Posted on 11/07/2005 8:24:38 AM PST by pabianice
November 7, 2005: The U.S. Department of Defense sees urban schools as ones of its biggest recruiting obstacles. Not because leftist teachers in some of those schools try to keep recruiters out, but because so many potential recruits have to be turned down because of the poor education they have received in those schools. While only 21 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 44 percent of the qualified recruits come from these areas. What's strange about all this is that the rural areas spend much less, per pupil, on education, but get much better results. Part of this can be attributed to differences in cost of living, but a lot of it has to do with simply getting more done with less. Per capita, young people in urban areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.
The rural recruits are also a lot easier to train, and generally make better soldiers. The urban recruits often have a bad attitude, as well as a difficult time getting along with others, and following instructions. The urban schools deserve some of the blame for this, while rural schools tend to be far more orderly, and put more emphasis on civil responsibility. Many of the urban recruits are aware of these problems, and joined the service to learn useful (for getting a job) social skills. Those skills are more often found among rural recruits because out in the boondocks, people are more involved with local government, and more involved in general. This has been noted in urban neighborhoods, and for decades, many urban parents have sought to send their kids, "to live with kinfolk in the country" to get the child away from the bad influences of urban life.
Over the last decade, there's been a movement back to the rural areas. Urban areas may be more exciting, and offer more employment opportunities, but they are a tough place to raise kids, or find suitable recruits for the military.
Education needs reform, for sure. The trouble is, that the reform it needs would make it so much cheaper than it now is, that no such reform is possible.
John Taylor Gatto is a favorite commentator of mine on this subject, and the source for the idea that I just expressed in paraphrase.
Like less teacher's unions and less corruption (mostly democrat).
Per capita, young people in urban areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.
Typo here?
Put this one in the "duh" file.
Yes, indeed, government indoctrination camps really do suck in liberal enclaves.
Per capita, young people in urban areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.
This will be seen as a "success" to the urban liberal elites.
BTTT
What I didn't learn in high school, I learned from The Bluejacket's Manual.
???????
Interesting, so apparently Strategy Page believes that is has the ability to evaluate recruits during training, which is part of the Drill Sergeant's job. I went through OSUT at Benning and I'm from NYC. I don't know, the drills didn't smoke me too much because of my high PT and the fact that I was able to follow instructions. So apparently...I'm a poor soldier because I'm from an urban area. That is outstanding. I applaud their thinking.
I hope so. It's either that or my brain has shut down. (A threat that I live with)
I love that poster...
We used to be able to guess-stimate an applicant's ASVAB score pretty accurately just by knowing what zip code the lived in. Administer enough tests and you get the ability to even guesstimate the scores based on how much 'spark' was in a person's eyes.
1.) I routinely have classrooms with 36-38 kids in them. This is too much. My largest class when student teaching in Illinois was closer to 25.
2.) My students are largely Hispanic and they despise students who do well, taunting them with calls of "School boy! School girl!"
3.) 80% of my students receive subsidized lunch, but are walking around with cellphones, gameboys, and ipods. They have an attitude of entitlement and, while public schools are where the money is actually disseminated, it starts from the top down, as in Federal Handouts.
4.) Overwhelmingly, the students' views are knee-jerk leftist. They feel the government's job is to take money from "rich white people" and give it to them. They are cruel to people not Hispanic, but their definition of "racist" is "anyone who displeases a Hispanic." They think money is just something the government prints, and if it would just print more of it, everyone could be rich. They tell me that they learn this from their parents, most of whom are from Mexico.
5.) The only areas in which they are not leftist are social areas having to do with sex. That is to say, they are homophobic and chauvinistic to the extreme.
That's the population I teach. Crowded, loud, aggressive, uninformed, ethnocentric, chauvinist, and anti-intellectual. It is no surprise that very little can be done with them.
Are you sure it wasn't your superior reading comprehension that put you head and shoulders about the rest?
They weren't studying how YOU fared but how two different groups GENERALLY fare.
What about the left wing claptrap we've been hearing for decades from the likes of Charlie Rangel saying it is mostly poor inner city youths going off to fight and die in war??
Not to mention my CPO'S and Petty Officers
Jack
"The urban recruits often have a bad attitude, as well as a difficult time getting along with others, and following instructions"
I was looking at that part and yes I saw your highlighted statement about rural recruits. I never had bad attitude during training and saw that most rural kids in my Platoon slacked off and wouldn't always give a 100%. Do I go about and make a generalization about rural kids being lazy? Obviously they were a result of inadequate upbringing.
#1 is no reason. Other countries routinely have large numbers of kids in classes, as do a lot of Catholic schools in this country, and they ALL routinely do better than American public schools with 20 or so per class. The reason ? Discipline, plain and simple, and parents who don't put up with poor school achievement. #s 3,4,5 don't matter either - Jaime Escalante dealt with the same population and made something of them.
It all boils down to #2 - anti-intellectualism. You could combat that in the schools if the teachers were all intellectuals backed up by administrators who put academic achievement above sports all day every day, but we all know that isn't the case anywhere in American public schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.