September 27, 2005
Scott Defisks HoNDA Sect. 10: Military Recruiting
SEC. 10. RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Home-Schooled Students- Chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 503 the following new section:
`Sec. 503a. Recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students
`(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment- The Secretary concerned shall prescribe a policy for the recruitment and enlistment of home-schooled students. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the polices prescribed under this section apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the armed forces
Chris asks, “Why do we need special recruitment policies just for homeschoolers? is this all part of Farris' Christian Army fantasy? If homeschoolers are just like everybody else, shouldn't the normal recruitment policies of the Armed Forces be sufficient?”
Under current law, homeschool graduates fall into “Tier II,” which mostly consists of people who couldn’t complete high school and got a GED instead. The Pentagon has learned that people who can’t handle high school aren’t all that likely to do well in the military. Not only are there far fewer slots for Tier II recruits, they also have significantly less options available to them. To the best of my knowledge, the only sure way a homeschooler can avoid Tier II status is to get 15 hours of college credits.
HSLDA negotiated with the Pentagon to get a pilot project enacted in 2000 to measure the actual attrition rates of homeschool graduates. To the best of my knowledge, the initial class in the project included 65 homeschoolers in the Marines, 300 in the Air Force, 400 in the Army, and 1,300 in the Navy. Unfortunately, approximately 300 of these “homeschool” recruits from the Chicago area had all the characteristics of real dropouts who claimed to be homeschooled. (I call these “homefoolers” to distinguish them from “homeschoolers.”) The Pentagon then followed this initial class all the way through the five year pilot project, and (again, to the best of my knowledge) all the reported data on attrition rates comes solely from this group of recruits.
As a number of HSLDA’s critics have been quick to point out, the attrition rates from this group were not better than those of public high school graduates. If almost 15% of the initial group really were dropouts, however, this should hardly come as a surprise.
Homeschoolers are remarkably diverse, and our diversity makes it hard for the Pentagon to know how to treat us. Some parents spend years raising children to question authority and march to the beat of a different drummer. Such homeschoolers are unlikely to be all that interested in a military career. Other parents spend years raising children to pray for their country and obey their parents. These homeschoolers tend to be quite eager to enlist.
HSLDA has a non-negotiable commitment to enabling homeschool graduates to serve in the military. We are unwilling to accept a permanent Tier II status, nor are we willing to tell our members that they have to get 15 hours of college credits to achieve Tier I. We recognize, however, that explicit homeschool legislation is not the only way to achieve our goal.
We are open to any constructive alternatives that others could suggest for enabling homeschoolers to serve alongside of traditional high school graduates.
PermalinkComments
Personally, I don't see the college credit requirement as that big of a stumbling block. 15 hours is 4 or 5 classes. The couple of hundred HEK's that are gunning for enlisted status each year can plan a year ahead and take a few CC classes their "senior" year to get the 15 hours. I just don't see that small a number as being worth their own DoD bureaucracy. Really, we should be encouraging military minded HEK's to go to school and become officers anyway.
However, if we have to be equal all the time - why not just rely on the Armed Forces Entrance test. Any HEK that can score at the 50th percentile on that test should qualify for Tier I. That seems so obvious I'm assuming HSLDA already thought of that and the military didn't go for it.
Posted by: COD at September 27, 2005 05:11 PMThat was exactly what Chris Klicka has been suggesting as a reasonable accomodation. It's a lot better than telling willing and capable recruits they have to go off to college. We'll see whether the military can get around to accepting that as one among a number of other options.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 28, 2005 10:12 AMYou know what? If the US government doesn't want capable and willing homeschool recruits then that is the government's problem. These kids might actually be better off serving our country in our own communities than going off to fight and die in some foreign country - but my feeling about war in general aside..
There is no reason to federally legislate how homeschoolers are handled by the military.. If you want uniform treatment of all persons then the language should not be homeschool specific, nor should it specify how recruits have been educated.
Why not get rid of the Tier status all together and reword this section to be thus
`Sec. 503a. Recruitment and enlistment of all new recruits
`(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment- The Secretary concerned shall prescribe a policy for the recruitment and enlistment of all new recruits. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the polices prescribed under this section apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the armed forces.
The tier status is in place because of retention reasons which apparently have been studied since 1959, and the findings are that institutionally schooled grads have the best track record for completing a first term of service. The Tier system is already a policy that is uniform.
