Educational level of soldiers since Telic

Has the Educational Level of soldiers changed since Telic Started

  • Yes recruits are poorer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes recruits are better

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nothings changed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Either my unit is now recruiting from a different group from before or they are going elsewhere but it seems the quality has dropped. Anyone else seen this?

I may be wrong as during the same period the unit gained more technical equipment (which is obscuring my observations)
 
#2
Going slightly off topic

Army Basic Skills Provision

Which talks about basic skills in the army. The idea being that the Army takes on below standard and improves their maths and literacy levels. This improvement is literacy could require a Cpl to have Level 2 literacy / ?English GCSE Grade A-C? and Sergeants to have Level 3 literacy / ?English A Level?

Their is another report that talks about this being applied to the TA, anyone know of it?
 
#3
During my last tenure of regular regimental duty some years back, my soldiers managed to break a 3-ton concrete road barrier.

I think you'll find that the equipment changes, but that the squaddie doesn't....LOL....
 
#4
i doubt if there will be any changes to the entry standards for the TA in the forseeable although i believe that centralised phase 1 trg is shortly coming into effect. this should in effect prevent standards of new recruits being so diverse although my concerns are that units will know longer have the ability to 'vet' potential recruits as they will be provided for us from a central source!!
 
#5
layerwhite said:
i doubt if there will be any changes to the entry standards for the TA in the forseeable
That would be difficult to implement, TA recruit locally and don't really target parts of the population. So a TA Inf and Signals (for example) will have soldiers with similar educational standards (I'd go further and say Inf TA soldiers have had a better education - my own unit bucks this trend because it reaped a big bounty from SDR as WFR was a small regiment but thats not sustainable).

This pattern of recruitment doesn't fit what we are being expected to do, regulars may be able to take a civvie with 1 GCSE and turn them into a competent soldier but in the TA that doesn't work. We can't improve a soldiers education to the extent the Basic Skills report suggests the regular army does. It follows that if the regular army recruits someone at 1 GCSE level we probably need someone at 5 GCSE level.

Or put a different way, if I want a competent TA Signals operator I would like to have people with at least 5 GCSE's at A-C grades or Level 2 equivalents. Thats not a figure pulled out of the air, its what all of the good operators have in my unit (inc Watto, another site member), those that don't meet this are struggling.

The irony is that this is higher than what officers are needed to do. 4 people in my Sqn meet this, me, my replacement, their replacement and one other... what happens next???
 
#6
polar said:
layerwhite said:
i doubt if there will be any changes to the entry standards for the TA in the forseeable
That would be difficult to implement, TA recruit locally and don't really target parts of the population. So a TA Inf and Signals (for example) will have soldiers with similar educational standards (I'd go further and say Inf TA soldiers have had a better education - my own unit bucks this trend because it reaped a big bounty from SDR as WFR was a small regiment but thats not sustainable).

This pattern of recruitment doesn't fit what we are being expected to do, regulars may be able to take a civvie with 1 GCSE and turn them into a competent soldier but in the TA that doesn't work. We can't improve a soldiers education to the extent the Basic Skills report suggests the regular army does. It follows that if the regular army recruits someone at 1 GCSE level we probably need someone at 5 GCSE level.

Or put a different way, if I want a competent TA Signals operator I would like to have people with at least 5 GCSE's at A-C grades or Level 2 equivalents. Thats not a figure pulled out of the air, its what all of the good operators have in my unit (inc Watto, another site member), those that don't meet this are struggling.

The irony is that this is higher than what officers are needed to do. 4 people in my Sqn meet this, me, my replacement, their replacement and one other... what happens next???
There are certainly plans to introduce regional recruitment with RRT conducting TAFS1 and then sending the recruit to the unit they think would be best for that recruit. As to educational standards I don’t think they have changed, a large number of our unit either hold a degree or are studying for 1, (that doesn’t include officers).

You quote 5 GCSE’s as been a recommend minimum entry level to join the TA what about RE where not only educational qualifications are needed but trade quals? I.e. High Voltage Electrician, Joiner, Plumber etc…the same applies to REME, RLC by applying a minimum entry requirement you will not recruit people into the TA. I don’t hold 5 GCSE’s A-C but I am a competent signaller (class 2) with the RE and can hold a sensible conversation. Exams prove that a person is has a good memory, not how much they knows or how intelligent they are.
 
#7
oldist-recruit said:
You quote 5 GCSE’s as been a recommend minimum entry level to join the TA . I don’t hold 5 GCSE’s A-C but I am a competent signaller (class 2) with the RE
Sorry for removing much of your post.

