Is it easy to be a teacher redux

[a_majoor]

Without straying into the territory of the post referenced in the title; it did bring an interesting thought to my mind.

As an NCO, I (and all the other NCO's out there) are expected to be teachers as well as leaders and role models. We teach an astounding array of subjects ranging from physical training, "skill" lessons (everything from prarade square drill to weapons handling to driving) and knowledge lessons (military law, map reading, how to write a memo, you name it). Like every other group out there, some NCO's are astounding teachers, some are astoundingly bad and most are competent at their teaching.

After retiring from the Army, and after teaching innumerable courses to recruits, trained soldiers and officer candidates, would I be able to walk into a school and be hired as a teacher? You would think that I or anyone with a similar resume would have the training and job experience to step up to the plate, but as far as I know, no ex military member would be able to walk into a teaching job anywhere in North America (home schooling and some private schools excepted) without first getting a degree and going to teacher's college.

To my mind, this is a horrible example of credentialism run amok. Across Canada and the United States, we constantly hear of declining standards in schools, and once we get tender recruits and officer candidates in our hands, we see the results first hand. I suppose my rant is really about finding any realistic way to put these skilled and talented people to work teaching after they choose to finish their military careers?

 

[Shamrock]

I know one individual who left the forces to teach at an IT.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Without straying into the territory of the post referenced in the title; it did bring an interesting thought to my mind.

As an NCO, I (and all the other NCO's out there) are expected to be teachers as well as leaders and role models. We teach an astounding array of subjects ranging from physical training, "skill" lessons (everything from prarade square drill to weapons handling to driving) and knowledge lessons (military law, map reading, how to write a memo, you name it). Like every other group out there, some NCO's are astounding teachers, some are astoundingly bad and most are competent at their teaching.

After retiring from the Army, and after teaching innumerable courses to recruits, trained soldiers and officer candidates, would I be able to walk into a school and be hired as a teacher? You would think that I or anyone with a similar resume would have the training and job experience to step up to the plate, but as far as I know, no ex military member would be able to walk into a teaching job anywhere in North America (home schooling and some private schools excepted) without first getting a degree and going to teacher's college.

To my mind, this is a horrible example of credentialism run amok. Across Canada and the United States, we constantly hear of declining standards in schools, and once we get tender recruits and officer candidates in our hands, we see the results first hand. I suppose my rant is really about finding any realistic way to put these skilled and talented people to work teaching after they choose to finish their military careers?

Perhaps if a military person feels they are so suited to teaching in civvieland, they can go through the education system like everyone else and prove their suitability the way everyone else has to. If they really do have a leg up on civvies, fast track them, but they would need to prove they have the skills first.

How would you propose they do that? ie identify those "good teachers" that stand out from the crowd, and in a way acceptable to a civilian institution of learning?

 

[probum non poenitet]

The military make excellent instructors, but there are a few obstacles in the way of teaching straight out of battalion.

The politics of teacher education are huge.

What I would say is that most military lessons and courses follow a 'regimented' (no pun intended) style.
You have your POs and EOs, clearly defined concrete standards are identified. There is no variation, pass/fail lines are clear, and they are taught the same way Forces-wide :cough: in theory :cough:

Sometimes I wish there were more of those methods in civilian education; but in my opinion the military methodology does not always gain the best results. There are times in civilian education when you must use different approaches.

What I would say is that 'military methodology' would be an excellent addition to a teacher training program, but there are other things that military instructors can learn from civilian methods. Perhaps it could be a 5 or 10 credit course, that kind of thing?

Unfortunately, a lot of teacher training time is spent on subjects that are peripheral if not dubious in my opinion. But I digress. It's nice to know the history of teachers' unions - maybe one course - but you will wind up doing that subject several times if you enroll in certain programs.

Back to why soldiers would need extra training:
For example, most soldiers are not familiar with the psychology and development of children's brains at different ages, and how you have to adjust for them, social issues, integrating lessons for learning disabilities (NO infantry jokes, please), different means of interpreting literature, the law and teachers, codes of ethics and conduct specific to educators, etc. etc.

What I think would be darned useful is if military service (positions of leadership and instruction) could qualify you for an after-degree. Many provinces say that if you have a BA or BSc. you only need to do one or two years of training to be a teacher. That makes some sense to me. Roughly half of a B.Ed. is spent on learning your subject, but it could be argued that military service is a bit of a practicum in psychology, soicology, politics, etc. etc.

