Military Recruiting in High Schools: From School Space to Marketplace

153 Pages·2016·4.555 MB·English

by  Brian W. Lagotte (auth.)

Military Recruiting in High Schools

Military Recruiting in High Schools
From School Space to Marketplace
Brian W. Lagotte
University of Kansas, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6300-516-6 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-517-3 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-518-0 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved © 2016 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface vii
Acknowledgements ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
My Place and Purpose 2
The Throughline 8
Chapter 2: Policy Context 11
Recruiter Access 11
Student Data Protection 13
NCLB Section 9528 15
Interpreting Policy Requirements 17
Competing Solutions 20
ESSA Section 8025 23
Chapter 3: The Pitch 27
Penetrating the School Market 28
Opt-Out, JAMRS, Student Data 34
Conclusion 40
Chapter 4: Parents 43
Influencers as Obstacles 43
Pitching the Parents 48
Evading the Influencers 53
Conclusion 60
Chapter 5: School Administrators 61
The Data Sharing Provision 63
Equal Access Provision 66
Conclusion 76
Chapter 6: Career Killer 79
The Blueprint 79
Shady Six 82
Different Perspective 85
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Promotion Stress 86
Drug Counseling 92
Conclusion 93
Chapter 7: Conclusion 95
Recommendations 97
Normative Harms 101
Appendix 1: Notes on Method and Data 107
Appendix 2: Notes on Theory 119
References 137
Index 143
vi
PREFACE
In hindsight, the final lesson from a previous research project—when the military
gets involved with education policy, other priorities take a back seat—provided the
perfect preparation for this eventual monograph. A historical examination of policy
reform in post-WWII occupied Japan (1945–1952), my past project soon expanded
to the wider political concerns within the American occupation (Lagotte, 2006). The
upper levels of the American occupation governance, forming a shadow cabinet
structure behind the Japanese ministries, generally chose Japanese counterparts
on shifting political needs rather than pedagogical concerns. For example, the
Americans purged the hard-right Japanese conservatives from government posts;
brought in progressive educators freshly trained in the spirit of John Dewey; and,
recruited within Japan for teachers eager to learn new methods. Thus, Japanese
progressive teachers, underground in the 1920s and 1930s, openly entered the
Ministry of Education and worked with like-minded American educators. If allowed
to mature, the relationship between progressive educators from both countries could
have enabled a complete pedagogical paradigm shift from drilling and standardized
testing to a more socially relevant model of education.
The collaboration lasted about two years, until the occupation authorities noticed
most of the Japanese progressives also belonged to the politically active teachers’
union. Unfortunately, as far as General Douglas MacArthur was concerned, the
easiest way to spot a communist was to attend a union rally. The animosity/paranoia
towards communism in the post-WWII environment ended the progressive concerns
in education policy for occupation leaders. MacArthur reinstated much of the
Japanese right to ministry positions because they might have been imperialists, but
they had to be better than the communists. To this day, much of the potential that
existed between the American and Japanese progressive collaboration in the 1940s
remains unrealized.
At the time I published that material, patterns began to repeat. America started
a new occupation, Iraq, and purged all those associated with the political party in
power. Although this time the target was the Baathists (Constable, 2003; Slevin,
2003), the occupation forces would once again backtrack when management of
the country proved impossible (Anderson, 2004; Wong, 2007). When I read about
bringing democratic reform to a newly occupied country, I wondered, much to the
concern of friends and family, how a comparative study would look if I immediately
went to examine education reform in the Green Zone of Bagdad as America began
the occupation, or in modern terms, established the coalition authority.
Instead of investigating what education reform looked like in a war zone, I came
across education policy affecting what the military looked like in the school zone.
My knee-jerk reaction at the time was to flash on Japanese military officers running
vii
PREFACE
sword drills with elementary and junior-high-aged children during school hours.
From a more realistic policy perspective, however, the same pattern of “what the
military wants, the military gets” repeats, as contemporary U.S. education policy
allows the armed forces certain exceptions that no other third-parties receive when
visiting high schools – even when the military commits the same acts which we
regulate for other parties. Therefore, this monograph is a culmination of writing
and publishing that asks if military mandates embedded inside American education
policy are serving the best interests of our school children.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my thanks to the members of my academic committee for their
feedback on the earliest versions of this project: Drs. Sharon Hutchinson, William
Reese, Nancy Kendall, Maria Lepowsky, and the late Neil Whitehead. Their early
critique and reflections eliminated many of the weaker sections and added several
of the keenest insights. I would also like to thank my Friday Group colleagues at
the University of Wisconsin for their advice and comments throughout my studies.
Special mention goes to Quentin Wheeler-Bell, Joe Ferrare, and Ross Collin for
constantly motivating the advance of my work. Dr. Wheeler-Bell’s contribution to
my thinking on this subject, was well as the possibilities of a Critical Social Science,
are significant.
A very special thanks goes to my two mentors while conducting this research
project. I would like to thank Professor Larry Nesper for his contribution to my
research perspectives and interest in an engaged anthropology. Without his
influence thinking about the relationship between the Anthropology of Law and
the Anthropology of Policy, my concluding recommendations would have been
much thinner. Professor Nesper always provided much needed support throughout
the complicated process of researching, writing, and defending a doctoral project. I
would like to express my great appreciation to Michael W. Apple. Professor Apple
greatly contributed to my academic success, but more importantly, emphasized the
responsibility of academics to take the social consequences of their work seriously.
I had been thinking through Gramsci, the organic intellectual, and social impact of
education/research with classmates when I enrolled in the first of many seminar
courses. After about fifteen minutes of Professor Apple explaining his teaching
philosophy and political awareness, my classmate leaned over and whispered “I
think you’ve found your advisor.” The impact Dr. Apple has had on my development
has indeed been immense.
Finally, I would like to thank Professor Mary B. Sundal for showing me the
way to the finish line and supporting me until I crossed it. Not only has she been a
trusty academic colleague and peer reviewer, as a loving wife she also had several
lengthy turns wrangling our then toddler Colin and infant Wyatt while I was closed
away in the office making final edits and revisions – certainly deserving of an
acknowledgement of gratitude in its own right.
ix