<p>My daughter attended a private school- not Lakeside- 
[apparently according to Ms Hagopian, the kids at Lakeside don’t enlist if they want to join the miltary, they enter through the academies)
However- 11% of the kids in my daughters graduating class joined the Marines - not necessarly right after high school but before college.
They were able to get information about it even without any recruiters coming to the school.</p>
<p>11% seems like a whole lot. How many kids does that work out to be?</p>
<p>LOL
I just did it that way so it would be more impressive
it actually was only 2 kids- out of 18-</p>
<p>Don’t try to “out-number” an actuary! ;)</p>
<p>Second NMD’s observations about the current undue influence of hard-line evangelical Christians in the military academies. They use their power wielding with enough stridence to make senior ranking- former army-brat-practising Catholic–academy professors and their wives uncomfortable.<br>
That is not a good thing.</p>
<p>By the way, who cares if Kitty has an agenda? Of course she does. No harm no foul in a CC political agenda, IMO.</p>
<p>I just spent 15 minutes replying to your specific questions and I lost my post 
I don’t have the energy to do it over! Our district took a decidedly left-liberal turn about 7 years ago. Trust me, I’m not a right-wing wacko by any means, and I’m not the only person concerned about the changes in our public schools. In fact, many of our English teachers resigned in protest of the changes in the curriculum. Many of the older teachers are just riding out the turn our academics have taken until their retirement. I just feel at this point the kids are being less educated than indoctrinated into a certain world view. My older son went through 12 years of public school and is now a rising junior at our state U. I put younger son, rising sophomore, into private school as a freshman (I’d rather not specify what school for privacy reasons.) The subject matter and teaching methods are traditional (as our public used to be). I have close contact with the pubic schools so I saw the changes firsthand. By anti-American I mean that literature and readings and assignments focus on what our educators perceive as being wrong with America. The kids are not taught to value or respect their country in any way. </p>
<p>In terms of military recruitment at the private school, my son hasn’t mentioned it, but I do know the SA’s come in for an information night in the fall of each year. The public school does not have service academy reps come in to talk to the kids.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>P.S. If you go to the current issue of the City Journal online, you’ll find a very interesting article by Sol Stern (former '60s radical and present conservative public education critic) about how ed schools are training teachers to present the same world view I’m talking about.</p>
<p>well to go off topic on my own thread- I would say that for middle and high school students- I would prefer that teachers be knowledgable in the areas they are teaching- and not have “education degrees”
I realize that isn’t going to change,but I think we would get better teachers if they had a subject degree first, and then a year or so of education on methods- jargon etc.
I think that some schools do, do it that way, but other schools get too bound up in method of the month.</p>
<p>hereshoping: I completely agree with all your posts on this thread. I’m also a City Journal fan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The stuff that went on at USAFA was unconscionable. But it is by no means the norm at Kings Point at least (S’s first hand experience) and USNA (friend’s D accounts). At KP there is a Christian Group that my son went to a couple of times when he got there. It was a little too evangelical from my son’s liberal Episcopal tastes so he didn’t go back. No repercussions and he still is friends with some of the Mids in the group. I asked a Naval Academy Mid after the USAFA incidents if she had experienced anything like that and she said no not at all. She chalked it up to Zoomie arrogance.</p>
<p>There is a more each-to-their-own attitude at KP and USNA. I think that is because culturally they understand and appreciate very personally the power of nature in a way that culturally the Air Force doesn’t. You have to respect the sea. So, there is much more of an understanding that they aren’t always in control. The Air Force is all about being in control, so you can see where people who are convinced their way is the right way (evangelicals) would tend to congregate at a place like USAFA.</p>
<p>What is the difference between God and an Air Force fighter pilot?</p>
<p>God doesn’t think she’s a fighter pilot</p>
<p>“The military targets low income youth.
