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.

Don't be a spoilsport, all that new energy and enthusiasm flooding the system? All that latent talent?
It will only take then five or six years to practise on children before they know if they are cut out for it.

It's only a bad idea if you have no faith in either selection processes for teacher training, or in the existing providers of teacher training being incompetent at weeding out those unsuitable for the classroom, whatever their background.

There is no one "ex-Forces" personality or approach, and wrong to suggest any particular inherent set of attitudes.

notyummy, I see where you are coming from and I know some of these schemes have been very successful

but they are basically mentoring schemes, where the mentoring could also have been done by any other member of the community with a good set of life experience (there have also been successful such schemes with ex-offenders iirc)

a teacher needs to do so much more than that

note that nobody is suggesting that other members of the community, who might also have been considered for mentoring, should be allowed to do a teacher's job without the same amount of training as any other teacher

also these schemes have been with adolescents who are not that far removed in age and development from squaddies

it does not mean that a similar skills set is transferable to dealing with 4-year olds

the current suggestion is that this minimal training should equip ex-soldiers from teaching in both primary and secondary schools

I don't think there is anything about ex-soldiers that means they cannot make good teachers like any other member of society

with the same amount of training as any other member

which is where the proposed scheme falls down

Ideologically driven Gove again.

I'm quite open minded about this scheme. I can see both the advantages and disadvantages.

But for those who have had a bad experience with an ex-forces teacher, please don't automatically assume they'll all therefore be like that.

That's almost as bad as me saying that I had a teacher who was a wet lettuce and therefore all teachers must be wet lettuce's.

As long as the selection process is good, I see no reason why this couldn't be a positive win-win thing. One of the best teachers I had, without whom I would never have got my A in A level maths and gone on to uni. He was unqualified and didn't have a maths degree. He also screamed and shouted until his face went red and vein's bulged if you misbehaved. But boy could he teach!

It's a good idea because the armed forces are downsizing & we need more teachers! That's about it really. Don't suppose that much thought has gone into whether it will actually work or not - that would require thought & consideration.

Well, I think it's an excellent idea. Never mind all that fancy book-learning; what you need is people who can fire a bloody gun.

I'm actually a reluctant supporter of the coalition government, until something better comes along doesn't hold breath. But I do not understand why Gove thinks he knows better than just about anyone else and can personally change the entire system of education. He's just not qualified to do so.

I'm not sure which side of this argument I'm on.

Firstly people seem to think that because a teacher has a degree they know it all. I'm damn sure this isn't the case. They use reference books to keep themselves upto date and check what they are teaching. I'm fairly certain from meeting a number of teachers that their university days passed in a drunken haze.

Secondly I think the gov. are trying to get more men into the classroom to be a male role model and get the boys interested in learning so they came catch up with the girls, who tend to be more academic.

As for discipline, this may well improve but the current lack seem to stem from home and gov. There needs to be a change in attitudes in both places. Parents need to back up the teachers and visa versa. If a teacher disciplines a child the parent shock be backing it up, not confronting the teacher in front of the child.

So if this will be fine as long as the selection process is good, why do we need to spend all this money training other teachers who come from different backgrounds? Why do they need degrees and longer training? Why can't we have a good selection process for them and dispense with all this education nonsense?

Should not shock. Grrr typo.

Earlier on in the week, I read on MN that a hospital somewhere that didnt have enough doctors was thinking to use the army in some way, nursing wise I think.

I wonder if I see a pattern.
Looking at it form to Governments pov, they are pulling out of somewhere, aren't they?, so need to employ the army somewhere.

I'm trying not to bite... Because I know how mumsnetters love a bit of army bashing but you're being absurd. There is also far too much on mumsnet of teachers are wonderful, overworked, highly educated etc... They aren't, some are, some aren't.

But hey I'm biting so here goes...