Within the Tier system the services tailor who they accept based on their needs. The Marines & Air Force don't need as many people, so their standards are pickier. The Army needs more, so they accept a broader range. Navy seems to be mid-range.
Also, as far as "telling willing and able recruits" to go to college, why is that different than telling a willing and able recruit to lose 45 pounds, or any other requirement that is currently in place (probably BMI rather than pounds). The instituional experience provides a fitter recruit, just as slimming down from being over-weight provides a fitter recruit.
And again, the Tiers aren't only about scores on tests. As much as it pains me to say, the act of having been in an institutional school is the best predictor to date for completion of a first term of service. For monetary reasons the institutionally-schooled kids get the Tier I status.
http://home.kc.rr.com/milhmschlhq/military_enlistment.htm
Posted by: Valerie at September 29, 2005 12:25 AMHmm Scott sounds like you actually want special treatment in how home-educated recruits are handled. You comment on the so called drop outs, well Scott that is apart of what makes up home-educators. You comment on the parents that are against brain-washing their children and wish them to think for themselves, well once again that is apart of what makes up home-educator. In fact it's the conservative religious right that teaches their children to "pray for their country and obey their parents." Those people are a small percentage of the whole. So at the end of the day ya it is teir 2 status that fits us, to many home-educated kids can think for themselves and don't like the brain-washing that the military requires and are likely going to find a way out. Personally I think you can try to lobby for this, but I really don't think it's going to go real far. There are far to many other pressing issues for the government to consider right now.
Posted by: Bec Thomas at September 29, 2005 03:35 PMWell, and I'd like to point out that some of us "question authority" types are supportive of a strong military -- though I know that's counter-intuitive. My sons have been taught the value of the FREEDOM to question authority, and one of my kids is getting a lot of attention from military recruiters. I would say that since our homeschooling does not follow any of the protocol outlined in this legislation, the legislation would create a significant disadvantage for our son.
While right now it looks more likely that he's favoring civilian public service (law enforcement) among his diverse career choices, I would hate to see this legislation passed, which would make him at a disadvantage should he choose the honor to serve his country in the military.
Maybe we are alone in this as eclectic/unschooling types, but my kids just don't seem to have any problems achieving in hierarchical/authority-based situations, even tho' it's not the way we homeschool. And I'm talking long-term here.
So what if the criteria HSLDA has put forward as what identifies a good homeschooling program for military recruits weeds out the wrong kids? What if, in fact, the homeschoolers that have dropped out at higher levels than publicly schooled kids are either (a)only the kids who dropped out of public school and never really homeschooled or (b)kids who followed a program such as that which HSLDA describes?
Have I missed evidence that shows that homeschooled kids who do do well in the military are always those who followed those guidelines/that type of program? When I think back to the kids I know who went directly into the military from homeschooling, they were the unschooled/eclectic types and none of them washed out.
I think it may be possible that those kids have some pretty mature and self-reliant characteristics that don't have anything to do with what kind of "program" they used to homeschool.
Or, maybe it's just individual.
But if we don't have evidence as to whether that kind of homeschool program produces better results, then why would we want to enact legislation that puts eclectic/unschooled kids to a disadvantage if they wish to serve their country?
I'm also a bit resentful of the depiction of the "sides" in this debate as being more polarized than they really are. Our family prays regularly, worships together regularly, and is very patriotic. To presume that the opportunity to serve may be less important to children whose parents do not use the same homeschool methodologies as those outlined in this legislation smacks of condescension. Especially when we don't even know whether they actually may be MORE successful than their curriculum/program-oriented peers at retention. (I understand that the assumption comes from the fact that public schooled kids do better than homeschooled kids, but again, I'm thinking of some unschooled kids who have been darn successful in the military, so maybe they are not the ones causing the lower attrition -- even tho' this legislation would make it harder for them to enlist!)
There are many people who support homeschooling and who support the military who oppose this legislation.
And finally, Scott says, "HSLDA has a non-negotiable commitment to enabling homeschool graduates to serve in the military" and
"We are open to any constructive alternatives that others could suggest for enabling homeschoolers to serve alongside of traditional high school graduates."
I'd like to point out that people who oppose a bad idea are not bound to suggest an alternative to the bad idea in order to make it morally imperative for the bad idea not to be advanced. The responsibility for the bad idea is not on the opponents' heads, creating a situation that if no other idea is promoted, then the bad idea is acceptable.
