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.

21k isn't a rubbish starting salary either. Getting more elsewhere doesn't make 21k rubbish.

I am sure I started on about £25k and in under ten years I have doubled that wage.

I don 't think 25k is that unusual for a starting salary for a graduate. I can't remember my starting salary in my other job, but it was similar, excluding bonuses.

So on the one hand there are always various threads on here about how women supposedly ruin their careers by taking years out to be SAHM or even by going on maternity leave. We have had threads on here from qualified teachers who cannot get back into teaching because they were a SAHM for five years.

But somebody who has worked in the army for twenty years, a career which has no more in common with teaching than about half the jobs in society, is not seen as having damaged his or her career by doing something other than teaching, but is actually going to be allowed in with fewer academic qualifications than the average teacher.

Because being in the army is apparently better life experience to give you a short cut and better chances of getting funded routes into teaching than those available to people who actually work with children.

Why don't we set up a special route into teaching for those who have experience with children - nursery staff, child minders, youth service workers, workers from voluntary sector that deal with children and young people or people who run youth theatre and youth groups for no pay. What makes former military personnel better prospective teachers?

Or we could just give everyone the same potential route into teaching. An interview where you are asked about your experience of working with people under eighteen, a degree and some form of postgraduate training either based in school or university with placements, funded for the people who had a combination of academic ability and experience with children.

Why kids should work hard to get the best qualifications in school for anything - vocational or academic, is hard to understand when the very people teaching them are not being brought in on a fair system of actually being the best qualified.

there were national pay scales, but from september, schools can set their own (but max and min values for the scales will be fixed)

to earn £50k you would need to have responsibility within the school i.e. be on the senior leadership team

Elansofar 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.
I've worked in a sector that has a lot of ex army. Some make the transition well - some don't. Some have great organisational and leadersip skills - many actually don't without the structure of the armed forces. They are as you say all individuals, but I really don't think they have any collective characteristics that will necessarily make them excellent teachers. I don't think anyone is saying they are all "gun toting maniacs" but I really dion't see any evidence that they will necessarily, as a group benefit our education system and be a credit to the teaching profession with a seriously pared-down training.

Perhaps it's just a method to find employment for no longer required soldiers rather than the gov having to live with the bad headlines when they are unemployed for years after being stood down.

I think I am more nervous of fast tracking graduates into senior posts in the police. The thought of someone with no experience deciding on the control of rioters, or dealing with sex abusers or murderers is a bit scary imo. Plus they are working with the new Commissioners who also have no experience of policing.

Both the teaching and the policing thing seem destined for a disaster or two.

I also feel it's pretty obvious that many recent reforms, such as allowing unqualified teachers to teach in academies, and this ex-army recruitment drive, is focused on decreasing the proportion of qualified, professionally trained teachers in our schools, destabilising the profession and its professional voice, with the ultimate aim of breaking teacher unions and driving down pay and conditions.

There are a huge number of reasons why people go into certain careers that have nothing to do with money. Teaching attracts high calibre people because...

They love their subject.
They've always wanted to teach.
They like working with children.
They enjoy challenging and expanding the minds of children.
They like the community feel that you get in schools.
They want a profession rather than a job.

And so on, and so on.

The starting salaries for teachers did used to be appalling. When I took my first NQT job it was 14.5k. That was boosted to make teaching more attractive and 21k is not a bad starting salary for someone just out of university. Compared to the starting salaries in a lot of other professions, its good. Now they have a salaried route for top candidates, its even more attractive.

The career provides you with plenty of opportunity for progression as well. Taking on more responsibility, going into management etc. all allow you to boost what you earn. To get on pg courses now you really need at least a 2:1 and the programmes are full of applicants from RG universities. None of this leads to teachers who are mediocre and only in the profession because they can't think of what else to do. That's a fallacy that has been around as long as the saying "Those that can, do, those that can't, teach". The reality is that those that can, can teach others so they can too.

I don't teach any more, but I wouldn't have got into my current profession if I'd not started out as a teacher and my teaching career set me up to be where I am now. I earn around the same as Arisbottle - about the same as I would do if I was in school management.

As Aris points out the money in teaching really isn't rubbish when you get beyond the main pay scale - it is actually very comparable to many professional jobs in the private sector. Yes the starting salary in the state sector is crap, but it's not forever. I left a professional job making close to 40K to retrain as a midwife. My starting salary will be the same as a teacher (a scandalously low salary for the responsibility IMO) but I won't always be paid that poorly. It's a pretty shortsighted person who can't see past a starting salary to 10 years in the future.

Have you Bue? As an aside - I've always had a hankering to retrain as a midwife. Is it as good as I think it would be? I don't think I ever would (main breadwinner / like being the boss) but its tempting!

When I started in teaching, my salary was around £9,600.

When I started as a graduate in the pharmaceutical industry, my salary was £10,400. I think salary is all contextual.

On a different note, some have posted on here saying that having a ton of qualifications does not necessarily equate to being a good teacher and I don't think anyone would dispute that. Teachers have my utmost respect for the amount of hoops they have to jump through, rather than just being allowed to get on with their jobs. However, a lack of qualifications and sound subject knowledge is not acceptable. Teachers are entrusted with the educational levels of future generations - that is one hell of a responsibility. Those who don't have the necessary sound knowledge, understanding of and passion for their subject should not teach. It should not be seen as a profession in which to off-load people, which is the impression I get from this initiative. I think the thinking behind this initiative went no further than,'we have lots of soldiers who we don't know what to do with', followed by, 'look we have a shortage of teachers in some areas. Let's put the soldiers into those jobs then'.

BTW, as an aside, my df was in the forces and training was part of his job. He was required to do teacher training in a secondary school in order to learn how to teach soldiers.

There'll be enough people thinking it won't happen to them to feed the machine for 5-7 years before the next wave.

It may not be seen as a good profession to go into by many in society, but for many soldiers without degrees, employment options when they leave at age 35 are prison service, private security or military police. Not exactly desirable options.

The problem really is the lack of degree. I am trying to think of a stage in DD's education when I would be happy for her to be taught by a non-graduate. A Level is obviously ruled out as teachers one chapter ahead in the textbook can't enable a pupil to access the highest grade or prompt discussions that would help with university interviews. At GCSE, could a non-graduate really have the background to answer tangential questions and inspire a student to continue to take the subject at A Level. I also think that I would want someone who has a degree to be teaching the basics at primary level as I think a thorough understanding of pedagogy is required to teach reading and numeracy. There are so many schools of though and ideas about how the mind works that 1 day a week of theory for 2 years isn't going to be enough to prepare for teaching in an early years setting. So does this leave a gap at middle school age for non-graduate teachers? Probably not as there is a crossover between needing specialist teaching skills and specialist subject knowledge. All of this is before even getting to the diversity of pupil needs (though I do think that quite a lot of this is learnt in a practical way by experiencing a diversity of pupils as it is quite hard to teach in theory). The only thing I would really be happy having DD taught by non-graduates is PE (by which I mean games rather than GCSE or A Level) as I think that you can get some excellent non-graduate sports coaches.

I think teachers need to stop talking down their profession, I am so glad I went into teaching. Great work life balance, every day is different, great opportunities for promotion, immense job satisfaction, wonderful holidays and good pension. I think it is a great job to go into and one I would be happy of my children chose it.

I agree about PE teaching - as in games rather the the GCSE.

A whole bunch of teachers have utterly failed my DS. Their arrogance and refusal to work in partnership with parents was alarming but symptoms of a failing system.

In such a system it probably woukdn't have mattered a toss who taught my child.