The aim isn't to let any soldier leave the army and go straight into a school without relevant training. Nearly all officers have degrees and a significant number of NCOs have some higher level of education and training. The army has an education corps so they actually have teachers! They will be selected based on their character, background, skills, educational ability etc... And then they will receive training. Soldiers and officers of the right character are hard working, capable and can be inspirational. They will potentially make great teachers, as do some teachers who went through the current accepted level of teacher training, some won't, but that's the same as those graduating with the PGCEs through the conventional route.

Give me 2 teachers, extreme examples I admit, and I know who I would want educating my child.

Young man, scraped a low 2:2, not interested in teaching but needs a job, fell into a funded PGCE. Spends his classroom days trying to be cool and pally with the students. Instead of marking homework goes out on the merry with his mates.

40 year old ex Senior NCO, no degree, but hard working (willing and capable to learn), able to keep discipline, not interested in being friends with the students, his only goal to see them successful. Used to working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore happily working long hours because he has a family to support.

It's not that difficult when given the extreme... I accept that the extremes could go in the other direction. But thats life.

There will be recruiting criteria and training. Stop being alarmist and 'only teachers like me, with a degree like me, are capable of educating children' - that's just bollocks!

I have just been doing the rounds of parents' meetings oncce again and once again come away with the firm conviction that on balance and statistically the teachers who feel most confident in their subject knowledge are also the best teachers and are the ones most respected by their pupils.

Nothing will damage your confidence quicker than the sneaking conviction that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. The pupils will pick up on that uncertainty in no time and they will not respect you.

Of course it is possible to have excellent subject knowledge and still be a rotten teacher, because you have the wrong personality or are not organised enough or whatever.

But I do not believe it is possible to have poor subject knowledge and still be a good teacher.

Again of course it is possible to have excellent subject knowledge without a degree. But it is difficult for a school to check.

'They use reference books to keep themselves up to date'.

Heaven forfend a teacher should refer to books and research so that they know what they're talking about in front of a class. And drunk at uni? Never. Not me.

Yes Cory- there is def more relevance in people entering secondary teaching from the forces rather than primary. I think in addition some work was done with these groups if young people to establish what kind of person they would look up to and accept boundaries from (when developing the scheme and deciding who should act as the mentors) and ex military personnel were highlighted by the young people themselves, which is why they were selected over other groups. I also think that there had been work done with high performing private schools to understand how they select teachers, given that they don't need to have teachers with specific qualifications. One of the largest sub-groups they recruit from is ex-military officers. (I am not saying that private schools are full of them, just that it is a recognised route.) I can see that some bright spark at DfE has thought 'hmm, we should have some of that ...'

But I am not unwaveringly in support of this. I think it has merit and genuinely think that some people could w fast tracked and be of huge benefit to school, but I do understand how this could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. I don't think automatically assuming that all ex military personnel have a narrow skills set (shouting/shooting) like some posters here shows a lack of understanding of the breadth of roles in the military.

Apologies for typos and slight 'stream of consciousness' in last post. Was written whilst on the move..,

I think Fuzzy has it.

It's so idiotic. Either you need a degree to be a teacher, or you don't. If you don't need a degree, then I'm sure there are all sorts of wonderful people from different professions who could become teachers.

And why, really, would soldiers be the people to bring discipline to the classroom, if that is actually what Gove has in mind? If you want better discipline in the classroom, then give teachers more power to enforce discipline.

As so often with Gove's madcap ideas, I find myself asking: does he have a cunning plan that we just haven't grasped? Or is he really this bone-headedly stupid?

Well, at least it will give the teacher-bashers far and wide a different set of drums to beat. I like a bit of variety.
is there going to be a Troops as Social Workers push too? That might be very effective.

Gove... he's just a special kind of bonkers, isn't he? I mean, we all have daft ideas usually after we've been on the wine then we wake up in the morning, look at the scrawled post it note with 'MUST REMEMBER! SQUADDIE TEEECHERS' on it, then we laugh ruefully at ourselves and bin it.

Can I pose a question to the teachers on this page (if any). How much teaching experience does a newly qualified teacher in their first full time job have?