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.

I'm suprised Gove's not going further. Putting them in the classroom? No! fast track to senior management. They're used to working in hostile environmnents against various hostile groups with different agendas (think pupils, jaded teachers, parents, OFSTED) and on hopeless missions that should never have been dreamed up. Perfect for making the most of Gove's hairbrained ideologies.

We're not even short of teachers! There's thousands of people with unused PGCEs that fade from the profession unable to scape a living from supply as they are under cut by cover supervisors.

Here's a novel idea- let the teaching courses get on with selecting those who they think are sufficiently qualified to teach by accademic merit, experience and personality. Ex military may provide some great potential teachers, as well as Oxbridge (we've heard those rumblings before) as well as people from a general mix of society that represent the schools they go out to teach in.

To be honest I'm glad I'm on a break from teaching at present. I joined the profession with enthusiasm, and a love for my subject that I wanted to pass on to young people. I love what I do in the classroom, but the political side of the job is ovewhelming and stiffling. I hope that a brighter day dawns when I feel I have the freedom to do my job properly free from the shackles of a 1984 state of double speak and constantly shifting goal posts.

I don't think people are worried about the graduates who then have to do a further 1 year of training to become teachers. That's exactly how anyone becomes a teacher.

The issue is with the soliders who don't have a degree and yet are to become teachers in 2 years. I suspect a great many soldiers have fantastic experience of training, coaching and mentoring young people. These skills could be brilliant in secondary school. But they'll have to teach something - maths, history, RE, science etc.

I used to teach history many years ago. I was a good history teacher. I knew what I was talking about. But for one year, I also had to teach RE to a year 7 class. I had RE O level. I read the text books. But frankly, I was a crap RE teacher because I didn't have the "bigger picture" that I would have got from studying it to degree level. I could talk about what we were doing in class that day, but I couldn't really stimulate ideas in the way I could during history lessons. I didn't have the knowledge base, and I hadn't been trained in how to think in a particular way.

'There is a unemployed teacher in Leeds that has just been cleared to kids again. Not sure if he is off the sex offenders list or not though.'

Cookie, that's Gove and his NCT. There's a thread running here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1772661-Teacher-who-had-indecent-pictures-of-children-allowed-to-stay-in-profession
Many of the objections are from teachers and teacher organisations.
Why did you think it relevant to mention on this thread?

I have a suspicion that "army" teachers would get paid more than existing teachers too.

Al doctors, nurses, vets and dentists are fast tracked into the army. Their period of officer training is shorter assuming they meet the criteria to start officer training in the first place. Does that make them less of a Dr, or less of and officer... No.

Fast Tracking into professions occurs all over the place. Why must teaching be so obstructive!! You are destroying your own profession from inside, you must wake up to this fact!

Oi - you 5 year old over there? Last in the non-competitive sack race-- ?

Drop to the floor and give me 20! And no crying for mummy...

And I am not a teacher. I am an RNMH. Maybe we should decant my 3 years of pre-reg training and 5 years of post reg/grad into 2 years? That'd so sort out the problem wouldn't it? So why do it in teaching?

And my training was ward based in case anybody wants to trot out the 'nurses don't have practical training anymore' argument. (Apologies for my defensiveness but decided to pre-empt.)

'The issue is with the soliders who don't have a degree and yet are to become teachers in 2 years.'

Zip drive degrees. Pack 3 years into one, then a PGCE.
Of course, the military might have those 'Learn stuff in your sleep' gadgets that they are not sharing with us.

Captain, I also feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Why are armed forces personel special regardless of whether or not they have a degree? Why isn't the fast track available to all?

I am not a teacher either.

And yes, it is possible that if a doctor is fast tracked, that he misses out something vital.
I didnt realise that some doctors came from the army and were fast tracked.

Army officers and NCOs are used to blind obedience, I think they may find that doesn't happen in schools. What would they do then? Jankers?

Before you join, the army will offer sponsorship through degrees for exceptional candidates.

Likewise those with degrees and other relevant qualifications, it's before you join for the most part. But then you can gather experience and education during in the form of OU an staff college.

