UKC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7245122.stm

As you cannot even bat a fly off a kid these days, how on earth is a drill instructor going to enforce beastings to instil discipline?

In reply to Glyn Jones:
We used to have a French teacher who was an officer, doing training in school, before going back into the army. He used to make us line up out side the room before entering, which was unheard of as most students used to get to a room and go and sit down at their desks. Anyway, the 5th year girls, used to stand to mock attention, sticking their chests out. He didn't know where to look. The practice of lining up out side was soon abandoned.

In reply to Glyn Jones:

Oh, I don't know, there might be something in it... Regardless of your legal rights as a pupil there were always some teachers at school you just wouldn't mess with. Perhaps a few more wouldn't be a bad thing.

In reply to Glyn Jones:
I think it's a fantastic idea. I used to be in the cadets and it gave me a lot of respect for the army. Most decent officers don't need to be able to dish out beastings to have authority, they've just learnt how to get things done and if anyone knows how to deal with rowdy testosterone-fuelled boys it's army officers.

In reply to Luke90:


you have a point

In reply to Glyn Jones: the stats clearly show it works, im sure it would work wonders for lads, how girls will respond i wouldnt be too sure, that said,its a damn good idea. Could also save the odd vet from homlessness after leaving the army.

In reply to Luke90:


Hmmmm.

"Erm..er...you boy, stop doing that!"
"F*** off, Rupert!"
"Erm..." <Looks around frantically for an NCO>

Now that's fookin funny. And true.

I think part of the merit of this idea is that training ex-soliders to teach our little tykes is that the ex-soldiers were (in all likliehood) little tykes themselves.

What the army is VERY succesful at is turning young men who perhaps aren't particularly well motivated into [mostly] well motivated team players. NCO's lead this process, as well as having been through it themselves. It could well be an invaluable insight.

I think both motivation in school and the army are about wanting to succeed amongst your peers. Perhaps many 'normal' teachers may not understand how to bring that out in groups of youngsters, compared to someone who, probably, used to be 'just like them'.

In reply to Ridge: pmsl spot on...

In reply to Glyn Jones:

Slightly off topic but why do these sodding think tanks get so much access to the media.

"group of blokes in a pub in halifax decided that it all went wrong when we got rid of the birch. And canning in schools. And national service. David Cameron has been told and is creaming himself"

In reply to Glyn Jones:


http://www.skillforce.org/

I think its easy to immediately assume that the ex-forces teachers, would be the stereotypical screaming banchies, but further from it.
Skill Force are already doing it, (without the screaming) and is working very well, especially when the 'hard to reach' young adults get to the D of E stage. a lot ot the tutors are ex-forces and have a no nonsense approach, and this the reason why it works.

I worked as a PTI in a Military Preperation College when i left the army, and a lot of the 'yoofs' there were the waifs and stray's, some were kicked out of school, were about to be, school leavers with Prison written all over thier foreheads! generally the worst kind imaginable.

they had an 11 week or 22 week programme of physical, tutor led classes, life skills lessons and the odd beasting. well, many beastings.
the students were prept for forces entry, all wore the same tracksuits uniform, moved like the military, paraded, and the whole application process was followed through until they were employed by the green machine. Or they could choose to pick up alternative qual's and go to college or a new job.
after the programme we had turned them from the most vile, ignorant, foul mouthed individuals you would ever meet, to pleasant, upstanding characters you would see.
this system works, their self esteem lifts, confidence and general bearing and attitude. it is remarkable to watch.

and yes we taught them in class based invironments, and also the physical aspect changed these young people into men/women very quickly.

the screaming, beasting is a big part of it in a controlled environment, and believe it or not, they actually thrive on it and love the mud crawling, screaming, fast running physical side. it gives them a chance to be aggressive, work as a team, and the response when you join in, and thier faces when they achieve something is a beautiful sight. you actually nurture these in to respectful individuals who go on to do better things rather than wind up in the nick or other problems.

youth today lack leadership, and when you lead, direct them they respond very well, and love it, all they want is a bit of guidance. and for someone to show them they are not the daddy' around the place, i have had the worst, disgusting teenagers from spitting, snarling foul mouthed crettins, and after spending 1 week in my presence turned into humans, non spitting, snarling individuals.