We have several visits a year from recruiters at my daughters inner city public school, but at schools with higher average income like her sisters, they don’t come at all.”</p>
<p>Sorry, have to throw the BS flag. My husband did 2 tours as a recruiter and they have no way to know the “socio-economic” status of the students. They have the list of test takers, the scores, and they cold call from the scores. In fact, it would be counter-intuitive and productive to call those who are most likely to be low-income first. </p>
<p>As an educator, parent, informed person would probably stipulate, higher income students are more likely to have higher scores. They get called first. If the recruiter is told my S/D has plans to do x,y,z, please don’t call anymore, why would they waste their time? (They don’t!) These students are easy (administratively) to put in, and, of course, make the recruiter’s life easier. But, recruiters don’t have the time to waste trying to “bully” these kids into joining (as some posters seem to be suggesting). So, Emeraldkity’s observation of fewer calls or visits may be correct, but the conclusion she is drawing is not.</p>
<p>As the scores decline, perhaps the economic status declines, due to whatever social factors are present, but then the options for the students decline as well. These students are more likely to be receptive, and so are more likely to engage in conversation with the recruiter. Not everyone is college-bound, nor should they be.</p>
<p>Then there are the “Cat IV Lower” kids, who populate the region containing the lowest scores which are eligible for recruitment. There are very few billets for kids with these scores, and many wait months or years for an opportunity to get into the military. If they do get the chance to go, the recruiter will pull their completed file out of the drawer, put them on a bus and send them to the regional processing station. In my experience, these kids are downright joyful when they get the call.</p>
<p>I would counter EK’s observations with this: If the inner city public schools get more visits than the higher income schools, perhaps this is more a reflection on the school than the recruiting environment. Ever think that they have more invitations from the inner-city public school than the higher-income school? That they counselors are trying to do the best to give their students all the options? Why is it automatically the big, bad military “targeting” low-income students?</p>
<p>As to the recruiter intimidating the student into filling out the card, the recruiter is not responsible for the “feeling” of the student. The kid filled out the card, he can answer the calls from the recruiter and explain to him that he isn’t really interested and just felt it necessary to do what the rest of the class was doing. </p>
<p>And the parents lying to the recruiter: What is that about? Why not give the kid the message and let the kid deal with it. What are you afraid of? Remember, recruiters are driven by time, and if they are told not to call why would they waste their time? Ever notice how the calls come in the evening? This is time the recruiter is spending working instead of being with family. Please, don’t waste their time.</p>
<p>And the political rant? Please, what does it prove to rant at the recruiter about W’s daughters? What do you want him to do? “Yes, ma’am, I’ll go right out and sign 'em up. Must have been an oversight on our end. Let me take care of that right away.” Might make you feel better, but if you don’t have the time/patience/inclination to talk to the recruiter, and you only have, MAYBE 4 calling, think about how much patience the recruiter has for your rant when he has hundreds of calls to make a week? Be an adult. The person on the other end of the line is doing a job. Say no thanks, get on with your life and let the recruiter get on with his.</p>
<p>Well, I think that is all for now, or at least all that I have patience for. Just remember, especially if you hate the military, that they are the very people who protect your right to express your views. </p>
<p>That is all.</p>
<p>all they have to do is check the district web site
*My husband did 2 tours as a recruiter and they have no way to know the “socio-economic” status of the students. *</p>
<p>My own personal observation of someone who was at the school everyday- is after this school was highlighted in media as “not wanting” recruiters,visits were stepped up a lot, not from recruiters necessarily, but from supporters including right wing talk radio shock jocks- I didn’t see them in the school, but they hung out in the parking lot.
