U.S. Department of Defense takes a dim view of cyberschool diplomas

Source: PennLive.com

All diplomas awarded to Pennsylvania public school students are not equal in the eyes of the military. Students attending any of the state’s dozen public cyberschools are learning that the hard way.

The U.S. Department of Defense regards graduates of these online schools to be less adaptable to military life. The military prefers that no more than 10 percent of new recruits in any branch of service hold something other than a traditional high school diploma, according to Defense Department officials.

-----

But defense officials say they have studies backing their stance. “For over 20 years, we have used education credentials to predict adaptability to military life,” said Eileen Lainez, a public affairs officer for the U.S. Department of Defense.

“Individuals with a diploma from a distance or virtual education program perform more like GED credential holders than traditional high school diploma graduates.”

Maj. John Caldwell, public affairs director for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, said it is in taxpayers’ best interest to recruit people who are less likely to wash out. “That saves the taxpayers money and you would expect that fiduciary responsibility to be executed by us,” Caldwell said. “If we have some who attrit at bootcamp or during their first term, we have to assess someone to take their place. That’s time. That’s money. ... That’s also a unit whose cohesion is then degraded because someone left before their time was up.”



Read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/us_department_of_defense_takes.html

nt

Worthy of reflection.

n/t

One of the things people learn from school is how to work within a system, not only with teachers and fellow students. This lack of training in co-operation AND finishing things at times set by others, is why the Military hates GED Recruits. See my post below for more details.

in my experience are very smart and know more than those in Tucson's public schools, that I see. But I educated the drop outs and the home school students who just want to pass their test early.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/

The Military view came out of the Army Recruiter Scandals of the mid to late 1970s. With the end of the draft, the Army had a problem getting recruits that would also pass the Army Battery test. To get around this a number of Recruiters took the Army Battery tests for their recruits so the Recruits could pass the test. The army found out about this and after a whole lot of Court Martial (Of the recruiters NOT the Recruits) found out a good number of these Recruits did fulfill their military contract, while others did not. To see why the difference a study of done on these recruits. How well the recruits did in School, intelligence, age, having children and even criminal background did not explain the difference between why some of these recruits fulfilled their Military Contracts while others did not. The one factor that was found to be a factor was whether the Recruit finished High School. NOT how while the recruit did in High School, but if the recruit finished high school.

As one person who reported on the Study commented, if the Recruit could put up with the bullshit in high school, they can put up with the bullshit in the Military. Civilian employees also record a similar situation i.e. people who stay on the job tend to have graduated High School, those the do NOT stay on the job tended to have NOT finished High School.

Subsequent studies have continued to show this difference and thus the Military wants High School Graduates, Now earlier studies had NOT shown this characteristics, but those were done in the 1940s about the time when the majority of recruits started to join the army AFTER finishing High School. Prior to the 1930s that was NOT the situation, High School was NOT for most people, and thus most people did NOT go to high School prior to the 1940s (One of the differences between the WWI and WWII Armies was the WWI armies were majority NON-High School Graduates, while the Majority of WWII Recruits were High School Graduates). Since the US had the Draft from the late 1940s to 1972, the issue of High School and non-high School graduates had never come up. In the 1970s with the switch to the All Volunteer army the issue came up and was found to be a big factor in the issue of a recruit finishing the Recruits enlistment contract.

The same for all the other alternatives to High School, people opt for them for they can NOT or do NOT WANT to handle the bullshit that occurs in High School. The problem is that Bullshit occurs in real life i.e. in the Military and the work place. Thus the Military do NOT want non high school graduates, will tolerate up to 10% if the military can NOT get anyone else. Under Clinton, before the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, if I remember right, was down to 2-3% of all recruits being non High School Graduates. Under Bush II, it went up to the 10% limit do to the drop in African American enlistments. The 10% is an internal rule and can be waived if the Military can NOT get the number of High School Grads to enlist. So far the Military has only had to increase it to 10%, but how long is that going to last? No one knows.

Interesting. Maybe there is something to the claims that we are not educating our children merely programming them.

...wanting applicants who are willing to drag themselves into the freezing cold before dawn to trudge to school and get the job done.

