Troops to teachers
Scroll to see replies
As per usual on TSR there seems to be the assumption in this thread that ex military is the same as ex infantry. There are many many more roles within the military than just the rifle bearing infantryman who is trained to close with and kill the enemy. While I'm sceptical about this idea, people should bear that in mind.
It was ridiculous to claim that there is a shortage of teachers. There are 1.3 million qualified teachers in the UK but only a bout 440,000 are actually working as teachers. There are plenty of unemployed teachers too. It just shows it's a load of propaganda to fit a political agenda.
Awful idea- perhaps as on part time basis doing PE but anything else is crazy.
This just stops more aspiring teachers from getting a job in an already crazy job market. Why should I lose out to a soldier with minimal experience when i'm more qualified and spent far more time preparing for it.
This just stops more aspiring teachers from getting a job in an already crazy job market. Why should I lose out to a soldier with minimal experience when i'm more qualified and spent far more time preparing for it.
Original post by moonkatt
There are many many more roles within the military than just the rifle bearing infantryman who is trained to close with and kill the enemy. While I'm sceptical about this idea, people should bear that in mind.
To be fair they all go through the same basic training which essentially lays down the foundations of becoming an infantry grunt...
Although I can see where you are coming from.
When I read through various forums there is a theme from teachers of:
'Just because you have been to school does not mean you understand what a teacher does'.
I agree with this statement, but on the flip side just because you may have seen saving private Ryan does not mean you know everything about what a soldier does. Yes every soldier is trained with basic infantry skills, does that automatically make them a 'thick grunt'?? There are a large number of people who would have learned some of these skills in the Cadets, University Officer Cadets and there are a number of 'true blood' teachers in the TA. Does this make them unsuitable for teaching.
I do not feel the scheme is designed around replacing experienced teachers, but bringing an alternative to a 21 year old straight from University. The Army is based on a set of values and standards, which the principles could easily be transferred into a school, integrity, selfless commitment and respect for others to name a few. As an experienced Senior Non Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer or Officer they have had a career involving substantial time coaching, mentoring and instructing in front of some of the hardest audiences to keep a captive attention in the country. I believe the point of the scheme is to bring some of these positive transferable skills into teaching, rather than simply the fact that they have the ability to an operational environment.
Whilst it may be true that there may not be a shortage of teachers as a whole, there does appear to be a shortage of Maths and Science teachers at least. When I have spoken to some teacher training providers (Themselves teachers) I do here comments like, 'They are in need of good maths teachers' with a tone suggesting there are a lot of bad ones out there. As far as I am aware soldiers aren't necessarily being brought into above and beyond the normal quotas for the year, but simply competing with the normal intake for that year. For those that are worried they will have to compete against soldiers for jobs, simply put if you are better than them you would be the stronger candidate.
That all said as someone who is more than academically qualified, I can see the concerns with the 2 year programme to convert non graduates to graduates with QTS. I know it is based on accreditation of prior learning for 120 credits of the degree. It will be interesting to see how they fill the knowledge gap, particularly at secondary school.
'Just because you have been to school does not mean you understand what a teacher does'.
I agree with this statement, but on the flip side just because you may have seen saving private Ryan does not mean you know everything about what a soldier does. Yes every soldier is trained with basic infantry skills, does that automatically make them a 'thick grunt'?? There are a large number of people who would have learned some of these skills in the Cadets, University Officer Cadets and there are a number of 'true blood' teachers in the TA. Does this make them unsuitable for teaching.
I do not feel the scheme is designed around replacing experienced teachers, but bringing an alternative to a 21 year old straight from University. The Army is based on a set of values and standards, which the principles could easily be transferred into a school, integrity, selfless commitment and respect for others to name a few. As an experienced Senior Non Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer or Officer they have had a career involving substantial time coaching, mentoring and instructing in front of some of the hardest audiences to keep a captive attention in the country. I believe the point of the scheme is to bring some of these positive transferable skills into teaching, rather than simply the fact that they have the ability to an operational environment.
Whilst it may be true that there may not be a shortage of teachers as a whole, there does appear to be a shortage of Maths and Science teachers at least. When I have spoken to some teacher training providers (Themselves teachers) I do here comments like, 'They are in need of good maths teachers' with a tone suggesting there are a lot of bad ones out there. As far as I am aware soldiers aren't necessarily being brought into above and beyond the normal quotas for the year, but simply competing with the normal intake for that year. For those that are worried they will have to compete against soldiers for jobs, simply put if you are better than them you would be the stronger candidate.
That all said as someone who is more than academically qualified, I can see the concerns with the 2 year programme to convert non graduates to graduates with QTS. I know it is based on accreditation of prior learning for 120 credits of the degree. It will be interesting to see how they fill the knowledge gap, particularly at secondary school.
Original post by nixonsjellybeans
To be fair they all go through the same basic training which essentially lays down the foundations of becoming an infantry grunt...
