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?

2 years I gather.

Need to wait for the details then, because 2 years is neither a degree nor a PGCE, so god knows what they've got in mind.

It's a 3 year course with a 40k bursary for two of the years, bizarrely.

When my dad left the military they sponsored him through a masters before he left. I suppose this could be ok if it's military money, not DfE money.

It's a 3 year course with a 40k bursary for two of the years, bizarrely

forces.net has more details:

"According to the Sunday Times, the bursary will be available from September for anyone who has left the Army, Royal Navy or RAF in the past five years - and wants to teach priority subjects like science or computing "

"The paper says the scheme will be announced this week, replacing Troops to Teachers programme, which was set up by the former Prime Minister David Cameron four years ago."

" The new bursary will apparently be paid in the final two years of a three-year teaching degree "

www.forces.net/news/military-veterans-offered-ps40000-retrain-teachers

Not such a bonkers idea - loads of technicians, engineers and IT specialists in the forces via apprenticeship schemes. I googled this and the RAF and Navy especially have their own STEM training centres/colleges, plus they already run STEM outreach projects for schools.

Quote: Understanding algebra can make the difference between life and death in the navy

The Mirror had a Jan 2017 update on the Troops to Teachers figures.
Still described as a flop but numbers improved from 32:

“Twenty-nine trainees from cohort one qualified as teachers, and 40 trainees from cohort two qualified as teachers.

“In addition, 51 trainees were recruited for cohort three in September 2015 and a further 100 for cohort four in September 2016.”

I find it incredibly offensive that the government are suggesting offering £40k bursaries for this scheme when they have scrapped bursaries for nurses

I thought the main problem causing the shortage of nurses was the lack of training places available. Prior to scrapping the bursary 40,000 would-be student nurses were rejected for training courses every year. Does it really matter if the number of applications dips a bit if they increase the number of training places instead?

That's really interesting Clavinova. On the face of it, it's good that the previous scheme produced any teachers but it was waaaaaay short of targets (hence scrapped). There is a rather scathing BBC article which picks up on the drop out rate of military people who couldn't' t hack the demands of the training which is fascinating! I am guessing worklife balance came into play here as many would have children and not necessarily be accustomed to 'taking work home'

Sure military STEM knowledge is indeed worth tapping : I'd still rather like them to have maths and physics A levels.... but I guess I am in cloud cuckoo land.

I can see this is an attempt to solve tow issues at once. But the cultures of the two jobs are much more different than is suggested so these people will need top notch training, which I fear they may not get. They'll just be fed to the lions.teenagers

As a military scheme to train troops for a job once they leave the military, this is a reasonable idea.

As a DfE plan to sort the teacher recruitment crisis, or to bring discipline to schools, it’s terrible. Troops to Teachers was advertised as the second option, let’s see what they do with this one.

As a side thought , is it the IT people in the Forces who leave? I rather thought the support roles tended to stay on longer : although the big issue I hear is the engineers deserting (excuse pun) for high paid jobs in Dubai, on rigs etc or in engineering in general. Teaching certainly won't have that appeal!

I think you have hit the nail on the head, piggy. There are plenty in the military who are specialists in what they do and have been taught well for that job, but they are not generalists and many won’t know the breadth of the A level curriculum for Stem subjects. That’s why we prefer teachers with relevant degrees. How many ex military are appropriately qualified? It’s no wonder they have found teaching to be difficult.

Years ago, PE teachers were ex military! Also school bursars. In all my years around schools, I cannot remember seeing anyone else from the military actually teaching. I am not sure there is an appetite for it with suitably qualified ex military. I know an RAF pilot who is doing an MSc right now. I cannot imagine he will teach when he leaves the RAF, unless it’s how to fly a plane of course!

I am guessing work-life balance came into play here as many would have children and not necessarily be accustomed to 'taking work home'

Hmmmm having had three nephews that were in the army that served in Afganistan and Bosnia - who were away on tours not seeing family for months on end - I think they would find the above comment VERY offensive ...I am sure they would rather be in a classroom with teenagers rather than seeing their mates blown up in front of them!

Presumably this three year course would give them a relevant degree? I’m betting an RAF engineer needs some pretty complicated maths, so the degree could be maths and education at the same time. Perhaps it could also be condensed?

I think the 3 year course would be better but how attractive is it if they can access good jobs without the need for extensive study?

Also, who are they trying to recruit? Non commissioned young men/women (squaddies) with lowish academic qualifications are not really going to be suitable for teaching STEM subjects to A level. Nor would they have the basic qualifications to do a degree unless they have studied whilst in the forces. I guess all the tours of duty have prevented this for many. So who are the courses for?