The military isn't something you can do in your jammies while wearing your fuzzy slippers. They don't want people who choose the "easy" or "comfortable" route. They also aren't interested in people who want to "learn and grow at their own pace", or "focus their studies on things that interest them".

Some of the biggest selling points of computerized education are antithetical to military life and military discipline. And, yes, they do want people who bend to authoritarian control. The military isn't a democracy.

Like I said, bend to authoritarian control. If I remember correctly when I was in not wanted to stand out in the cold and rain, they were told to.

As for this part.

"They don't want people who choose the "easy" or "comfortable" route."

By joining the military you are doing the most "easy" and "comfortable" thing you can mentally do. Do as told and don't talk back isn't exactly pushing any mental boundaries.

I virtually never use my head at all. Nope, not once. Not required while flying a 155,000 lb 4-engine turboprop at 300 feet in formation at night with night vision goggles and 70+ people in the back. Nope, doesn't require any critical thinking skills at all. That's why the airlines love to hire us, because we're such dim witted idiots.

And you're exactly right...never once EVER disagreed with a superior. Yup, just nod and say "yes sir", right? Never once told the boss "sir, actually....".

Sarcasm off...

Dude, serving in the military is just as challenging of a job as anywhere else. I've worked in the civilian world too. I'm sure going into your boss's office and telling him where to stick his gold-plated pen won't get you anywhere just as doing that in the military probably won't either. On the other hand, I've told plenty of my supervisors, commanders and others that I worked for that perhaps this or that isn't working, or advised them of how things should be. Were there "yes men" (and women) in the service? Sure, just like the company I worked for had the little brown-nosers that did whatever the civilian boss wanted them to do too.

The major difference is outright contempt is tolerated in a different way in the military than the civilian world. Civilian world, you'll probably get fired. Military world, you risk UCMJ action. I've seen plenty of people stand up and tell the commander that he's got it all wrong. Sometimes the boss listened. Other times the commanders would tell him to STFU and from then on they were labeled a black sheep of the unit. Just the same as in the civilian world.

Ditto with the levels of education. There are the worker bees who generally have a HS education. You'd expect the same mindless, uncritical-thinking type work in a company's mail room too. Then there are the lower management people...they shift leaders and office managers. Some have an associates degree. A random few have bachelors degrees. That mirrors the military's non-commissioned officer corps (ie, sergeants, etc). Then there's the middle management, where virtually everyone has a degree of some kind and is reasonably educated. That's the military's company grade officer corps (ie, Lieutenants and Captains, etc). Then there's the upper management, where you're getting into department heads, etc. These guys have either graduate degrees or vast experience...that's the military's Field Grade Officer corps (Majors and Lt Colonels). Then there's the executive management, the top 1% of the company...where people can only get access with vast experience, networking and advanced post-graduate education. That's the military's senior leadership, the generals and colonels.

Just as in the civilian sector, you've got great managers and leaders, and you have poor managers and leaders. Some who listen to their employees and others who just want to see the head nod and move on. I've worked for all those types, both in the military and in the civilian sector. Check that...the last company I worked for, most of my civilian bosses were suits who didn't give two shits what I thought and were far less open to listening to what the workforce had to say than the typical military commander.

The whole "do as your told" part only comes into play during critical actions, where not following part of the plan could lead to major disaster for everyone else. Case in point...if someone in our formation broke flight discipline and decided to make up their own rules on the fly and do as they felt, it could result in tragedy...not just for the crew of that airplane but the others in the formation...along with those riding in the aircraft. That filters down to the troops on the ground too...if a bunch of C-130s got balled up in a giant accident, not only did you lose the airplanes (millions of dollars of taxpayer funds with it), the talent (crew) and the passengers, but you also lost whatever the troops on the ground were depending on...be it food, medical supplies, ammo or reinforcements. It's a huge trickle-down concept and at times it only takes one clown to muck it all up. On the other side of the coin, screwing up your job in the civilian world might result in death and tragedy in a few lines of work, but most of you will only see upset clients, loss of revenue or other non-fatal results. So the "do as your told" concept isn't such a vaunted part of civilian life, although in reality your boss really has no stomach for you standing in his doorway telling you just what you thought of him.