its all about breaking down barriers and building back up character.

of course we cant go into schools tearing the place up but some of the no nonsense approach is very much needed as students will run a mock with most teachers.
dont know how all this fits in with the 'world is a scary place, civil, human rights, oh my god ive broken a fingernail, health and safety, cant do this, cant do that, PC brigade? but im sure it wouldn't harm introducing some tough love to more unruly yoof'<rant bit

http://www.apcymru.com/mainhome.htm

In reply to Luke90:

Hmmm...I'd disagree there. If anyone knows how to deal with rowdy testosterone-fuelled boys, it'd be senior NCOs, IMO.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Yeah, fair point about the NCOs. From my experience in the cadets, "officers" effectively just meant the adults in charge of us. Their actual forces background could be anything, they just had officer rank within the cadets. The cadet versions of NCOs were our peers (or rather the most senior kids).

In reply to Susat:

This is the problem. You cannot introduce a military ethos into schools.

Most adolescent lads will revel in the 'train hard fight easy', 'more sweat less blood' environment of running round, getting beasted, digging holes and being all war-ry. The army has a few hundred years of experience in this, and there's nothing anyone with a PhD in psychology could teach a decent DS about developing a testosterone pumped scrote into a functioning human being.

However, the last time I looked approximately 50% of the population are female, so the above regime might not be appropriate.

Also, do you actually think any education authority or head teacher will allow you to drag a gobby kid from the back of the class out into the playground and PT him until he pukes? Or allow you to deride him in front of his peers?

It's yet another gimmick.

In reply to Ridge:


Not that anyone who served in the RAF would know this!

In reply to Glyn Jones:
The other fly in this particular ointment is that we are already training more teachers each year than there are vacancies for teachers. There's a lot of people with teaching qualifications who don't have a teaching job, or indeed any job.

Just what a vet needs - another bit of training that is of marginal use in getting them a job in civilian life.

In reply to Glyn Jones:
Some of the quotes:
"Whether we like it or not, children from more deprived neighbourhoods often respond to raw physical power," All people regardless of age and background respond to raw physical power. We also all respond to strong smells (those of us that can smell), overt displays of sexual attraction and availability, physical danger...
The thing is, we respond in a variety of ways. And if one teacher goes into a setting where there is an existing gang structure and merely tries to physically intimidate them, that teacher will find their car smashed up, at the least. Some will even respond violently within the classroom, and then what?

Gaining power and respect within a classroom is a lot more complex than being physically the most intimidating.

Some people with no raw physical power still manage to control unruly adolescents - I know a few small, non-threatening and very effective teachers.

In reply to Ridge:

Ridge; as much as i would like to see and agree to something in your post, i must ask you to look at the link i provided in my post. you will see that half the Military Prep college are female.
'train hard fight easy'? what an ignorant thing to say. the whole ethos of military style concepts, whether its in a physical nature or otherwise is to implement trust, team work, discipline, character, and the main one physical fitness. and if you didn't know ill explain; being physically fit can have many health benefits, this has been proven to benefit self mastery, less stress, better sleep patterns, decrease in health related diseases, and more importantly an increase motivation, esprit de corp' team work, self esteem, confidence and a feeling of acheivement. have another look at my post and click on Skill force. and bloody read it!

look at the Mil Prep college and realise what these young adults are achieving.

the whole thought process behind it is to use ex-service personnel to become tutor's/mentors as they will have a no nonsense and neutral stance up against the foul mouth scum bags that infest the schools. in otherwords show these Play Station
generation big time yardies that they are not the tough guys and the tutor's having the balls to knock these kids down a peg or two.

because lets all be honest here, we all had a teacher in school at one point where we wouldn't arse about!!? and normally it was the usual PE teacher! funnily enough always ex-mil.

youth today seem to think our generation owes them something, well we dont, my mother and father were never held accountable if i didn't find a job when i left school, its al too easy to play up and play the martyr.