I expect you and will be. Some TA RSigs have recently been updated with comms kit, its not that we just got BOWMAN we went a lot further. Soldiers who were comfortable with CLANSMAN, were out of their comfort zone and left the TA, same happened to other soldiers who knew a system called NCRS.

We modernised very quickly and left a very high casualty rate along that path, I got promoted cause I could keep up (I hope ability comes in there aswell).
 
#8
polar said:
oldist-recruit said:
You quote 5 GCSE’s as been a recommend minimum entry level to join the TA . I don’t hold 5 GCSE’s A-C but I am a competent signaller (class 2) with the RE
Sorry for removing much of your post.

I expect you and will be. Some TA RSigs have recently been updated with comms kit, its not that we just got BOWMAN we went a lot further. Soldiers who were comfortable with CLANSMAN, were out of their comfort zone and left the TA, same happened to other soldiers who knew a system called NCRS.

We modernised very quickly and left a very high casualty rate along that path, I got promoted cause I could keep up (I hope ability comes in there aswell).
Are the only criteria for promotion the fact that a person can keep up! While Boman is possibly harder to use (not seen it yet) my understanding is that there is 2 paths a person can take, tech or signaller. The signaller route is not very different from the role now (as far as I understand it). But does that still require the level of educational qualification that you put forward? Someone going tech route will have to have a basic understanding of computer systems.
 
#9
Hey OR, cant remember, but can you beat 40?, way off thread I know.
 
#10
FFBox said:
Hey OR, cant remember, but can you beat 40?, way off thread I know.
Coming from the man who asked if the CAST(N) w/e at Catterick was the CLM w/e at Redford (post deleted to spare any futher embarrassment) , this is a bit rich ;)

msr
 
#13
FFBox said:
Hey OR, cant remember, but can you beat 40?, way off thread I know.
as has been said in the past ffbox oldist-recruit is just a nick name on here, not wanting to take the lime light off anybody!!!
 
#14
oldist-recruit said:
Are the only criteria for promotion the fact that a person can keep up! While Boman is possibly harder to use (not seen it yet) my understanding is that there is 2 paths a person can take, tech or signaller.
Msr and I have both advocated IT quals for RSigs as an incentive towards recruitment/retention, its the way forward. Units filled with Ed's (a basic Sigs trade) isn't.
I don't doubt your ability, the difference between TA RSigs and other Sigs wasn't much in the past but it is now. The important point is the TA doesn't recruit this way, you may be excellent but your in the wrong corps
 
#15
Would this be the right time to bring up the fact that 1 AEC (Preston) don't work weekends and are therefore of neither use nor ornament to the TA regiments in 42 Bde?

This is despite the fact that they offer ECDL, MOS and other IT qualifications.

msr
 
#16
oldist-recruit said:
FFBox said:
Hey OR, cant remember, but can you beat 40?, way off thread I know.
as has been said in the past ffbox oldist-recruit is just a nick name on here, not wanting to take the lime light off anybody!!!
OR!!!! Stop biting and get the brews in! :cyclopsani:

FFbox! Remember! you made OR the man he is today!!! :thumright:
 
#18
oldist-recruit said:
my understanding is that there is 2 paths a person can take, tech or signaller. The signaller route is not very different from the role now (as far as I understand it). But does that still require the level of educational qualification that you put forward? Someone going tech route will have to have a basic understanding of computer systems.
Correct, however the tech trade is well passed its sell by date.

You need to view my educational remarks against the amount of time we spend developing our soldiers. 1 weeks worth of (signals) training isn't going to build experts, I believe my corps does 50% less VP than all other corps/arms in the army and it shows.

My view is that short training requires a higher educational level. (I also believe my corps trade training is partly causing the problem and needs to be at least doubled in length and for some soldiers need to undertake ECDL prior to trade training)

I'm also not seeing recruits with differing educations, its either low to middle or high - not middle to high which is the probably the group my unit needs.
These problems aren't present in most TA unit including many RSigs units, we are I suppose lucky that we have the most advanced and technical kit in the whole of Northern England
 
#20
And here was me thinking that the original question was about the TA as a whole, little did I know that it would become a Siggy Luv in!!

In general I agree with Polar when he says that the 'average' educational standard of TA recruits is higher than the regs. RMP for example now say that they will only recruit serving civvie coppers or ex RMP regs, ALS will only entertain qualified lawyers, SPS tend to look at people who are already in a clerical or financial environment and so the list goes on.

I have been on ops twice now and it never ceased to amaze me how regs perceived the TA prior to working with them and how it change during the course of the tour. we do have a lot of intelligent guys out there that are able to adapt more easily to the changing world than regs and its about time that the 'powers that be' sat up and took note. Yes we have our fair share of numpty's but there again so do the regs.
 

Top