It just ain't so, but the rhetorical trick is effective until you take it apart.
Jeanne
whose kids unschool, pray and obey
Rats. That was the second time I tried to post about that stuff because the first time it all got lost in cyber space. And I had a little trouble trying to re-create it and continue to make sense.
Where I said, "so maybe they are not the ones causing the lower attrition" would you please substitute either "lower retention" or "higher attrition."
There's some sentence structure I regret, too, but hey, it's been quite a day, so I'll just have to trust that you all are better at un-tangling than I was at getting it all tangled up.
By the way, it's 62 degrees in Mississippi tonight. Let's hope some cooler weather brings a small bit of relief to our hurricane-ravaged regions over the next few days.
Posted by: Jeanne at September 29, 2005 10:08 PM>>> To the best of my knowledge, the initial class in the project included 65 homeschoolers in the Marines, 300 in the Air Force, 400 in the Army, and 1,300 in the Navy. Unfortunately, approximately 300 of these “homeschool” recruits from the Chicago area had all the characteristics of real dropouts who claimed to be homeschooled. (I call these “homefoolers” to distinguish them from “homeschoolers.”) The Pentagon then followed this initial class all the way through the five year pilot project, and (again, to the best of my knowledge) all the reported data on attrition rates comes solely from this group of recruits.
The pilot program report was read, wasn't it?
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
Final Analysis of Evaluation of Homeschool and ChalleNGe Program Recruits
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
PDF page 43:
==============================================
During this period, the Navy's recruiting policy on homeschooled enlistees was not well articulated, and many Navy recruits officially
classified as homeschooled during FY99 actually held no credential.
It appears that this problem was most severe between March and July 1999. When we exclude all Navy homeschooled recruits during this time period, the proportion of homeschoolers looks somewhat different (see figure 8).23
==============================================
And compensating for the Navy's 'fuzzy numbers' of "homefoolers" was the Air Force's own contribution:
PDF page 49:
============================================
(Homeschooled recruits in the Air Force exhibit very low attrition rates when we measure attrition based on official educational
credential, but we demonstrate that this is due to the tendency of the Air Force to classify recruits with Associate's degrees as homeschooled.)
============================================
PDF page 55:
==============================================
In 1999, there were perhaps 850,000 homeschooled students. Again assuming that 28 percent were in high school, the number of homeschooled twelfth-graders was between 50,000 and 60,000. Taking
55,000 as a median estimate, we know that between FY99 and FY02 inclusive, no more than 3,850 homeschoolers enlisted across the four Services combined (this assumes that all Navy homeschoolers in FY99 were "true" homeschoolers). During this period, there were a total of
roughly 730,000 enlistees, so homeschoolers made up about .5 percent of all enlistees. This suggests that homeschooled students enlisted
at a rate of 0.1 percent, or 1.1 of every 1,000 homeschooled students (or 2.2 of every 1,000 male homeschooled students). This compares with an overall enlistment rate of close to 3 to 5 percent of all high school seniors, or 6 to 10 percent of all male high school seniors. 32 Thus, homeschooled students have a much lower propensity
to enlist than do students who graduate from public high schools or the ChalleNGe program. In contrast, 2,941 of the 67,500 enlistees surveyed were graduates of private schools. The total number of private school graduates in 1999
was about 275,000 [16, table 63]. Assuming that half were males, this suggests that male private school graduates enlist at a rate of about 2 in 100. Thus, private school students also seem to enlist at higher rates than homeschooled graduates, although at a lower rate than
public school graduates. There are more than four times as many private school graduates as homeschooled graduates in the U.S. today.
==============================================
PDF doc. page 49
=================================
Homeschooled recruits have uniformly higher attrition rates than traditional graduates. This is true for 12-, 24-, and 36-month attrition, and for 48-month attrition in the Army (the Army is the only branch with enough observations to measure 48-month attrition).
This finding remains when we measure attrition based on recruits'official education credential, as opposed to using recruits' responses to the Survey of Recruits' Education and Background.
=================================
Despite all this the conclusion was (and I'm so tired of having to trot this out because it looks like I'm against homeschoolers enlisting, which I'm not):
============================================
PDF p. 52: Although there are good reasons to explore recruiting avenues beyond traditional public high schools, given the attrition rates of homeschoolers compared with other high school diploma graduates, homeschooled recruits seem to be a less desirable recruiting market than was originally thought.
