Edited

Is the ELC scheme adequate to meet an individual's education needs?


  • Total voters
    2
#2
Welcome to 1945, Britain!
 
#3
I`ve heard the Germans have a good system, but would have to look into it before commenting further.
 
#5
If they invested in their people, we wouldn't have so many ex-squaddies living rough on our city streets.
 
#6
Dog-faced-soldier said:
Yes there is a better way. But it would cost more.
The "right thing to do" has been replaced by "hard business decisions" so we won't see things improving for our forces for a long time.

We are also filling our vacancies by recruiting foreign nationals instead of improving pay and conditions to attract our own people.

Eight years ago I met an old chap at work, he was a member of the local rotary club and at that time I guessed he was also a member of the conservative party. As we took his wife to hospital the conversation came round to Politics, he became increasingly agitated as he talked about Labour and the European Union.

He said "I am not a violent man but I would take up arms against this government". I thought that it was a strange thing to say.

Some eight years later I can see what he meant.
 
#8
Dontdreamit said:
PoisonDwarf said:
If they invested in their people, we wouldn't have so many ex-squaddies living rough on our city streets.
I completely agree, it;s a duty of care issue and we fail miserably compared to other forces.
It is not a duty of care issue - this is a specific matter concerning negligence. The army are not under any obligation to provide for a serviceman's education - outside of the education that is required for him to do his job. If there no duty owed to provide it, then the army cannot be negligent if they fail to do so.

But... yes I agree it should be opened up to what the individual needs or wants, and not goverened by a third-party view of what it is perceived that the individual should have.
 
#10
Dontdreamit said:
My recent CLM saw many teeth arm corporals scratching thier heads and asking 'Am I really entitled to money to learn with?'

Clearly not their own fault.
So who is not telling these corporals and everyone else what they are entitled to? Why is there not an Army-wide proactive policy to encourage educational development alongside and complementary to professional development? If it is purely unit-driven, then an individual's access to something they're entitled to will always be subject to the interest level of their seniors.

Dog-faced-soldier said:
Yes there is a better way. But it would cost more.
Ah yes, funding. If the Government can ignore requests for funds for war-fighting materials, they'll ignore funding requests for anything and everything else without so much as blinking an eye.

PoisonDwarf said:
If they invested in their people, we wouldn't have so many ex-squaddies living rough on our city streets.
Hahahaha! The Government laughs at your common sense and no-spin attitude. You have missed the cunning benefit of former squaddies living on the streets: they don't show up on official statistics of numbers out of work and claiming benefit.
 
#11
I thought the poll was about implementing a 'GI Bill' not "Is the current system working?" My answer to the posted question regarding a Brit GI Bill mirroring that extant in the USA is YES.... thou it WILL cost a lot of money..though no more, perhaps, than the amount that absurd woman is intending to spend on racially discriminating against white British males.
 
#12
Dontdreamit said:
Sammy The Cat said:
Dontdreamit said:
PoisonDwarf said:
If they invested in their people, we wouldn't have so many ex-squaddies living rough on our city streets.
I completely agree, it;s a duty of care issue and we fail miserably compared to other forces.
It is not a duty of care issue - this is a specific matter concerning negligence. The army are not under any obligation to provide for a serviceman's education - outside of the education that is required for him to do his job. If there no duty owed to provide it, then the army cannot be negligent if they fail to do so.

But... yes I agree it should be opened up to what the individual needs or wants, and not goverened by a third-party view of what it is perceived that the individual should have.
I it IS a DoC issue in my opinion as the Army ARE required to invest in an individuals education. Resettlement is a right not a priveledge and offering suitable options for personal development in prep for leaving a service fall under that mandate.

Just because the forces have chosen to ignore that aspect does not make it correct.

And If there no duty owed to provide it, then the army cannot be negligent if they fail to do so... examples of the army being negligent in the career direction of soldier's are legion. Especially within the infantry who often have no idea of their entitlements.

My recent CLM saw many teeth arm corporals scratching thier heads and asking 'Am I really entitled to money to learn with?'

Clearly not their own fault.
You are entitled to your opinion and I accept that - but the duty to take reasonable care is a legal concept, and whether you think that there is a duty or not does not really matter - there is not. There is a wealth of information on the matter on the internet which you can research if you wish.

The army are required to invest in a soldier's education insofar as it is required for him to do his job as soldier - nothing more, therefore anything else is a bonus.

Resettlement is not a right - it is an entitlement. If it were a right then all soldiers would have an unequivocal claim on its benefits - and they do not, they must first satisfy qualifying criteria. There is no criteria for a right - it is given as a done deal.

The ELC and SLC benefits have been going for a number of years, and if it is as you claim in the infantry, then I would be looking closer at that unit's administration of its soldiers rather than an army-wide failing. It is certainly well known in my unit what entitlements are available, they are published as a repeat order every 3 months.
 
