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 about parents who have very strong pacifist views? Would they be unjustified in thinking that someone who choose a military career might not be a role model they'd want presented to their child in an educational setting?

I have no personal investment in this by the way. It's just a question.

Maybe vegetarians should be able to insist that carnivores like me should not teach their children.

Can children from atheist families choose not to have religious teachers?

well, to be fair, you have no idea about who is teaching your children, in terms of their beliefs, or even what they have done - all you know for sure is that they have not been convicted or cautioned for a variety of offenses.

i don't like the idea of someone who has killed people teaching my children (even if they have been sanctioned/ordered to do so by the state) but, I may never know, and there isn't much i can do

chibi - I just wonder- I was a military child. Would you be unhappy for your children to make friends with military children and go to their houses to play (baring in mind the military parent might be responsible for looking after said children)?

What are all these degrees that are supposedly being condensed into two years? The only examples I can think of are certain professional courses where the candidate in question may already have a related degree - this can sometimes lead to a slightly fast tracked course. This scheme isn't in any way the same thing, it is a total dumbing down! Here is the official info: troopstoteachers.ctp.org.uk/information-for-non-graduates

I think there is rather of a lot of intellectual snobbery at work here, rather than impartial thinking.

I challenge any teacher to say they use their degree to its fullest, unless they are teaching at A level, or in higher ed.

I am in touch with lots of students and many tell me that due to the few lectures they have, their degrees could easily be compressed into 2 years- and in fact many are angry that they pay for 3 years tuition when 2 would suffice, with fewer holidays= longer terms.

There are many routes into teaching now- Teach First, PGCE, BEd, as well as training in schools on the job.

If you bother to read the link to the Brighton Uni info, or look at the DFE info on teacher training, you will see that what is being proposed is not that radical- there are many ways that mature applicants with 'other' qualifications can access a teacher training course, and equally, there are hundreds of 1000s of 'teachers' teaching in private schools and colleges who have never had a day's teacher training.

Most secondary teachers do teach A Level.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from with the carnivore analogy. I do think that parents should be able to opt out of religious instruction in schools though. I can imagine a lot of parents wouldn't be too keen on a teacher who brought their religious views into subject lessons though. I can imagine a lot of people wouldn't be that keen on someone talking about their military background in an educational context either. And I'm not sure I'd be keen on a scheme that fast tracked ex ministers, priests or monks into the education system either.

As chibi says, it's the idea of having someone who has killed people teaching children, that will be a bit strange to many parents. And, I would add, that these people are seen by the Dept. of Education, as particularly appropriate role models and leaders, to the extent that they will be fast-tracked through the system. That obviously carries the implication that military experience is held in high esteem, and I'm not sure that all parents will be happy with that message.

The link you posted Bue shows exactly my point- on a PGCE course, students spend roughly 2 days a week in uni, for 1 year and the rest in a school, over 39 weeks.

On the 'troops' training, they spend one day a week in uni for 2 years. So the amount of time spent in lectures etc is the same, or slightly higher , than the PGCE course.

My problem isn't that they are from the military but the lack of degree .

Are others saying that no one from a military background should ever teach, even with a degree ? That is rather unfair .

Bella this is not just about time in lectures during a PGCE but lack of time immersing themselves in a subject they love at a specialist level.

magrat
I am a pacifist, but was also a forces wife as DH was in the RAF. I am also a realist and realise that my beliefs are just that, mine. I don't care really what the teacehrs background or beliefs may be, I just care that they have a passion for teaching and are doing it because they believe they can make a difference in children's life.
If an ex- military person wants to teach, that's fine. But I would wnder why they didn't choose that career path instead of joining up.
I hate the idea that teaching is some sort of afterthought

But the people on the PGCE already have a degree. The troops are supposedly earning their degree in that time too.

I don'y actually know many PGCE qualified teachers who spent as little as '2 days a week in uni' - even if they did it's a mistake to equate contact time with time spent learning. It is a postgraduate degree and does require vast self-directed study beyond seminars and lectures.

The difference with the 'troops' training is that the one day a week is part time jammed in with full time work at a school, so there's no way there will be a similar depth of learning.

And that they will be working and teaching in the school from the get-go of the program, before they've done any additional training at all.

Insancerre teaching was my second career, an afterthought if you like. I am still bloody good at my job and in fact I think I bring something else to my classroom precisely because I have done other things.

Are others saying that no one from a military background should ever teach, even with a degree ? That is rather unfair

Absolutely not saying no one from a military background should never teach! But it is strange to fast track ex-military people into training when they don't have a degree, and when option is only open to people from a military background.

I have reservations about the lack of degree point, but otherwise I don't think it is a terrible idea. Officers in particular often have great skill sets and are snapped up into top City jobs for great roles. Big firms and banks often have schemes specifically aimed at recruiting former officers because they have so much to offer. Why shouldn't there be a scheme to get them into teaching too?

If that scheme includes a degree it is a great idea .

Bella - tuition is only part of degree study and a very small part at that! The remainder of degree level learning comes from self-exploration of the subject area and developing your own thinking in the subject. Turning up to lectures and regurgitating notes will not get a student a good quality of degree as higher level critical thinking and analysis will not be well developed.

I hold this opinion BTW from a decade's worth
of experience teaching and examining at HE level and I hold a HE teaching qualification. Teaching at HE level BTW also requires more than degree level knowledge - it requires PhD level and then some to be able to adequately provide stretch and challenge for the most able. Therefore it makes sense that at one level lower (i.e. secondary) teachers also need at least degree level knowledge of their subject.

I would also like to know the exact % of teachers in private schools who have 'never had a days teacher training'. This is often trotted out, but AFAIK most private schools prefer people who do hold teaching qualifications (or at least who are prepared to gain them once in post).

Those are management positions, and ex-officers have a great deal of management training. Why is there a presumption that ex soldiers (we're not talking specifically about officers here, are we?) are likely to be great at teaching children? Especially odd if they don't have a degree and no actual expertise in the subject they're teaching.

bella, but PGCE students already have a degree in their chosen subject! It's not the pedagogical aspect I'm worried about so much, it's the subject knowledge. On the website it says: you should have a strong understanding of the subject you wish to teach before you start training. If your qualifications don?t link closely to your chosen teaching subject, you may be eligible to undertake a subject knowledge enhancement course before you begin training. So theoretically, a service leaver could say, I quite fancy giving maths a go!, despite possibly having little formal education in maths, and no degree in anything at all. How does this inspire confidence??

magrat i would have no problem with that - it is certainly no reflection on a child what a parent may have done/have had to do (fwiw my father also served, though was never involved in a conflict)

i guess my point was that your children are going to come in to contact with all kinds of people, and you will have no way of knowing what is in their background, or their hearts, from more trivial examples (i.e. whether they eat meat) to more serious ones.

provided you are confident your child is safe, there really isn't much you can do

whether my children are coming in to contact with people who have killed others as part of their military service is not something i have ever really considered - just that, if i do consider it, it doesn't fill me with delight or ease

i hope that makes sense and is not hurtful

Chibi - not hurtful at all, no. Just interesting to see another perspective.

Just because a teacher has a degree in their chosen subject doesn't mean to say they will teach this subject. So if the degree was so important surely teachers would only be allowed to teach their own subject.
Is a primary teacher with a degree in textiles better than a teacher with no degree.
This was the qualification of my dds last primary teacher. The one she would have now has a degree in Drama.