I actually feel for the particular recruiters at the school- they are young of course & when they feel like they are being attacked- it is natural- to have ahard time defusing the situation, there was a lot of emotion- I already mentioned we have a family friend who also was a Marine recruiter, until he decided that going to Iraq seemed like a better idea than working as a recruiter.</p>
<p>As I said before- I have no problem with military recruiters coming to high schools if they follow same parameters per contact with students that other organizations do. Certain times of year- etc & I would prefer as with any sort of organization- opting * in* rather than opting out</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see- if is is any different this year. Last year- I was pretty irritated at the radio station reps and others harrasing students in the parking lot. This school has always had the reputation of being the most liberal school in a liberal city- and while teh PTA chair does get a bit strident- I do have to say she sticks up for her beliefs-
but this coming year, the school is being relocated into a completely different neighborhood- and I am wondering if the conflict will then become a topic of interest on the radio again, or if it will be dropped for something else.</p>
<p>Should armed services personnel be invited into the classroom? Sure, why not? Should recruiters be allowed in the classroom? No, I don’t think so. No one here has mentioned that their kids have had a similar in-classroom experience. </p>
<p>BTW, this wasn’t cleared with the school office and I get the impression that the teacher thought he was not getting a recruiter per se, just someone who was going to talk about what it was like to be in the Navy.</p>
<p>Recruiters at the school are prominent at job fairs and career fairs at the school. Shouldn’t that be enough?</p>
<p>In response to momof1, at no time did I ever lie to a recruiter about my son’s whereabouts. I said he wasn’t there when he wasn’t there (I should have clarified in my first post). If he was there I said the recruiter could not talk to him. As for my “rant” it took all of 20 seconds of the recruiter’s time. </p>
<p>By the way I am a Navy veteran and I am not generally opposed to military service. I am opposed to the rich and powerful wanting the children of the middle and lower classes to fight their wars for them.</p>
<p>Momof1, there are schools that are hostile and uncooperative with military recruiters. Two schools that I have in mind, are in upscale communities. I know they do not invite military recruiters, and the parents association has distributed flyers protesting the presence of the military at that school. Although, by law, they cannot refuse to allow the recruiter on campus if he pushes the matter, since the schools do take government money, the picking are likely to be slim. Nearly 100% of those kids go to college, and the idea of “luring” them into enlisted military service is repugnant to most who are associated with the school. Interestingly enough there are always a number of kids in that school who get full ROTC scholarships or go to the academies. In the other communities that do not have such a high 4-year college matriculation figure, there is more interest, the parents and schools are not as resistant, and the result is more recruits. As for those schools in disadvantaged areas, where college stats are not even given; instead the numbers in focus are for teen pregnancy, dropping out, incarceration, school attendance and making the minimum acceptable testing standard for whatever test the state uses for that measure. Again, the results of recruiting there would not be great since many of those kids have had issues that keep them out of the military even if they wanted to enlist. Waivers only go so far. The kids who do get into the military are among the cream of the crop, and many do go on to overcome their former environment.<br>
So you have the recruiter with quotas to make. I think he would target the schools where he has the best chances of having success. Trying to work with uncooperative schools is difficult and unpleasant for results that are poor.</p>
<p>I would be interested in how the upscale schools would feel if their kids were deemed ineligible for the academy nominations and ROTC programs for their lack of support in permitting a recruiter to make his pitch while rolling out the red carpet for college admission directors. I think the parents would then have an outcry of a different nature. </p>
<p>I do not understand why schools who are taking federal money and have few kids if any joining the enlisted ranks, are so opposed to allowing military recruiters present their cases. At schools where the parents are not as informed and involved with their children’s options, it is fair to have the disadvantages and risks involved in joing the military discussed as well, so that the kids and families can make informed decisions. </p>