Cookie804 Fri 07-Jun-13 10:34:21
"All types? Ok so we don't have 4 yr olds. We do have people with dyslexia or who have difficulties in learning. "

In an ordinary mainstream classroom you can also expect to have pupils who are severely autistic and have meltdowns if you come too close to them, pupils in wheelchairs, pupils with Downs syndrome, pupils who are unable to talk, or pupils with ADHD who talk non-stop, pupils who are in and out of hospital with terminal illnesses but still need to keep up with their education. In short, a range of pupils who would never have been accepted into the army.

I'm a teacher married to a soldier, and I have also been training teachers via PGCE courses for a number of years.

My dh hasn't got a degree, however he does have vocational qualifications the equivalent to a masters, and would certainly more than cope with the academic rigour of technology a level.

He's been training recruits as young as 16 for years as well, so is well versed in the upper secondary age range that I mainly teach.

I think people have the wrong end of the stick- it's not going to be your shouty types with no qualifications who go through the troops to teachers, it's going to be people like my dh.

A degree doesn't mean you have subject knowledge - I know for a fact that his subject knowledge will be far better than the trainee I had this year, there are other qualifications that show you have a high level of knowledge and training in a subject, and many ex-forces will have these qualifications.

At the end of the day, the people going through troops for teachers will still have to meet the same teaching standards that all trainees do, so assuming you have a half decent programme of in school training, with well trained mentors, you should in theory end up with people with good subject knowledge and classroom skills since these are some of the standards!!!!

They are used to having the mechanisms that back up obedience effectively, which many schools don't have. Who knows, that might change too.

Noone is suggesting that army personnel should not be able to make use of any relevant degree they may have to retrain as teachers to teach that particular subject. There is no rule specifically banning ex-army graduates to train as teachers. They can already do this. Just like anybody else in society who has a degree.

But then there wouldn't be any need for a special scheme.

And I had to do my ENB998 in order to act as mentor to student midwives and nurses. This took the best part of a year after a three year degree. So again, not all professions 'fast track'. All nurses and midwives must do a three year degree course (or DipHe in some cases). There is no pre-reg fast tracking.

PAM's (Professions Allied To Medicine) such as physio's, speech therapists, dieticians, OT's- they are all graduates of 3 year degree programmes. Not much fast tracking there. Social Workers can be fast tracked if they are graduates, doing a Ma in some cases. We all put the effort in.

The argument for consolidation of degree courses from 3-2 years is not as relevant to the health professions because unlike most other undergraduate courses, they tend to be in school at least 4 days a week with one study day a week and when on placement they are usually there for the full working week. Student Nurses do not observe the same lengthy university holidays either. They are often on placement. In addition until the legal requirement for placement/school hours is met, you cannot graduate and become eligible for registration. There is no room for fast tracking. Teaching is not dissimilar.

how on earth are they going to have the knowledge to teach subjects to GCSE and A level without a degree?

Without a GCSE in some cases.

Genuine question - if you are a nurse or vet in the army - do you qualify as a nurse or vet before you join the army or do you get trained as part of your army training

It a mixture.

I'm a teacher and I teach with a number of ex-forces teachers in an area with a lot of forces kids. I would say that some ex forces teachers are good but most of the ones I've worked with aren't. In my experience, their discipline is usually quite poor and their focus on the individual pupil is lacking.

Teachers need to inspire kids to ask and question. Teachers need to allow children to make mistakes and learn from them. Teachers need to know a lot about their subject and a lot about human behaviour. Teachers need to be able to encourage diversity and creativity. If a soldier can do these things then that's great but I don't see how their experience in the army necessarily prepares for the classroom.

Teachers do not need to shout and bawl and lay down the law. The more shouting you do the worse your discipline is: fact. Good teachers can manage a class without parade ground tactics and fear. Anyone that thinks that shouting and sanctions equals learning hasn't been in a classroom for a long time and doesn't understand what learning is and how it happens. No doubt we all remember being at school and delighting in winding up a teacher until they exploded!

I'm sure it is perfectly possible to be an ex-soldier and also be a good teacher. I don't really see how the skill sets transfer though.

I wonder if the T4T candidates will have the same drop out rates as ordinary teachers? You know,at the end of the first year, those still teaching by their 5th year?
Do you think military personnel with have more grit? Stamina? Less angst and guilt and ADs?