there are different forms of multiple intelligences and some school students cant adapt to the run of the mill GCSE, hence the purpose of Alternative Curriculum. this is where the likes of skill force come in and teach/tutor hard to reach students GCSE standard alternatives. meaning they leave with something... otherwise if they were to carry on messing about because they cant learn, they will leave school with nothing, and then you do you need to ask what happens next.

i was always told when i was tutoring; "if the students miss behave, its your fault" i believe this is true, you can put some students in a class room environment, and they wil switch off in about a minute. and others will respond well to a more physical environment/Kineasthetic<

so again, the opening line of my post - 'the stereo typical' screaming squaddie, this is not what its about, its the students knowing/respecting someone who is not a push over and will not take any shit.

l

In reply to Glyn Jones: i am sure this is tounge in cheek but why do you automatically refer to NCOs? why not all the officers who have had years and years of training and expereince of leadership and development of sub-ordinates? all the officers i have met (and thats a lot!) would be an asset to any school and would not resort to simply shouting at the students in order toget them to achieve something. if you have the leadership skills to lead people into a warzone, you can probably get kids to do GCSE homework....

In reply to west-country-wanderer:
The big differences are:
in the forces, the leadership is part of a complex structure. Whoever is exercising leadership has leaders above giving direction and feedback, and assistant leaders below helping implement their orders (with the exceptions of the lowest level of leadership like corporals who have no junior leaders). There is also a lot of realistic training before they go and start "doing the job", with roleplays going over what may go wrong and dealing with it in a controlled but stressful environment. And the forces personnel get training for each different environment with respect to rules of engagement as well as to the nature of their enemy.

In schools, the teacher is usually alone in the classroom with the students. There are no junior leaders to help out. You can't ask a corporal to take a section and deal with that minor threat. You need to deal with all the minor threats yourself and stop them escalating into an all-out assault. Also, many schools and colleges have poor leadership of the teachers. I have taught in 3 colleges and at no time did anyone come to see if I was doing a good job, to see if I needed support.
As for training, teacher training gives no situational training to deal with situations that are likely to arise. There is no role play to get you familiar with what is likely to happen. The rules of engagement are not made clear. You are given no standard operating procedures to deal with standard issues like latecoming or students talking to each other in class.

If I may use a forces example: just because you are capable of leading an artillery squadron into Iraq, does not mean you are capable of leading a forward observation team behind enemy lines in a major forces conflict, let alone lead an infantry defence against an armoured assault, or guard a nuclear installation in the UK, or lead an amphibious assault against a defended position...

In reply to Glyn Jones:

How about;

1. Instead of rebuilding nearly every school in the UK, we reduced class sizes to about 15 pupils.
2. Make parents more responsible for their children's behaviour.
3. Make children more responsible for their behaviour by suitable punishments.
4. Make opportunities available to the children depending on their level of intelligence following their education. - i.e. propper aprenticships covering 3 - 4 years and that lead to a proper paid career. Free university education for those gifted enough or those that want to work hard enough to get a degree without a huge debt when they graduate - they will repay their fes from the taxes that they pay until their retirement anyway.
5. Not to allow the kids to fail - they either get sufficient grades to go on to point 4 or they get sent to somewhere that Susat mentioned - eitherway they do not do nothing.
6. Sort kids out into suitable groups with different teaching styles to suit their needs.
7. Make available schools to deal with gifted children and make available schools to deal with the lower end of children. Basically stop teaching all kids the sameway, failing both ends as a result. Reward excellence and encourage & assist the needy.
8. Stop importing forigne labour at cheap prices and make unemployment unacceptable.

If this government can throw tax payers money at companies like Rover and Northern Rock, then they can employ the unemployed at a decent level of income or provide an adequate education programme - not some crappy 4 week course at the local colledge but proper retraining whereby couples/single parent families with kid/s can afford to retrain.

There should be no excuse for fit able people not to work. Those that think that they can claim benefits and work cash in hand or those that think that they can sit on their arses and have the tax payer fund their self destructive lifestyle need to be taught otherwise.

In reply to Glyn Jones:

lets make them team leaders to manage the teachers - maybe.


/runs for cover