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.

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

This is true. A while ago, DH taught maths (as a civilian) to new recruits. One of the young men was being a bit of a PITA in lessons, and DH mentioned it to the man in charge. The boy spent the night in the lock-up! DH never heard a peep out of him for the rest of the course. Discipline is much easier to enforce when you have military sanctions at your disposal. Needless to say, school is a very different institution...

Yep, there was ex-military person on my 1 year PGCE course.

Also a builder, a translator, a new graduate, a chartered accountant, a SAHM... Can't remember them all.

As far as I know, we all met the same selection criteria. Which did take into account life experience which might assist in being a good teacher. And didn't skimp on subject knowledge.

Whilst some ex-military personnel may well have the aptitude and some relevant practical skills suited to teaching, I don't understand what they are going to have the knowledge to teach if they don't already have a degree. If they spend 4 days in the classroom and 1 day in University, for two years, how will they gain enough subject knowledge to pass on to secondary school pupils?

I realise that has been said already but did not have time to read before posting and wanted to air my initial thoughts. Especially as someone who is the daughter of an ex-serviceman who was/is a good adult trainer and thinks he would have been a good class teacher (I don't) and the wife of a teacher who has experienced ex-military teaching poorly in his school.

A previous poster asked why this has been aimed at ex soldiers and not nurses etc.

I presume it's because that a typical soldier (I am not sure about raf and rn) will finish their army career at around 40. They normally do 22 (most have been now offered 24) years.

I also presume (and hope) that if this does get pushed through that it would only be those people in the forces who have gained good qualifications within the army but have not actually done a degree e.g engineers etc. Also different trades within the army need certain qualifications or exam results to be able to do them.

I can't see it would be a blanket acceptance of all ex-forces as teachers, which would be disastrous.

I have not read the whole thread.

I am ex-army.
I have a degree
I am a teacher.

My school considers me "outstanding".

BUT I needed 2 years in civvie street to mellow and "learn" that an awful lot of people do not do their jobs as well as they should as there are no sanctions.

I am a good teacher because of my personality not because of my previous profession.

Teaching without a degree is yet another way of undermining what should be a valued profession.

The army is being downsized at all levels and teaching should be an option for personnel interested. I assume they would be able to fast track in if they have relevant qualifications. If there is a special fast track for army personnel I think that's ok- I expect it will be part of a redundancy package and there would be integration with civilian fast track etc.

Schools can still look at cvs and decide who they want, after all. No one is making them hire people they don't want to.

I was taught serving army personnel from age about 8 up, and they were kind, interested in their subject, and a good role model. I have never been interested in joining the army and not one tried to foister any of their choices on me.

Its not going to be boot camp! And some tattooed squaddie flexing his muscles whilst barking commands at a bunch of cowering children for a pittance and a space in the army teachers bunk room. I wonder if anyone in the TA gets the same benefit?

This shite pops up every time there's a perceived need to re-deploy the military/slag off teachers. A thread like this ran when I joined up to MN ..oooh forget when. Yawn.

In the end, the teacher, wherever trained, can only teach within the permitted environment. Does anyone seriously think that if a teacher could jack the arse of an uncooperative pupil, they wouldn't do it?

Of course not. They're not allowed to. They are constrained by government targets on suspensions, etc. etc. et fucking c.

The government has a problem.
It has army, or service personnel it no longer requires.
Where to put them it thinks?

It has more limited control over the private sector of the state, but has very much more control over the public sector. So education, medical, maybe civil service perhaps?
You can imagine the discussions around the table at Westminster.

My DS has had ex army teachers and they have been his favorite teachers.

I can see how some of the skills involved are transferable, and don't like the general assumption that those in the army don't have a degree. Fwiw I know a lot of friends who got into teaching for the salary as opposd to the love of teaching. They have the subject knowledge but having walked straight from uni into employment they don't have the necessary life experience to make them great teachers, nor have they developed the people management skills to deal with some of the more challenging behaviours exhibited in their schools.
I don't agree about the fast tracking process, nor that anyone should be able to teach in a state school without a relevant degree, but why shouldn't it be an option for those who leave the army to consider?

^What Cradle Cap said^

I used to be involved with mentoring trainee teachers. You could usually tell within a week of them being in placement whether or not they would stay the full course. It's a personality job.

But jammie, noone is saying that army leavers with a degree should not be able to retrain as teachers

Only that the suggested two year training programme for army leavers is clearly not designed for those with a degree since there is already a one year programme designed for graduates, whether ex-army or ex-anywhere else.

Gove's proposal is that ex-army candidates (but nobody else, regardless of life experience) should be allowed to teach without a degree.

Criticising this proposal is not the same as suggesting that nobody in the army does have a degree. We know plenty do. They are not the target of Gove's proposal.

Teaching without a degree is yet another way of undermining what should be a valued profession.