I think that may be a realistic goal to shoot for.
Unfortunately, there are many in academe who feel that military instruction is a cross between Full Metal Jacket and The Manchurian Candidate, so any proposals for equivalency may be spitting into the wind.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A long time reserve WO in the engineers, and friend of mine who came up through cadets with me, has been teaching in Calgary for many years. I should illicit his opinion on this, but from what I recall of conversations with him, PNP is certainly correct in that they are two different worlds...

 

[aluc]

To my mind, this is a horrible example of credentialism run amok. Across Canada and the United States, we constantly hear of declining standards in schools, and once we get tender recruits and officer candidates in our hands, we see the results first hand. I suppose my rant is really about finding any realistic way to put these skilled and talented people to work teaching after they choose to finish their military careers?

I would like to suggest that maybe, the reason why standards have declined in schools, is because of a lack of adequate parenting skills. Today's parents have little time to raise a child in the traditional manner. Many households are now duel income, which in turn, leaves little time to properly raise a child. In addition, I believe today's more liberal attitude towards child rearing, and society in general, is party to blame for the lack of quality characteristics in children.  The fact that parents seldom discipline their children has lead to behavioural problems within the schools. Compounded with the fact that children have more rights than their teachers doesn't help the matter. Remember the days when teachers used to punish kids who displayed improper behaviour? Maybe it is time to bring that back.

Children have been allowed to run wild, over the past few decades and this can be correlated with poor performance in the schools. Not to mention an increase in youth crime, lack of morals, absence of respect for authority, and their elders.....should I go on. I agree some people shouldn't be teaching , yet those who do an effective job of it are not morons, as some would suggest.

Those who joined the army are also volunteers...they want to be instructed. School children do not want to be in a classroom,trying to effectively teach these children, as well as disciplining them is no small feat at all, especially when there is little, or no support from home or society.

 

[Spanky]

Insructing in the army and teaching in the civilian school system are not the same.  Being comfortable speaking in a group and being subject matter experts are the main similarities.  In the civilian school system, there are so many more issues and considerations, some of which have already been mentioned.
Knowing the physical, emotional, psychological, social and intellectual abilities and levels of development of your students will determine how you teach them.  No matter where they are on any given scale, you must adapt your methods to meet their needs.  Parents are a HUGE factor.  I could go on and on and on and on.
I would agree that there are remarkable, mediocre, and lousy teachers, as there are army instructors.  The skills to be remarkable cannot be taught.  As with army instructors, the really good teachers have a gift and a talent.  Going to a Faculty of Education will not impart these gifts.  Teacher education programs allows you to develop the tools and skills to use these gifts.  The issues dealing with how children are raised in today's society could use it's own thread.

 

[exgunnertdo]

I have 10 years as a teacher in the junior high classroom, and 16 years in the Forces - Regular and Reserve, officer and NCM.  I am a newbie here on army.ca, but I can probably give some insight here...

You have your POs and EOs, clearly defined concrete standards are identified. There is no variation, pass/fail lines are clear, and they are taught the same way Forces-wide

This is the main difference between the two jobs I have done.  In the public school system, we were charged with educating these children, how they came to us, and some of them were pretty messed up.  The only consistency was that each student was different from the last.  The teacher must conform to the class that comes in the room, to a large extent, not the class conforming to the teaching style.

It's nice to know the history of teachers' unions - maybe one course - but you will wind up doing that subject several times if you enroll in certain programs.

I didn't take any course about the teachers' union in my BEd

For example, most soldiers are not familiar with the psychology and development of children's brains at different ages, and how you have to adjust for them, social issues, integrating lessons for learning disabilities (NO infantry jokes, please), different means of interpreting literature, the law and teachers, codes of ethics and conduct specific to educators, etc. etc.

However, yes I did take all of this, as well as classroom management, and methods courses specific to my specific teaching areas.

Those who joined the army are also volunteers...they want to be instructed.

I can't say enough about this point.  I have taught mandatory courses and electives and there is a vast difference between a student who chooses to be there and one who "must" be there.  I realize our most professional NCOs learn wonderful ways to motivate some of the most challenging students, but in the end, a volunteer, who is getting paid is an entirely different world from a 13-year-old with an attitude.  And the 13-year-old, in the end, has a legal right to an education.  You can't permanently kick him/her out of school.

To my mind, this is a horrible example of credentialism run amok.

Every professional has credentials.  In the case of teachers the teaching certificate is issued by the province upon completion of a course of study, as determined by the Minister of Education/Department of Education.  I don't think there's really another way to do it.

Parents are a HUGE factor.