============================================
Judy says, "There is no reason to federally legislate how homeschoolers are handled by the military." If by "legislate" you mean, "You don't have to pass an Act of Congress to fix this problem," I might agree with you. But it you mean that there is no need to deal with the federal government in some united way to open doors for homeschoolers, then I beg to differ.
I admit that the ONE study of homeschool attrition rates for ONE class of recruits is less than flattering. Some argue this proves that "Homeschoolers can't cut the military!"
I'm not ready to concede that point, and I don't think this data proves it. We all know the diversity of the homeschool population, and it doesn't take an expert witness to point out the limits of this particular study.
Speaking solely for myself, and not as an official spokesman for HSLDA, I'd be happy to have a second pilot project with a better research design. I think the military will eventually figure out how to recruit willing and capable homeschool grads, and I don't think 15 credits of college is the best use of limited resources to get there.
But, speaking for HSLDA again, our 80,000 member families are united in opposition to a "just say no" policy to homeschool recruits. We aren't going to drop this issue.
Given HSLDA's narrow but non-negotiable goals, can anybody suggest a way that homeschoolers could work together on this?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at October 3, 2005 10:00 AMI think that Tier II status may be a benefit because it makes the recruit-candidate think about what needs to be done, and to get the experience necessary for him or her to improve the chances that the enlistment will be completed.
The thing that is the best predictor of a successful completion for the first term of enlistment is a high school diploma, even considering AFQT scores:
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
==========================================
In each case, we find that homeschooled recruits (even those with above-average AFQT scores) and ChalleNGe recruits (even those with above-average AFQT scores) have higher probabilities of attrition than traditional high school diploma graduates.
==========================================
For alternative-credential-holders this trend has been documented for decades, and this recent study just confirms those decades of conclusions drawn by prior studies. In light of all this attention to the problem, there is probably no need for yet another taxpayer-funded study.
http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2002/chapter2/c2_recruiting.htm#back10_13
================================================
These benchmarks were set by examining the relationship between costs associated with recruiting, training, attrition, and retention using as a standard the performance level obtained by the reference cohort of 1990, the cohort that served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Thus, these benchmarks reflect the recruit quality levels necessary to minimize personnel and training costs while maintaining Desert Shield/Desert Storm cohort performance.[footnote 13]
=============================================
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
attrition rates are on pp. 84 - 86
In looking at these numbers, I'm changing my recommendation from a semester of college to taking the 'senior' year in public school -- in the interest of helping the homeschooled kids who choose to enlist have the best experience they can. Not every one will succeed, but the numbers just might go up, which isn't likely at merely being granted Tier I status just because of who they are.
If a person does not adjust well, he or she is usually chaptered out, perhaps with an other-than-honorable discharge. That categorization is on their record, and part of their life forever.
Now if a recruit washes out of basic, they are usually cut some slack in the documentation process, especially if the release from service is for medical reasons:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blbasicattrit.htm
If an enlisted member does make it through basic, only to run into difficulties later on, then the experience degrades significantly.
Do any of you understand what it is to be chaptered out of the military because you fail to adjust -- or worse, do something really stupid because you're miserable? The military srvices don't let people go with a handshake and a 'better luck next time, pal' after the unfortunate young person shows up in the C.O.'s office saying, "Gee, whiz, sir, I just don't think this is right for me." There is no 'letter of resignation.'
The process consists of multiple counselings that escalate as time goes by often from immediate supervisor, to OIC (officer in charge -- usually of the work place), to company first sergeant, to company commander, perhaps to battalion commander, and if you're very unlucky, to battalion command sergeant major. It's all a long, not-very-pleasant, paper-trail, with the point being to keep the people, not get rid of them. The hope is always there that the person will make the adjustment and mission will continue.
Examples of comments gleaned from a quickie web search from those who've gone through it, and the effect on their lives, are at:
http://forum.freeadvice.com/archive/index.php/t-260485.html
http://forums.military.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/63196512/m/7710071800001
http://www.navy.com/forum/thread.jspa?threadID=17251&tstart=30
and the slightly melodramatic, but no less factual:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Oeeh4c1RZMoJ:www.armybootcamp.com/Army/graduation.htm+discharge+chaptered+out+military&hl=en
I want to give the kids the tools they need to have the best experience they can, and to come out the other end either with an honorable discharge at the completion of their term of service, or a career.
Recruiting perks don't get you through the tough spots, special treatment doesn't get you through. Doing what needs to be done is what does it.
My position's at:
http://home.kc.rr.com/milhmschlhq/military_HR3753_S1691.htm
Valerie, I don't think a lot of the Evangelical homeschoolers are going to be excited about shipping their kids off to public school for a year. As an overall statistical matter, secular homeschoolers don't seem to be all that vocal about their support for the war in Iraq.
There may be a market for a military academy for homeschool grads, but that just tends to feed the homeschoolers into the officer corps, when we're trying to find ways to make it possible for motivated homeschoolers to enlist.
What about Homeschool ROTC? ("Home Educated Reserve Officers" makes a nice acronym.) What if there was a program that worked with interested homeschoolers during the high school years?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at October 3, 2005 12:35 PMExcitement or not on the part of homeschooling parents is immaterial when it comes to the success of their kids in the military. If the parents and the kids want the best odds, they do what needs to be done. If that pill is too bitter even though they know those odds, well, they get the luck of the draw, don't they?
In the (now defunct) Munich military health clinic's pharmacy there was a sign hanging at the back of the room, well in view of the 'customer' window. The sign read, "Piss-poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine." The clinic commander was a no-nonsense fellow who was Ranger qualified, and apparently he didn't find the sign to be in bad taste.
I don't recount this to be offensive, only to demonstrate part of the military attitude towards getting things done.
One of my main points is to provide information to give families the means to prepare the kids well so they can make it. I'm not trying to build a roadblock, I'm trying to build a bridge. The numbers point to an institutional experience. I'd like to find other evidence, but it doesn't seem to be there.
Either the people wanting this experience -- and who have the information -- make the choice to do what needs to be done, or they don't.
All I can do is point to the evidence.
[checking for JROTC since I'm not familiar with it -- me and my husband were in the Army, not my (homeschooled) kids]:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/27/2769/A276924.html
The numbers from this look good.
[checking around some more] It looks as if homeschooled kids have at least one JROTC program in Washington state:
http://www.west-point.org/academy/malo-wa/educators/HomeSchool.html
And your group recommends it, too:
http://www.hslda.org/highschool/military.asp
OK, we've figured out what needs to be done, a model is in place, and your group's in favor of it. Section 10 can be scrapped. [handshakes all 'round]
Posted by: Valerie at October 3, 2005 03:01 PMScott says: "I don't think 15 credits of college is the best use of limited resources to get there."
Perhaps a better question would be "do homeschoolers, in general, think the very inexpensive CC courses are too expensive for them to reach their goals?"
Scott also said, "But, speaking for HSLDA again, our 80,000 member families are united in opposition to a "just say no" policy to homeschool recruits."
To which I ask, could you link us to the poll of the membership where they all said they were "in opposition" because the member families I know haven't a clue what you're talking about.
And, just a note to jogg your memory, Scott (Given HSLDA's narrow but non-negotiable goals, can anybody suggest a way that homeschoolers could work together on this?), the company that pays you to sit and type away on these boards all day does NOT represent all homeschoolers, so they need to get over their "my way or the highway" mindset cause it doesn't work anymore!
My Congressman was quite interested in the idea that an organization that represents such a small number of homeschoolers should talk about have non-negotiable goals, "who are these people? A little carried away with themselves, aren't they?"
Posted by: Lynda at October 4, 2005 01:02 AMOkay, sounds like JROTC is a viable option. I'll take it up with the other attorneys tomorrow.
I'm trying to be open-minded about the community college courses. Is there something about sitting in lecture halls that provides the missing ingredient that homeschoolers need to succeed in the military? Or do the community college credits act as a proxy variable that separates one kind of recruit from another? If so, can we figure out what makes for military success and just identify that, instead of spending time and money on college credits we don't really want?
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at October 4, 2005 05:36 PMFor people reading along (if any) who think the above is a reasonable question, the answer is that the best predictor for completion of a first term of service is the institutional experience itself.
For those interested, information is at:
http://home.kc.rr.com/milhmschlhq/military_enlistment.htm
If the comment entry box is gone it's because comments are closed for this entry. Please feel free to use the "contact" link above to get in touch.