Although I can see where you are coming from.
Although I can see where you are coming from.
There's more to infantry training than what's covered in basic, a whole course in fact before you can qualify as a combat infantryman. I know, I used to be one. While the stuff in phase one training is basic soldiering and how to use a weapon it's not as detailed. An infantryman is a very different soldier compared to a signals technician or a nurse in QARANC.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Drewski
Can guarantee anyone who's served a few years, whether as officer or NCO, has more teaching experience than any NQT. Massively more.
But, just as a rare word of realism to this place; you're not about to see battalions of former troops roll in off the streets. This will just make the transition easier for those who do want to do it.
Edit: to the hurt PGCE student who disliked my comment: tough. It's fact. They'll have been teaching for years whether you like it or not. They will have more experience than an NQT and you can't possibly deny that.
But, just as a rare word of realism to this place; you're not about to see battalions of former troops roll in off the streets. This will just make the transition easier for those who do want to do it.
Edit: to the hurt PGCE student who disliked my comment: tough. It's fact. They'll have been teaching for years whether you like it or not. They will have more experience than an NQT and you can't possibly deny that.
Don't deny it. Masses of teaching experience; teaching subjects they have huge knowledge and experience of. Possibly not physics or history, though.
Assuming they have a good general level of pre-degree level education, you could make a case for them being well positioned to teach in primary schools, provided that they spend their training time on pedagogy relevant to young children. If they are largely male, they will be welcomed with open arms to provide those missing role models.
Original post by duchess eleanor
Maybe... 
Personally, I think they'll be way too strict!
Personally, I think they'll be way too strict!Strict teachers are whats needed though.
Original post by silverbolt
Strict teachers are whats needed though.
Why?
If they haven't got the knowledge to teach a subject, then there isn't a point. You can't teach what you do not know - they'd make good PE teachers at best without a degree.
You do not need a degree in Maths to teach GCSE maths. Really.
Even non-ex-military teacher trainees do not. (Though this may have changed now, but I doubt it.) To be honest, a good A-Level student could probably tutor you for it.
They will just make those trainees do a subject knowledge enhancement course. If that is good enough for current trainees without a degree in the subject, then why do you think it would not be good enough for ex-military trainees? An ex-military with some technical training may well have a better grasp of maths than a normal trainee with a degree in Sociology or whatever.
I really think you guys over-rate degrees as a source of "subject knowledge" for teaching secondary school subjects.
Even non-ex-military teacher trainees do not. (Though this may have changed now, but I doubt it.) To be honest, a good A-Level student could probably tutor you for it.
They will just make those trainees do a subject knowledge enhancement course. If that is good enough for current trainees without a degree in the subject, then why do you think it would not be good enough for ex-military trainees? An ex-military with some technical training may well have a better grasp of maths than a normal trainee with a degree in Sociology or whatever.
I really think you guys over-rate degrees as a source of "subject knowledge" for teaching secondary school subjects.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by TenOfThem
Why?
Has more control of the class - which means disruptive students are likely to stay silent and others can get on with thier work
Original post by silverbolt
Has more control of the class - which means disruptive students are likely to stay silent and others can get on with thier work
What is the point in people getting on with their work if the work is not appropriate
Original post by llys
You do not need a degree in Maths to teach GCSE maths. Really.
I really think you guys over-rate "subject knowledge".
I really think you guys over-rate "subject knowledge".
No
You just need it to teach well
Original post by TenOfThem
No
You just need it to teach well
You just need it to teach well
Have you ever tutored someone?
Original post by llys
Have you ever tutored someone?
What difference does that make?
Original post by llys
Have you ever tutored someone?
She's a maths teacher.
Original post by OedipusTheKing
If they haven't got the knowledge to teach a subject, then there isn't a point. You can't teach what you do not know - they'd make good PE teachers at best without a degree.
There is a assumption that all soldiers would make good PE teachers. Baring in mind only a small proportion of soldiers are qualified as Physical Training Instructors, there is a bit of stereotyping here!!!
As a serving member in the Royal Corps of Signals I can speak with authority with regards to the training my engineers receive. It has always been a good structured career, jumping in and out of education throughout. After about 4-5 years my engineers would go on a class one course and finish with a Foundation degree (Although in my day it was an OND, which still had a strong maths/electronics content).
I think people should look at the broad range of people and not simply stereotype everyone!!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- indirect/direct
- Why did Haig order the British advance at the Somme?
- history 2023 predictions gcse questions
- What are the exact casualties in Gaza?
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- Student accommodation
- Edexcel GCSE 2023 Early Elizabethan England predicted questions
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Evaluate the interpretations
- Hi can anyone give me a mark for this history essay out of 12 pls? Thanks
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 2 (H443/02) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is Israel winning
- OCR A level History
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Adult resit to go from 4 to 6+
- hey can anyone give me feedback on my essay
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- What does it mean that the PM is hindu?
- Mark IGCSE History Essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
