Sunday, June 29, 2014

Military NOT An Option For Many Grads

More than 2/3's of today's youth are too uneducated, have behavior issues, and are not physically fit enough for military service.

Too many young adults lack high school diplomas, have felony convictions, and are on prescription drugs.

Still more do not meet the military's appearance standards due to extreme piercings & too many tattoos.

71% of the 34 million young adults ages 17 to 24 would not be able to enlist if they tried, not counting people turned away for tattoos or other cosmetic issues.

Only about 1% of young adults are both eligible and inclined to have a conversation with recruiters.

New recruits aren't passing the Armed Forces Qualification Test, which measures their reading and math skills.

"They aren't educationally qualified to join the military in any capacity, not just the high-tech jobs." ~~ Retired Maj. Gen. Allen Youngman 



Anonymous said...

Too illiterate.
Too undisciplined.
Too unfit.
Too mutilated.
Too unmotivated.
Too bad!

Anonymous said...

Whoda thunk it?
I got a Dollar says most Union Teachers wouldn't pass recruit testing based on what I see every day.

In a time when a college grad without ROTC finds himself lucky to enlist as a Private, the so called Education System ought to be seeing the light. They aren't though, they don't have to. They have a Union and it's the only industry where failure is rewarded equally with success.

Not to worry though, the Welfare office remains open 5 days a week.

Lets build another new school.

Anonymous said...

Honest question:

What percentage of the problem lies in education and what percentage lies in the upbringing by parents? (Or other area.) Even though there are obvious areas for improvement in education (including low performing teachers) I see what is out in the community and can't imagine any rational individual believing that the problem is 100% due to schooling. What is your best guess in regards to the percentage breakdown?

SCATS said...

To 11:49PM ~~ Isn't that kind of like which came first? The chicken, or the egg?

There are LOTS of young teachers who are also products of the system, and it's BROKEN. I don't know if their parents were tuned in or not, but I do know many of them can't read, write, spell, comprehend, do math & perform other basic skills hs graduates are expected to be able to handle. Now, they are passing along those problems to the next generation.

Anonymous said...

It's a two-way street. Many grads are not deemed acceptable for military service, but military members being honorably discharged are probably not welcome as teachers in most school districts either. The military has a subsidy program called troops-to-teachers that would cover the costs of training and certifying soldiers as teachers. How many T2T grads does GCSD employ? In this era of deep and rapid military drawdown the supply of high-quality candidates is abundant for those who find them acceptable employees.

PS if these are getting through, please just publish one. But I am not getting the usual message "your comment is awaiting blog owner approval"

Anonymous said...

I am in the process of conducting interviews for a position at the high school where I work. (not in Greece) 3 years ago, we had over 100 resumes for a similar opening. This year we have 8, and only 3 are actually certified. No one wants to be a teacher anymore, and rightly so.

SCATS said...

To 10:45AM ~~ TY for letting me know why you posted so many times. I have no control over BLOGGER.

As for the military option, it used to be "the fallback option" for those who didn't do well in school. The fact that few coming out of the military want to become teachers is not the same as saying they are NOT qualified/literate, etc. to become one. It likely means they don't want to be a teacher, just as 11:18AM mentioned.

Anonymous said...

Or perhaps, the inverse maybe true?
What distinguishes any military "retiree/dropout" as qualified for teaching... I just don't see the connection. Following the orders of some ROTC grad leads to death not education - reference Viet Nam PLEASE!!! The bulk of our armed services people are Army groundpounders with a basic HS diploma or GED, which you all abhor.
The fall "back option" means that most military "veterans" have prior sealed or available convictions that will preclude them from passing any state background checks required to be a teacher!
How many of you remember a Judge saying, "your choice is enlist or jail"?

SCATS said...

To 4:13PM ~~ I never said that teaching should be an option for former military employees. Someone else threw that out there.

As for your contention about "abhoring" HS diplomas/GED degrees: You are entirely misunderstanding!!! The "problem" with such degrees these days is that they are made meaningless by the union teachers who can't even correctly spell "graduation" themselves!

Anonymous said...

To SCATS at 2:57: you blame the education system, taking it back in time, claiming that the parents weren't properly educated to begin with.

While I do agree with 11:49's statement that part of the problem is with the education system, a much larger part of the military recruitment problem lies in felony convictions, prescription drugs, tattoos and/or other cosmetic issues. You're completely missing the big picture.

Fixing these problems does not fit into the states curriculum. You're essentially asking the school system to raise the child, replacing the role of the parent. What is currently being taught in reading, writing, or math will not change drug abuse, a child from getting a tattoo, a large piercing, or keep a child from committing a crime. A person doesn't necessarily need to know how to read, write, spell, or do math in order to become a good contributing member to society (if you disagree, please read a history book). It takes a good parent to do that.