Yes, I agree. If there's a shortage of teachers, the way to attract the best candidates is going to be better funding and resources for schools, not to mention better pay for teachers in line with other professional jobs (as it used to be, rather than in line with service jobs).

Radio 5 live are about to discuss the scheme.

ooh people agree with me - [preen]

'As so many teachers seem to complain that they can't teach as they wish because of poor pupil behaviour and outside interference, I think Forces experience would be excellent for coping with those two issues.'

What do you think they will be able to do that we haven't been doing?

Or are you thinking that the rules on what is acceptable as discipline and teacher/parent interaction will change?

Seriously?

I agree with those on this thread that are concerned about the academic requirements (or potential lack of them.) I think at the very least I think the scheme should be initially targeted at those with degrees leaving the military, who meet rigorous selection standards (kind of Teach First-ish.) There might then be a case for looking at those without degrees who do day release/OU style degree whilst NQT.

In response to the (entirely fair) question about why we should be actively seeking ex-military as opposed to other professions, I have had a good think. As I said earlier, I am (was) a secondary school teacher (degree and PGCE), plus a year pre PGCE as a Special Needs Assistant. I served in the RAF for 7 years as an officer. I have since worked in various roles in the private and public sector, inc as a management consultant interacting closely with a range of professions and businesses. I give you this background to try and explain what specifically military training and experience gave me that these other roles didn't.

• Lengthy, detailed training in developing a self confident, authoritative presence. Never got any feedback on this during my PGCE- entirely focused on my lesson plan and whether i met the objectives, which misses the point. You can have the greatest lesson plan in the world, but if you don't have confidence, a sense of self belief and a demeanour that sets expectations...then you are lost in a classroom. Good quality people from the military (not ALL people from the military...) have already got this (iin spades) without having to learn the hard way in a classroom.

• a structured, yet flexible approach to the delivery if information, so everyone knows what is expected from them. I was taught a variety of ways of getting a succinct message across that avoided confusion and could be adapted to suit others way of taking on board information. When I taught it to others after leaving the military, it became clear that it is not the sort of thing that most people have learned.

• a strong ethos of both leading by example, and at the same time serving others. You don't bellow, as that is not the behaviour you wish to see from those you work with. You go the extra mile to help others in difficulty .

• a deeply engrained work ethic, and an organised method of dealing with ('cracking on' is the phrase often used) a heavy workload in the most efficient manner.

Now, I am not saying that there are not many, many teachers out there without all of these attributes. There undoubtedly are. I don't think the profession is broken. I am just trying to tease out for those who haven't experienced both the military and the teaching professions, the 'golden threads' that connect them, and mean we should be actively seeking to recruit the best from the military. They have much to offer. They should be academically suitable and rigorously selected- but they are there, and there is a set of skills developed through years of training within the military that does make these people more suitable to be targeted for teaching in this way than (for example) pharmacists or retailers or bankers or miners. I pick those as examples of professions that I have worked with as an organisational development consultant, because I know they do not get training, development and feedback as rigorous and tailored in developing their self confidence, discipline and organisation as that which goes into military personnel.

My concern is the army training is very very good at detaching you form your emotions and concentrating on tasks.
I remember a course on emotional intelligence where the trainer went through jobs where emotional intelligence would inhibit you from doing your job - he said the armed forces was the key example, so generally expect ex forces to have low EQ and genrally limited empathy and people skills - I know this is a massive genralisation but army training does not encourage people based skills (Yes, I started it - I dropped out).

Teaching is people based and requires high EQ to navigate all those different personalities and still be sucessful.

So I would not think one would be a good fit for the other.
Mind you if you applied army selection tests to general jobs most people would fade away so at least the ex army teachers would be able to work in a team while carrying 12 kg in a backpack.

Teaching is also discipline.

You do not "get" discipline in a classroom by rules.
You do not get well behaved kids if you cannot control kids.

You need authority - and as a teacher that means a class room presence

Again it is personality.

You can have a first class honours from Oxbridge and not be able to explain how to peel a banana, but have a third from an ex-poly and be able to explain how to cut a banana into three parts with a pin.

We don't mention it when my Dad's around LOL

This is complete repeat of what happened after WW2 when there were a load of demobbed chaps and deficit of teachers due to them all going and getting shot in the war....

My Dad did war work in industry (the RAF were going to have him as a 15yr cadet old out of school but then was was declared and they said no as he was under fighting age). His mate Jim was older, went into the navy. Survived. Demobbed, paid "handsomely" and and fast tracked into teaching. Dad took the college route and came out fully trained and qualified after my mum ( also a teacher) supported him through.

He never quite forgave Jim and was sure he was a rubbish teacher!

I don't think there is a general assumption that people in the army don't have a degree, the problem is that this programme is specifically for people in the army who don't have a degree.

It would be silly to talk about the ones that have a degree as this programme isn't for them.