the child who is so badly traumatised by family events that he would be signed off from the army with PTSD- but you cannot sign someone off from education: even if they are dying or completely unreachable they still have to be in education. The child with PTSD will still be in your classroom and you have to keep the other 29 children safe from him at the same time as providing an education that is meaningful to all 30.

Even in the rare cases where they do exclude a child, all that means is that the child has to be taught by some other teacher instead. There is no option of not educating a child, somebody has to do it.

I find it telling that when the poster who claimed army educators are used to dealing with all types was asked to contemplate SN, the example of SN s/he could come up with as an example of being used to all types was dyslexia! Teachers have to deal with considerably more than that.

Of course there is absolutely no reason why a compassionate and intelligent individual with an army background should not be able to learn how to handle these difficulties as well as any other compassionate and intelligent person with a different background.

But it is difficult to see how a background of effectively enforcing discipline will help with any of the above. And the whole idea of fast-tracking ex-army rather than any other profession seems to be based on the idea that an ex-army background will leave you better prepared for what you find in the classroom.

Of course forces peronnel are used to obeying orders without question, so maybe Lichael Gove thinks it will give him a more malleable workforce. Cynical? Moi?

OOps. Michael Gove.

"Of course forces peronnel are used to obeying orders without question"

Not since Nuremberg. Quite the opposite.

Ouiret, quite so.

Laqueen, money is not the main motivation for many people when choosing their career. Teaching will never make you financially rich but that is not the motivation for me or my colleagues. I have a 2:1 in history from Edinburgh Uni and walked out of a graduate finance job which would see me earning twice what I do now to teach. I'm not interested in flashy cars but that most certainly does not make me mediocre at my job. I teach in a challenging primary school and wouldn't change what I do for any amount if money.

I don't think it's "magic". Sometimes it's just force of personality, dedication, patience, interest - not writing off a boy because he doesn't fit into the "sit down and be quiet" mould - understanding the need to move, unpredictable frustration, calming yourself, calming others down, generating enthusiasm when everyone is on their last legs, determination, grit - a lot that can't be taught in teacher training.

'Laqueen, money is not the main motivation for many people when choosing their career'

I actually got offered a job in banking and turned it down. This idea that people only teach because they can't do anything else isn't my experience. More that they don't want to do anything else.

No one who has responded so far seems to be ex or from forces background? Believe it or not HMForces is not like the tv. Theres people from all walks of life, male and female. Some have degrees and some don't. All of them have great organisational and leadership skills as we, the taxpayers, have paid for their training. The ones that are rubbish in this respect don't make it through training. Some are sensitive to emotional needs of others, and others aren't. They are all different and definitely not all gun toting maniacs with alcohol problems. However they are definitely motivated and driven as individuals. Give me ex forces teacher for my boy any time you like. You can train to be a barrister in 2 years for goodness sake with just life experience behind you, only the best make it through. Why can't the same be true for ex forces training as teachers? We need to broaden our horizons, not stick people in pigeon holes!

Why not read the whole thread carefully? You seem to have missed a few.

I'm well aware private schools are not subjected to the same qualification standards as those who wish to teach in state schools.

However private schools aren't using taxpayers cash to do so! Private mainstream school teachers are also not subjected to the same constraints that state teachers are.

Mainstream private schools can select pupils, either overtly or covertly, so children with SN's get "managed out" if they are ever admitted in the first place. Mainstream State schools have a legal statutory duty to teach everyone who comes through their doors - no matter the level of need.

As the parent of a child with SN's I've found that existing teacher training is woefully inadequate, to even suggest that it's possible to get away with LESS fills me with fear. It's not fair to my child, OR the others in his class without SN's.

Elansofar Sat 08-Jun-13 13:51:51
"No one who has responded so far seems to be ex or from forces background?"

Yes, they have. Several of them. Some with both forces background and teaching experience.

"Some have degrees and some don't."

Yes we know that. If you had read the thread you would realise that what people are objecting to is not ex-forces candidates with degrees being fast-tracked through the system: we are just pointing out that this does not require a new programme since such a programme already exists for graduates.

What we are objecting to is the idea that the superior organisational skills acquired by army personnel (and not, it seems by any other profession on earth) will do as a substitute for subject knowledge. I want my children to be taught by somebody who actually knows history or geography or French.

Ime though a person with good subject knowledge may still be a bad teacher for other reasons, a person with poor subject knowledge will always be a bad teacher.

Sters who are so worried about unqualified teachers in state school's might like to look at prh47bridge's comments on this thread. The number of unqualified teachers in state schools rose under NewLabour from 3,000 to 20,000.

I should imagine that many of those are still teaching, and it's not caused an outcry. Now, as this scheme does involve a qualification, and to be eligible in the first place you have to have been a trainer during the Armed Forces career, there is probably a lot less to worry about.

Why start with the military, and not other previous careers? Possibly because it is the largest provider of adult education in training in the country and so has people with teaching experience. Also that most leave after no more than 22 years, with plenty of time for second career. And that of course isn't just "those who can't" who leave - it's everyone.

Well if you worked for something other that money why is it so difficult to understand that others might? Or is it that you are looking for evidence to support your conviction that teachers are mediocre?

I don't think the money is that rubbish. Yes I earn a fraction of what I used to but in the secondary sector promotion is quite easy and you have the holidays. I earn around 50k for working 40 weeks a year .

What do you mean by a 'top' graduate though?

Lots of 'top' graduates with 1st class degrees from RG unis go into teaching. It's a myth that the best performing degree students make a beeline for well paid jobs at the expense of other factors anyway - the career destinations for 1st class students are just as diverse as students with 2.1 degrees.

And. nationally speaking, there really only are 'top' graduates going into teaching anyway. It is virtually impossible to get on to a postgraduate training course unless you have a 2.1 and show aptitude. Other graduate entry schemes like teach first are highly selective as well. So no 'crap' graduates, or even 'mediocre' graduates are getting past the first hurdle.

And even with the qualification and a year's probation behind them, no recently qualified teachers are getting jobs unless they can show real ability compared to other applicants.

Anyway, I agree with other posters who have said that a 1st class degree or PhD is obviously no real indication that you will make a good teacher. It's a vocation with a very specific skill-set.

I don't think the money is rubbish

But then I am not very materialistic.