Only 32 Troops to Teachers

[noblegiraffe]

There were 180 places in the first round of recruitment, only 41 places were taken up and only 32 teachers have emerged at the end.

www.tes.com.c.tes.ent.platform.sh/news/school-news/breaking-news/troops-teachers-scheme-misses-target

What a stupid waste of money.

Still, teacher recruitment crisis, what crisis? Eh, Nick Gibb?

Isn't it also about the principle of saying "people who have served in the military have transferable skills, and the government ought to support those who have served?" Here in the US being a veteran is a similar status to disabled people applying for jobs under the Two Ticks scheme: they get an interview if they meet the criteria, and an employer has to be very careful if they decide not to employ someone else. Troops to Teachers is a very very watered down version of this, but recognizes that some - not all! - military could bring something to the classroom.

Ok nobelgiraffe, my comment would have been better explained in a different order.

So more explicitly, I find it weird you wouldn't be proud to have a teacher from a military background in your school (your quote "proud to have them in your school, that's a bit weird, tbh).

And the second point, in a few threads now I have read you comment things like eg quote "teachers will need her to get her As and As too or they can say goodbye to any chance of a payrise next year*.)

How about you address the points of your lack of facts, political bias and completely fantasized spin?

Why would I be proud to have a teacher with a military background in my school? If they were a decent teacher I'd be pleased to have them in my school, but proud is a totally bizarre reaction, IMO. They're a colleague, not a gold sticker.

And the comment about pay rises wasn't anything to do with my payrise, but to explain why some teachers are putting what some parents see as excessive pressure on kids to achieve their target grades. As was explained to you in the thread.

completely fantasized spin

Like calling 32 out of 180 a 78% success rate?

Do you work for the government, perchance?

Christine if it was all about helping ex-military find employment that would be reasonable, if that is a particular issue, and there was a call for it. However it was sold as getting soldiers into schools to sort the kids out. Not a solution to unemployment in ex-military, but hailing an army of arse-kickers.

Like this story, for example: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7245122.stm

Noble you should be proud because a teacher that was (previously) willing to give up their life to protect you is something worthy. If you say they are just a sticker and weird, I would suggest your are a very strange person, as I explained in previous post.

You write about teachers pay as if you somehow represent them, not just yourself. if you dont, then stop being disingenuous, if you are then admit your bias representation.

If you ran a class that could fit thirty but only twenty signed up and only ten passed, would you be happy to say you only had a 33% success rate? I think not, ten passing out of twenty is a 50% pass rate, or are you redefining how we should judge teachers? Do you work for a union perchance?

My dad's ex-armed forces, I'm not going to romanticise it and I would find it exceptionally weird if his colleagues in later life said they were proud to work in the same office as him. His past in no way reflects well on them or his workplace.

You write about teachers pay as if you somehow represent them, not just yourself

I am a teacher, I work with teachers, am I not allowed to talk about things affecting teachers with any authority?

Ten passing out of twenty is a fifty percent pass rate, but if you had a target of getting 180 new teachers and you only got 32, should you really measure the success of the recruitment programme based on how many passed the course? Of course not, it would be based on how successful you were at meeting your recruitment targets. Not very, in this case.

There's some bizarre selective reading going on here.

Obviously I can't speak for all teachers but I think I am accurate in saying:

• teachers welcome any well-suited new recruits to teaching, including ex-military personnel

• teachers do not believe ex-armed forces are any more suited to teaching than anyone else in particular

• a scheme to attract ex-armed forces has failed to attract them in any great numbers, showing that the idea they would be perfect for teaching and given an extra incentive to train is, perhaps, wrong

• good teachers already in the profession are leaving, like I am, and my DH is, and many of my colleagues are, either to go abroad or leaving the profession altogether. Given that many thousands of pounds have already been spent to train us, perhaps it would be wiser to invest some time and money working out how to keep us in schools in this country, rather than trying to recruit ever more new teachers.

Just read that link you posted noble.

Love that this was one of the findings of the "think tank":

A report by think tanks says the fact that ex-soldiers had a macho image could help engender respect - particularly among boys.

Excellent post, brian

Well said Brian

Hear, hear Brian

And I totally understand and respect what noblegiraffe is saying.

The recruitment to Troops to Teachers has been an issue.
Presumably quite a lot of money was spent on it.
This money could have been spent on helping to retain good teachers by:

*improving school budgets so they don't rely on cheap NQTs and can afford teachers with experience
*seriously looking at teacher workload (instead of some twatty questionnaire that has been quietly filed and forgotten about)
*invest in their own working parties so that any changes made have minimum impact on teachers (eg new NC tests - STILL no official writing assessment guidance for Y6 teachers 20 weeks before we need to submit Teacher Assessments)

How has this thread turned into ALL TEACHERS ARE MiSERABLE
It was just a discussion of the waste of money put into a scheme that ended in 32 nqts.

They initially had over 1,200 applications, only 41 were accepted in January 2014, with another 54 in September 2014.

Bolognese-you are being selectively obtuse in your posts. Noblegiraffe is NOT saying ex-military should not be teachers and automatically not respected in the classroom.
Just why did an extortionate amount of money be spent on a 'gimic', when the 32 who succeeded could have easily gone through normal teacher training avenues and saved money so that, you know, pupils could have buildings that don't leak etc.

I wonder are teachers against them because they might have a backbone different union affiliations and wouldn't strike?

What does this mean?

It does sound like a good idea, rather than have our army in a foreign country killing innocent Syrians, we should employ them in our schools. I think they have a right to a good job after what they have been through.

Which implies that teaching is a good job!!!

"....could have easily gone through normal teacher training avenues and saved money so that, you know, pupils could have buildings that don't leak etc."

The threads on MN at the time showed that this was an immensely unpopular scheme, and bile was spewed at the very idea that ex-military should be in the classroom. Even though there were some who were coming through the usual training avenues.

There was very little faith shown then in either the selection or training/assessment procedures, and there was a fairly widely hell assumption that unsuitable people would reach the classroom by this route. (At least that angle has gone away).

IIRC, it was very much aimed at STEM subjects, and would permit non-graduates to have their other qualifications and experience individually assessed to see if they were fit to proceed.

Anyone know how many applicants/trainees/actual teachers of this scheme were STEM related?

Compared to the military, yes teaching is a good job its well paid, long holidays, stress free, plenty of sick leave and a short work day. If we moved soldiers into teaching they could be reservists and then we cut back army numbers significantly without making anyone redundant.

Stress free?!

Read any thread on the Staffroom board....

I don't agree with you about a short work day, sorry. The timetabled school day is short but teachers are in before that, stay after and work in the evenings and weekends.

The pay looks comparable too, for the types of jobs that they were looking to attract to teaching. And stress free is wrong as well. It's clearly not the same as being shot at, but it is not a stress free job at all. I left teaching because it was too stressful, and many many others have done the same.

When I worked in a lively comprehensive in East London there were some days when a week in Kandahar sounded somewhat appealing.

Where I have no issues with retired or redundant military in our schools, I think money could be better invested attracting the tens of thousands of ex teachers back into the profession. No training costs for them, no culture shock to deal with. Make conditions better (pay at the top of main scale is not too shabby, far less upper) and back they'll come. I finished training in 2007 with 22 other people. Only 4 of us still teach now!

Your posts are doing my head in when juxtaposed against your username. jeremycorbyn