<p>If we cannot get enough volunteers in the military, there is likely to be a draft, and I think that those groups most opposed to having the recruiters at school, would be outraged. It is important for the recruiters to make their numbers, and we should be supporting their efforts regardless of what we think of joining the military. It is only to all of our advantages, given the world situation right now.</p>
<p>Ah, EK, they could look at the district web site to find the Socio-Economic status of the SCHOOL. That is different from the SE of the student (ever see the movie “Homeless in Beverly Hills?”), and, as I said “As the scores decline, perhaps the economic status declines, due to whatever social factors are present,…” I submit that:</p>
<p>a.) That individual students’ SE level is not INDICATED by the school they attend, but is SUGGESTED by the school they attend, and</p>
<p>b.) That the recruiter doesn’t care. It is driven largely by test score and the score results don’t include income tax information.</p>
<p>COH, I believe that what I wrote is actually substantially the same as what you wrote in regard to yield. The recruiter told to fish in another pond will do so. As I said, “If the inner city public schools get more visits than the higher income schools, perhaps this is more a reflection on the school than the recruiting environment.” Actually, schools such as the troubled ones you noted (I am an educator) are the ones which generally value the recruiters’ presence, since their graduation numbers can only benefit from a student having a purpose for staying in school. As has also been noted here, many of these students do not have a cohesive family or adult guidance and they feel a need to be a member of something. Whatever the individual’s motivation, the school is greatly the gainer in terms of numbers when students are involved in programs such as the Delayed Entry Program. So, as I said, those schools are more likely to invite the recruiters than the private school EK refers to.</p>
<p>“So you have the recruiter with quotas to make. I think he would target the schools where he has the best chances of having success. Trying to work with uncooperative schools is difficult and unpleasant for results that are poor.” I agree, but, again, as you stated, waivers only go so far and the administrative time and effort for those more challenged kids is not an effective use of time, either. </p>
<p>Since I think we basically agree on many factors, what if we state it this way:</p>
<p>Recruiters target settings which will get them the highest yield for the time expended.</p>
<p>I stand by my assertion that recruiters do not target low-income schools. Perhaps if the “high-income” private schools were more welcoming, it would not appear as if there was targeting going on. Again, the conclusion doesn’t fit the facts, rather a world-view.</p>
<p>“I am opposed to the rich and powerful wanting the children of the middle and lower classes to fight their wars for them.”</p>
<p>That’s priceless, Wharfrat, 'cause I was mowing the lawn and thinking about how the lower SE kids were actually being targeted by the higher SE parents.</p>
<p>Its good to see that [this](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003189288_webrecruiter10.html”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003189288_webrecruiter10.html</a>)is being taken care of.</p>
<p>Have to differ with you, LF dad. According to my long-time, higher up source, there is more evangelical influence and pressure than your S’s experience suggests. Good on him for following his own beat though.</p>
<p>We’re at war with Islamic-facists, who are intent on destroying us, and you’re worried about the Christian evangelical influence in our military? I can’t help but find that mindset really frightening. Same goes for EK’s searching the internet daily for each and every anti-military story she can dredge up.</p>
<p>actually I live in the Seattle-Portland area- I read the paper- these articles are local news- not to mention as I am involved with[CAN]( <a href=“http://www.cureautismnow.org/site/c.bhLOK2PILuF/b.1021889/k.BFD8/Home.htm”>http://www.cureautismnow.org/site/c.bhLOK2PILuF/b.1021889/k.BFD8/Home.htm</a>), and work with teens and families in our area.</p>
<p>I saw the article regarding the discipline of the overly enthusiastic recruiter as very positive. Here was a problem and it is being taken care of.
We know mistakes happen all the time, but we often don’t know what , if anything is being done to fix them. I appreciate transparency, and accountability & I am glad to know that the family is satisfied with the response.
I don’t understand why that upset you so much- what about it is anti military?
If Marite says something that brings to light , something that is a problem in public schools, is she “anti-public schools”?</p>
<p>How is it patriotic to accept and ignore any error that any government agency makes?</p>
<p>I do not love my husband less, because he isn’t perfect, I don’t love my children less because they are not perfect- but when mistakes are made, I expect accountability, and an effort to figure out why the mistake happened.</p>
<p>THe attitude that “for Gods sake don’t turn the light on in here”, because what we believe in will, wither away if closely examined, is something I don’t agree with</p>