Raising a child to determine what is right and what is wrong should be the job of the parent!!!!

I certainly don't want the government, some teacher, or administrator telling my child how they should live their life, especially when it comes to morals, tattoos, piercings, etc... Incorrectly placing blame on the education system instead of focusing on the parents is making the issue a lot worse.

SCATS said...

To 12:23PM ~~ PLEASE do NOT attempt to tell me that schools don't want to raise our children! There is a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise. Here are but a FEW examples: Kindergarten became FULL DAY, instead of half-day. Pre-K became a school district program, instead of an optional matter between parent and a private business/daycare/church, etc. which was CHOSEN by the parent/s. Teaching about birth control, STD's, reproduction, LGBT issues became an "opt-out" problem for PARENTS, instead of an "opt-in" problem for the educators.

I could go on and on and on citing everything from what's offered to eat out of vending machines to dress codes to routine discipline/behavior issues. Even vaccines TO PREVENT STD's are mandatory for 11 year olds, regardless their level of maturity! It's a "one size fits all" bureauacracy and God help any parent who tries to go against it.

So please, do NOT try to tell me the schools don't want to raise the children. They do, but without controls or accountability and certainly not with repercussions to staff for over-stepping the line.

Anonymous said...

Sorry SCAT's but you are entirely, absolutely, and unsubstantiatedly(sic) wrong!

The school districts, teachers, unions, nor support staff ever chose to be what you purport!

Schools have been forced there by Liberal politicians who chose to make those Districts responsible with unfunded mandates, gifts, handouts, and promises of a future that cannot be supported by Government intervention - please read as SUBSIDIES and ENTITLEMENTS!!!

Even the U of R takeover of East cannot be guaranteed by U of R until they have gone through an assessment period!!!

Sorry to insult your position, but it's really time for you to get off the high horse you ride. Positive and achievable suggestions instead of incitement by you might lend more credence to the improbable position into which you place yourself.

SCATS said...

To 5:20PM ~~ Your comment made me laugh out loud!! You're blaming of the "Liberal politicians" is almost funny!!

Can YOU guess who it is that keeps voting for the LIBERAL politicians??? It's the TEACHER'S UNIONS!!!

BTW, when have you EVER heard of GTA complaining about unfunded mandates?? Answer: NEVER!!! It keeps them in business.

SCATS said...

Once again, we're withholding one or more comments because THEY DO NOT STICK TO THE TOPIC!!

PERSONAL ATTACKS on the BLOG, its authors or those who write in are NOT FAIR GAME.

Feel free to attack ideas, statements, thoughts, etc. That's called "debate."

Anonymous said...

Bringing forth evidence that the Scats blog owner has absolutely no idea what they're talking about is NOT a personal attack.

The comments being withheld were a direct response to the 5:31 Scats post. I fail to see how that is off topic in any way. I'm sure you won't post this comment either, it appears as though you pick to post only the comments that you like.

SCATS said...

To 2:31PM ~~ First of all, there was ONE comment withheld on this thread.

Secondly, charcterizing the BLOG as "hilarious" and its authors as "crazy" ... "clueless" ... etc. is a PERSONAL ATTACK!

Keep it on the TOPIC and off the BLOG/authors and you will get your comments posted! It's really NOT that difficult ;)

Anonymous said...

I have a young member of my family that just went into the Navy. Funny, not only did he go to Olympia, but he also has a very large amount of tattoo's. I fail to see what tattoo's have to do with anything?

SCATS said...

To 4:04PM ~~ According to the article we linked: "New rules issued in March forbid large-scale tattoos or more than four visible on a soldier's arms or legs. Tattoos are forbidden on other parts of the body not covered by a uniform.

In addition, potential recruits are being turned away because of extreme piercings, such as ear gauges that create large holes in people's earlobes."

The military has standards they want met.

Anonymous said...

4:04- the distraction factor maybe?

Anonymous said...

Still not understanding why they would let him in to be a navy seal no less, with sleaves on both arms and a huge back piece??

SCATS said...

To 9:55AM ~~ Perhaps you should have a chat with the recruiter to get an understanding.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should, so then you might have a clue about what youre talking about?? I can send you a pic of him, his tattoos and a pic of him in his Navy gear, if you would like?

SCATS said...

To 8:45AM ~~ Apparently you did NOT read the factual info I posted along with links. You SHOULD READ IT. Then you can take your attitude & direct it towards the author, instead of shooting the messenger (SCATS).