A lot of Officers already have degrees but didn’t want to be teachers in large numbers. Therefore one assumes they have something better lined up when they leave. They are also typically older than the young recruits and stay in the military longer and build up a decent pension. The need to teach might not be top of their agenda when they leave.

We also know a lot of people feel utterly lost when they leave the military, but I don’t see teaching as therapy. It has to be a vocation and maybe theirs was the military and all that goes with it.

Yes 8teen* I am quoting though what the ex military themselves said . remember they weren't all on active service. They said they really struggled to adjust to the demands of teacher training. make of that what you will!

Sorry bold fail!

I get the impression bubbles and noble that this is where their plans fall flat : I don't think they know WHO they want. Yes, they have highly articulate and qualified officers but teaching, unless very fast tracked may well have limited appeal for many of them. The only qualifications I can see cited are GCSE maths and English but then there are some mentions of point being picked up for other qualifications joined while in service. That bit obviously I could not follow.

It will also not serve its purpose if ex officers then head off to a public school to head up the CCF. Not really its intention.

It’s really only geared to soldiers not officers....stupid when you think officrs are far more likely to have degrees already (so therefore would only require one year of teacher training) becasue that’s how training and entering into the forces is set up. Of course, this doesn’t mean soldiers cannot have degrees but the majority won’t due to joining up at 17/18.

The £40000 is payable in the 2nd and 3rd years only (if I read it correctly) so for the first year, guessing they’re supposed to be dependent on a spouse/Family?

Moreover, higher earning soldiers (let’s say they’re coming up to their 22 years will be earning significantly more than a newbie teacher .....as an example, a British army warrant officer is earning approx £47k.

Do they honestly think a warrant officer is going to drop that much in salary to train to teach?

Sadly though, the further up the chain they go, the more the army has invested in their training and so their wealth of experience to become potential teachers is first class...and these are the people who most likely won’t be taking it up.

Oh and to add to that, the govt. would be bette off leaving teachers to teach and employing ex military officers to run schools, academies and the whole department of education!

That’s when the real changes will happen for the better.

Bubbles you’re right. If, for example, a Lt colonel can leave on £80k and walk into a civvie job for between £100-120k, why on earth would they choose to lose almost all of their salary and choose the stress that is education?!

Even if they take their pension and don’t get a high flying job, I cannot see the huge attraction in teaching for high ranking officers. Did the govt exoectbthrm to turn around failing schools when they have no deep knowledge of education?

So if it is more likely to be the junior ranks who are to be encouraged into teaching, how is the gap in knowledge likely to be bridged? It seems like a project that should be started before suitable candidates leave the forces.

verbena I am fascinated! What changes would the top ranking military officers bring to the world of education leadership and management? I am all agog! To be fair, they couldn't be worse...

piggy....generally, they’d be there to get the job done.....the job would get done.

Pretty sure DH told me that the British Forces put more training hours into personnel than any other department or civilian company in the world. Not sure if that’s 100% accurate but even if it’s not, it’s a LOT of training and CPD.

Officers (and soldiers) are taught from day 1 to look at the bigger picture; see what needs doing and get there.....and mostly, they do.
Leadership and people management is the main thing civvie companies love about ex officers.theyre also used to managing huge budgets and using them efficiently.

That’s not to say they wouldn’t make great teachers...many would also bring many positives to teaching but for officers in particular, leadership is their greatest skill.....something MATS and LA’s desperately need!

There was something I was reading the other day about how good leadership in one domain doesn't translate to good leadership in a different one. Turns out you need to know what you're talking about too.

hbr.org/2017/11/can-you-be-a-great-leader-without-technical-expertise

"There is a broad assumption in society and in education that the skills you need to be a leader are more or less transferable. If you can inspire and motivate people in one arena, you should be able to apply those skills to do the same in another venue.

But recent research is rightly challenging this notion. Studies suggest that the best leaders know a lot about the domain in which they are leading, and part of what makes them successful in a management role is technical competence. For example, hospitals managed by doctors perform better than those managed by people with other backgrounds. And there are many examples of people who ran one company effectively and had trouble transferring their skills to the new organization."

So a great leader in the army could well be a shit leader in a school, because they know bog-all about education. It does put paid to the notion that we could just in parachute in business leaders to run MATs and that heads could be non-teachers.

Of course a big issue in the huge MATs is indeed that they are being led by non teachers! It's jolly hard to empathise with a teacher if you haven't been one. It's like the recruitment drive at the mo into police top brass from civvie street. Very much resented by the rest of the force.

Are they? The big ones I can think of used to be teachers. To be fair, I can only think of 3 though!