Absolutely...I think that is the biggest factor in the decline of education.  I would phone home, and the parents who said "I dunno, can't do nothing with him/her at home either." tended to have kids with continuing problems.  The parents who responded to my calls with concern and worked on finding a solution tended to have good kids.  Go figure.

The worlds are so completely different.  No comparison.

 

[angeie]

I found this to be a rather interesting topic and I have enjoyed the read thusfar.

As a fellow educator, I would like to point out that just because we are qualified to do one thing does not necessarily make us qualified to do another.  I am an educator of adults and teenagers and my knowledge base is centered around them, however, I would not be able to jump into a military world and begin instructing on military issues.  Now, I did just finish a couple contracts teaching ESL to Military Personnel and I found it to be a rather bizarre experience.  On one hand, it was fantastic because they did everything I asked and were polite and respectful, were always on time, completed their homework, never spoke out in class...I swore I was on another planet! ;D  it was very difficult, albeit refreshing, to get used to that sort of discipline in a classroom.

In respects to certification - I am certified in four provinces and hold a permanent teaching licence in all of them as well.  My credentials are not nationwide and I bring this up only to highlight my earlier point that skills in one arena do not always translate over to other areas.  I have no doubt in my mind that many, many members would indeed make excellent teachers, but like we must follow certain guidelines in our careers, so do you follow a specific path - it wouldn't be fair for me to assume that just because I am an excellent teacher ( ;D), I would make an excellent instructor in a military world as well.

I do feel that the skills, however, are entirely transferable and they would lead you far in a second career as a teacher and I would encourage you to pursue your B.A. Hons and B. Ed and come whip some of the mouthy ones into shape (which, btw, I do agree the decline in schools has  A LOT to do with parenting and societal attitudes toward education as well as general levels of respect and pride in oneself).  RMC offers some fabulous courses through their continuing education department and you may pursue your degree on your own time.  The courses are also a fraction of the cost compared to a civvie uni .

Good luck to you in your educational pursuits.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The big difference in teaching between a military and civilian education is that we train, they educate.  I see this at the beginning of every course I teach.  All the students I teach (officer, private, and NCO) arrive at our school having just completed between one and six months in a university environment.  It takes a while to kick start them into realizing that, yes, you do have to know the exact range, weight, dimensions, whatever of what we are teaching you about.  This is in contrast to where they just came from where they may have been taught basic principles and perhaps how to figure these thing out, they did not have recite them verbatim.

The military trains you in drills, so they become instinctive.  Whether this is the IAs on C7 or a traffic tech having to know that LS is xx cm high and a C-130 can take a load xx+1 cm high, we deal largely in absolutes.  How and when we employ those absolutes may become blurred (i.e lets let some air out of the tyres), but if you don't have that underpinning knowledge you cant make informed judgements on the application.

My impression of civilian education (based on 13 years of HS and half a degree) is that, if done well, it can teach you to learn.  Yes in the early days we learnt multiplication tables by heart, conjugating verbs, etc, but as the education reaching higher levels you are shown what to learn and expected to use some initiative.  Those that lack initiative use the net to find papers, those that have it succeed.

Being a good military instructor should give you a leg up in converting over to an civil education background.  That is because, by the time you have become a good military instructor you should have the drive and desire to learn.  Once you know your subject matter you should have few other hurdles.  A good instructor has already overcome any problems with public speaking.  I see the biggest hurdle as adjusting your teaching style to your audience.  This is the difference, learning to educate rather than train.  Not to say that the military doesn't educate, but that usually comes at a more senior level, once we have made sure our audience has the ability to be trained, and the self-discipline to educate themselves.  Unfortunately the civilian world doesn't have that luxury, they have to try to get everyone to the same level given resources and time that can be as constrained the military.  If someone isn't reaching the standard in civvy street I would think it's rather hard to RTU or release them.

Just my two cents.

D

 

[aluc]

I see the biggest hurdle as adjusting your teaching style to your audience.  This is the difference, learning to educate rather than train.  Not to say that the military doesn't educate, but that usually comes at a more senior level, once we have made sure our audience has the ability to be trained, and the self-discipline to educate themselves.  Unfortunately the civilian world doesn't have that luxury, they have to try to get everyone to the same level given resources and time that can be as constrained the military.  If someone isn't reaching the standard in civvy street I would think it's rather hard to RTU or release them.

D

In the public school system, we were charged with educating these children, how they came to us, and some of them were pretty messed up.

I also agree with a previous comment posted by exgunner, whereby  a full range of societal factors play a large role in the ability of a civilian educator to properly educate students.