You can't pause to the go bathroom in a real battle

As the article says, only 30% of American youth actually meet the qualifications for military service. I've seen quite a few kids who were told that military service is "always" an option if you can't find a job, but who were later floored when the military rejected them.

The days of dropouts and jail-dodgers going into the military ended with the Cold War. The military is much smaller than it used to be, and is much more selective about who it lets in. There are so many people trying to join, and so few empty boots to fill, that people are being rejected for trivial things.

and they are not alone with that concern

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-21/us/military.waivers_1_felony-waivers-recruits-pentagon-statistics?_s=PM:US

The Army and Marine Corps are allowing convicted felons to serve in increasing numbers, newly released Department of Defense statistics show.

Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist threats.

The statistics were released by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

He has given the Pentagon a month to hand over up-to-date details on the number of waivers granted, reports on how the recruits have performed and information about how the waivers are related to meeting recruitment goals.

military.

One of the most important areas being, IMHO, face to face interactions with others. There's a lot to be said for having a real live teacher and real live students in the room to interact with. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming it's impossible to obtain a good education through home schooling under the right circumstances).

I've got to agree with the military on this one, it takes a certain type of person to succeed in the military and all they're saying is that there are better odds of finding the people they need who went through conventional schooling. And yes, it costs them (and us - the taxpayers) to have recruits come in and then find out later that the military isn't a good fit for them.

For example, is it principally one reason for attrition and therefore potentially information that the cyber schools could use to counsel students who are interested in serving, or is DoD only aware of the broad indicator that less traditional school grads are not as successful in the service?

people who have been "schooled" to a clock, to do what they are told. Nothing about the quality or quantify of what they have learned
is discussed.

This is about "schooling", not education.

By the way - in the two examples given - if those people were self-directed learners, they would find out that they simply have to get in touch with a Senator, or a someone who know a Congress person that is involved with the appropriations committee. They will write a letter to the appropriate branch of the service telling them what a fine young person the kid is, and what a credit to our country he/she would be.

They can then go in and succeed beyond their wildest expectations. Or perhaps get dropped out of boot camp, if this really wasn't the life for them. It's a learning thing.

For those not bound by their preconceived notions there are colleges of education with tons of research on distance studies and online work. In many ways there is little or no difference in the outcome, but there are several ways in which it is superior. The old saw about not being part of a group is quaint, but inaccurate. Very few login from a closet - they live lives outside of their computer screen, and often report much greater satisfaction and learning from the process.
------------------------------------------------------

From Frank Smith "Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of Our Classrooms"

The Learners’ Manifesto

1.The brain is always learning. We learn exactly what is demonstrated by people around us. Schools must stop trying to teach through
pointless drills, activities, and tests.

2.Learning does not require coercion or irrelevant reward. We fail to learn only if we are bored, or confused, of if we have been
persuaded that learning will be difficult. Schools must be places were learning can take place naturally.

3.Learning must be meaningful. If we understand, then we learn. Schools must change themselves, not try to change us, to ensure we
understand what we are expected to learn.

4.Learning is incidental. We learn while doing things that we find useful and interesting. Schools must stop creating environments
where we cannot engage in sensible activities.

5.Learning is collaborative. We learn by apprenticing ourselves to people who practice what they teach. Schools must stop trying to
deliver instruction mechanically. If teachers cannot teach, there must be better teachers, not more tests and programmatic
instruction.

6.The consequences of worthwhile learning are obvious. We demonstrate the worthwhile things we learn by engaging in those
activities. Schools, teachers, and parents should not have to rely on marks, scores, or tests to discover if we have learned.

7.Learning always involves feelings. We remember how we feel when we learn and when we fail to learn. Schools must not treat
learners like battery hens or like machines.

8.Learning must be free of risk If we are threatened by learning, then the learning will always threaten. Schools must recognize that continual testing is intellectual harassment.

....today you have to be highly qualified to kill people....

I served for 8 years (USAF) and only fired a weapon twice. Once at basic and once as Desert Shield kicked off.