#14
I dont think tis called the GI Bill any more - its renamed after

some Senator who actually enhanced it even more (well done to him)

The Irish Defence Forces operate a refund of fees scheme

you can apply to do any course and upon successful completion they pay

ALL you tution fees-you also get exam and study leave and most Unit

Commanders encourage it and actively aid those studying

A guy in one Unit study and qualified to be a Barrister and he was a Sgt

at the time-

Under teh Refund scheme once you pass practically any course you chose

they will pay for it

there is a second tier for adult education- if you want to go to the local

adult education scheme and do guitar playing at night they will fund it to

a certain level etc.

Sorry for the long winded reply- and one dope is going to reply

why havent you done proper grammar courses etc- Because I am plain

thick and I prefer to spend my time defiling your mother.

How does your scheme operate- whilst ours is good I think the Yanks

have an even better one.
 
#16
I have been on about this for a while and wrote to my MP about it and he replyed and told me about some other things going on.

The Conservatives have launched a commision to see if the Govenment has broken the Military Covenant (short answer, yes). I don't vote for teh Cons but I had a look ( http://www.militarycovenantcommission.com/ ) and wore to them as well. No reply buy I'm not expecting one.

I think those that have finished, or are about to finish their service should be able to apply for some form of higher education, it doesn't have to be a university degree. The skills learnt and courses taken while in service could be used to make up the points system that you need to start higher education. Most soldiers have done some after all.

HMG should pay all fees and give an allowance that can enable the person to live while studying. Means tested so the 35 year old ex-sergent with three kids gets more than the 25 year old ex-subby with no family to support.
 
#18
Dontdreamit said:
The following was taken from a Defence Select Committee regarding the The report, damning to the MOD, highlighted a catalogue of grievances..

"The Ministry of Defence itself is lambasted from the outset. It is accused of shamefully hiding behind bureaucracy in its attempts to avoid its duty of care, by continuing to insist that while legal obligations are important and binding, moral obligations are not.

This is absolutely correct. Indeed, it could be argued that this pernicious dereliction of ethical responsibility can be seen in most of the Army's troubles.

The report implies too that many of the young people joining the Army may be people who have been failed by the educational system as well. The implication appears to be that many Army recruits are functionally illiterate, as was the former SAS man and best-selling writer, Andy McNab.
The following is a direct quote from the recruitment website..

Parents can be confident that their child is joining a modern, forward-thinking organisation which believes in allowing its people to develop their full potential, supporting them every step of the way. After all, officers and soldiers are the Army's most important asset.
Upon looking you right about the legal definition of duty of care. I revise my statement. They are failing in their moral obligation.
What was that about a warm and fuzzy attitude?

The reality is that whilst the army has room for improvement in a great many areas, there must be some responsibility shouldered by those who seek to take advantage of the services that the army do offer (ELC for instance), but instead simply whine about how they did not know of its existence.

The truth is that if they did not know, questions need to be asked as to whether they ought to have known, and apart from those that are terminally stupid, I would suggest that most soldiers should know of the services that are there to support them - and if they do not then they should enquire. The onus is on them.
 
#20
Dontdreamit said:
The onus is on them?

What a fantastically put get out clause. And one that hints no doubt of towing the line. God forbid we question the amazing armed services track record in providing for it's troops.

The onus is not on them at all, given that it has already been established the majority of army recruits to the teeth arms have at best minimal and often no qualifications at all, it is up to them to question their educational entitlements?

Is this between the almost continous training / optag / deployment?

To say that the onus is on men and woman (some lacking basic key skills) to apply for and negotiate a completely convuluted system such as ELC is a joke.

It sounds to me like you are in favour of a scheme that does not adequately meet the personal requirements of today's soldier.
The onus is, always has been and always will be on the person that requires to take advantage of anything. How many times have your claims forms been filled in for you - never - you have to do it, how many times have you been loaded on a rather natty and useful course - never - you have to make the running, how many times have you just been handed a nice qualification without having to do anything to receive it - never - there must be at least some course of study required.

Why should educational schemes be any different? If there is something there to take advantage of - then do it.

Moving on - re-read your post and then read the clause that I have emboldened. You claim that that some of our soldiers are lacking key skills - I would suggest that the ELC system is more than adequate to rectify that.

I agree that the system is more difficult than it needs to be, and that the free choice element is not entirely free (there is still criteria to be met), but it is better than nothing.

Unfortunately, the army (and wider society) is becoming more and more consumed by those who want something for nothing. The ELC is something for nothing - it is two-thousand quid if you have done the time, all that is required is that you follow the procedure (which is in a flow chart format at every ELC, with an IERO to talk you through it), and to put in the personal effort for the course of study.

If that is too much to ask - then tough.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads