NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the US government really so evil as to abuse No Child Gets Left Behind to recruit kids through schools?

Check this out. Freaky (http://www.leavemychildalone.org/)

Yes, yes it is. Recruiters have access to all the personal information schools do (phone number, address, age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) under the latest amendment to the ESEA.

Yes, yes it is. Recruiters have access to all the personal information schools do (phone number, address, age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) under the latest amendment to the ESEA.
My God... why haven't I heard of this? Why aren't people angry and on the streets protesting? Why aren't parents calling for an immediate end to this?!

My God... why haven't I heard of this? Why aren't people angry and on the streets protesting? Why aren't parents calling for an immediate end to this?!
There are only so many hours in a day, dude. And at the rate this administration spews out shit to get pissed off at, jeez, it's impossible to keep up.

As it currently stands I don't have a problem with it. A standing military is a necessity and the only way to maintain it without making military service is through voluntary enlistment. Where do you think enlistees are going to come from?


My problems with it is that it is a good way to move towards mandatory military service, and it has absolutely nothing to do with educating our kids

For some immigrants their only choice for (speedy) citizenship is through service. Why shouldn't it be the same for natural citizens?

As it currently stands I don't have a problem with it. A standing military is a necessity and the only way to maintain it without making military service is through voluntary enlistment. Where do you think enlistees are going to come from?
I don't have a problem with recruiters or with the ideas of recruitment, but I don't want them in my daughter's high school. Especially when they're as desperate as they are for bodies right now. They can damn well troll the malls for kids.

As it currently stands I don't have a problem with it. A standing military is a necessity and the only way to maintain it without making military service is through voluntary enlistment. Where do you think enlistees are going to come from?
I enlisted from a website. Most of my friends joined from a recruitment stand, in our senior year of highschool, at a jobfair. But my concern is more with the method of recruiting.

I enlisted from a website. Most of my friends joined from a recruitment stand, in our senior year of highschool, at a jobfair. But my concern is more with the method of recruiting.
I had a lot of fraternity brothers in the reserves--some of them went to Afghanistan--and the biggest thing I learned about recruiters from them, and from my own brief stint (I took the ASVAB and had the physical but backed out) was that they're worse liars than used car salesmen and personal injury attorneys put together. I was 27 and figured it out. Most 17 year olds don't have enough sense to figure it out.

War is murder! Dissolve the military and embrace peace!

I don't have a problem with recruiters or with the ideas of recruitment, but I don't want them in my daughter's high school. Especially when they're as desperate as they are for bodies right now. They can damn well troll the malls for kids.



I enlisted from a website. Most of my friends joined from a recruitment stand, in our senior year of highschool, at a jobfair. But my concern is more with the method of recruiting.

Where do you think enlistees are going to come from? okay, when I said this I was referring to the efforts of recruiters in general, should have been more specific

War is murder! Dissolve the military and embrace peace!
nice thought, but it would never work; humans are by nature violent.

War is murder! Dissolve the military and embrace peace!

The only problem with this is, for it to work, everyone has to do it at the same time.

War is murder! Dissolve the military and embrace peace!
Shouldn't you be hugging a tree somewhere or something?

The only problem with this is, for it to work, everyone has to do it at the same time.
excactly! I'll get right on the phone with al-qaeida and tell them the ceasefire has begun. Then I'll call hamas and hezbollah and invite them over for tea and a good gay stoning! :headbang:

nice thought, but it would never work; humans are by nature violent.

I'm not.


The only problem with this is, for it to work, everyone has to do it at the same time.

True, but someone has to start. I suggest Canada, as soon as my political party The Modern Radicals gets off the ground. I'm not legally allowed to run for government yet, so maybe in about 3 years...

Shouldn't you be hugging a tree somewhere or something?

At this time of night, in my pajamas, when I have school tomorrow? Sir, I think not.

You're funny, TC.

You're funny, TC.

I shall take that as a compliment, and thank you. Nice quote, by the way. Republicans make my skin crawl. Ralph Nadar to the max!

My God... why haven't I heard of this? Why aren't people angry and on the streets protesting? Why aren't parents calling for an immediate end to this?!

Because FOX says that would be unpatriotic.

nice thought, but it would never work; humans are by nature violent.
I'm not.
I was speaking in generalities, obviously not every person is violent, perfect example of an exception: Gandhi

At this time of night, in my pajamas, when I have school tomorrow? Sir, I think not.
Why not, it would be fun ;)

Is the US government really so evil as to abuse No Child Gets Left Behind to recruit kids through schools?

Check this out. Freaky (http://www.leavemychildalone.org/)
Of course it is true. And it's been around for three and a half years now. It's my understanding that parents have the right to "opt out" their children from getting on recruiters lists. However it would be unlawful for the school to let the parents in on this particular piece of information. Go figure.
Protesting on the street about it? You realy should look into NCLB, it's by far the worst piece of legislation to get moved through congress ... I dunno, possibly EVER. Ask any educator with half a brain.
I think the biggest fault of NCLB is that it penalizes (by withholding federal money, among other things) the schools that need the most help.
You want to go protesting out in the street about something? Go protest the fact that the federal government expects every (and I mean 100%) publically educated child to be "above average" by the year 2012.
Talk about an unfunded mandate.

I was speaking in generalities, obviously not every person is violent, perfect example of an exception: Gandhi

All we need is some rehabilitation for those already violent, and education for those yet to develop violent tendancies. Teach people love and acceptence at an early age, and violence will cease to exist. We can evolve!

Of course it is true. And it's been around for three and a half years now. It's my understanding that parents have the right to "opt out" their children from getting on recruiters lists. However it would be unlawful for the school to let the parents in on this particular piece of information. Go figure.
Protesting on the street about it? You realy should look into NCLB, it's by far the worst piece of legislation to get moved through congress ... I dunno, possibly EVER. Ask any educator with half a brain.
I think the biggest fault of NCLB is that it penalizes (by withholding federal money, among other things) the schools that need the most help.
You want to go protesting out in the street about something? Go protest the fact that the federal government expects every (and I mean 100%) publically educated child to be "above average" by the year 2012.
Talk about an unfunded mandate.

How can everyone be above average? To create an average, half the students need to be below it...

How can everyone be above average? To create an average, half the students need to be below it...

You can also have a few very much below it. As in the average of {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,1} is 9,1 - but 90% is above average.

So if you just make some people incredibly stupid you can make a rounded 100% above average.

So if you just make some people incredibly stupid you can make a rounded 100% above average.

Aha, you've probably nailed the crux of the issue. They intend to withold federal funds to several schools to create "ignorance" zones where it can be used to obviously fudge the statistics ;)

You can also have a few very much below it. As in the average of {10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,1} is 9,1 - but 90% is above average.

So if you just make some people incredibly stupid you can make a rounded 100% above average.

I suppose, but it's not really the same thing.

Anyways, I'm going to bed! I've drama first block tomorrow, and I can't be tired for it. Pax tibi, all!

How can everyone be above average? To create an average, half the students need to be below it...
EXACTLY the point!
Remember where this gem of an idea come from.
With a little luck (and maybe angry mobs of protesters in the street) this whole thing will be scrapped, or at least modified to adhere to, let's say, reality, sometime during the next presidential administration.

I'm not.Not violent or not human? ;)

Aha, you've probably nailed the crux of the issue. They intend to withold federal funds to several schools to create "ignorance" zones where it can be used to obviously fudge the statistics ;)

An alternative explanation is that in a few years they want 100% of the children to be on a level which is currently considered above average. This is of course noble.

It does however mean they believe the current "above average" can be described by the word "imbecile". I don't think the US education system is that bad.

What I find amusing is how some of the same people who claim to be against censorship and generally trying to shield kids from things argue against this practice. These are high school kids, they are old enough to hear about what the military has to offer. They are at an age when they have to make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. I like the idea that they are fully informed about all available opportunities, not just opportunities for college, the workforce, or technical school but also for the military. Kids need to be exposed to as many opportunities as possible so they can choose the path they want to take with their lives in the most informed manner possible. I dont support anyone who tries to shield them from opportunities they personally dislike.

The military is not that bad a career. I have worked with many people who got their initial work experience through the military and are now applying it in the civilian world. In most cases, this gives them a leg up on the competition. They come out of the military with experience that is often hard to get in the civilian world. The ones who arent that smart to begin with have an edge they wouldve been unable to obtain otherwise. The ones who are smart have an extra edge on top of the college education non-military graduates have also.

If Im not mistaken the minimum commitment for the military is 4 years. In today's workforce it is typically easier for a person with 4 years of experience to get a job in their industry than it is for a person with a 4 year degree and no experience. The military does give people a good edge.

You know, LazyHippies, if military recruiters didn't have such a well-deserved reputation for being full of shit, I'd agree with you. But they're snake-oil salesmen. I'm not blaming the individual recruiters here--they're under tremendous pressure to produce and right now, it's about the hardest sell out there. But at 17, most kids still have a (unhealthy in my view) trusting view of authority figures--they haven't experienced the shaft of authority being pushed into uncomfortable places yet, and so they trust recruiters. And they wind up, a lot of the time, in places where their recruiter said they'd never be.

Now you can say that at 17 or 18 a kid needs to be able to make those decisions, and I agree with you. But he doesn't need to be exposed to those pressures between English class and P.E.

There's been a military recruiting tool in many highschools for as long as I've been around, it's called ROTC. The information that the military recruiters have access to is public knowledge, so easily obtained as to be universally accessible. Are we going to deny access to information to recruiters that any other group who wants it will easily get? What's so evil about a phone call or *gasp* a recruiter asking in person if a person of age to serve in the military is interested. "No, thanks. Goodbye." roblem solved. If your child is male, when he turns eighteen ,I think, he must stilll register for a possible draft. That gives the military access to this oh so private information anyway.

Yes, yes it is. Recruiters have access to all the personal information schools do (phone number, address, age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) under the latest amendment to the ESEA.

Students have to opt out of the program -- which I strongly suggest they do. Unfortunately, this is couched in such confusing terms that students may think that by refusing to release this info to recruiters, they are also refusing to release it to universities as well.

This is old news -- at least 2-3 years old.

War is murder! Dissolve the military and embrace peace!
Peace is social and technological stagnation. Abolish peace and let's have progress through war!

You know, LazyHippies, if military recruiters didn't have such a well-deserved reputation for being full of shit, I'd agree with you. But they're snake-oil salesmen. I'm not blaming the individual recruiters here--they're under tremendous pressure to produce and right now, it's about the hardest sell out there. But at 17, most kids still have a (unhealthy in my view) trusting view of authority figures--they haven't experienced the shaft of authority being pushed into uncomfortable places yet, and so they trust recruiters. And they wind up, a lot of the time, in places where their recruiter said they'd never be.

Now you can say that at 17 or 18 a kid needs to be able to make those decisions, and I agree with you. But he doesn't need to be exposed to those pressures between English class and P.E.

Don't know how the paperwork reads now but back in the day of the first volunteer enlistments (early 70's--it was bizarre one year we were protesting the draft, the next signing up) there were three magic words that were critical to all the promises recruiters made-- IF YOU QUALIFY.. So you could be all you could be.. If you qualified...unfortunatly they were very hazy about what happened if you did not qualify (at the time a one-way ticket to Germany as a groundpounder infantryman in the 8th Division with its distinctive insignia..a field of blue to represent the Atlantic ocean; an 8 to represent the number of hours it took to fly there; and a golden arrow to represent the shaft you got upon arrival.

Personally I think we should shoot all the violent people. :)

For some immigrants their only choice for (speedy) citizenship is through service. Why shouldn't it be the same for natural citizens?

Because I don't want to die for the American empire and I certainly won't kill for it.

Let me start by saying that I am an Army veteran. I joined the service just after high school for a 3 year commitment. I think the military is an excellent choice for those that do not already have a plan or specific goals set for after graduation. That said, I think military recruitment should be banned from the school setting. Not that recruiters shouldn't be allowed to start a database on student eligibility, but that they should not have a physical presence on school grounds. Yes teens are at the age when they need to make decisions that will affect the rest of their life, but they shouldn't make those decisions in a setting where they can be coerced or make rash decisions based on what their friends are doing or the cool kid is doing. Inititial recruitment should take place in the teens home with the parents or guardians present and optimaly let an atorney look over the contract before you sign anything just to make sure you are getting what you were promised.

I personally think Bush has created more trouble than he should have.
Get with the program, Bush = t3h lam3nezz!11!1!

Students have to opt out of the program -- which I strongly suggest they do. Unfortunately, this is couched in such confusing terms that students may think that by refusing to release this info to recruiters, they are also refusing to release it to universities as well.


What difference would it make to OPT OUT? Young men between 18 and 25 must still register with the selective service, and not just Americans, aliens living and working here must resister also. Recruiting does not mean drafting, it means informing. What you do with that informantion is up to the individual.

Let me get this straight, you people are ready to run for the hills over recruitment information? How does extra spam mail effect you that much? Unless, of course, you, as the parent, believe that you have the right to control your child past the age of 18 and will seek to use them as some sort of hippy pawn. I have thrown away hundreds of reccruitment related crap because I am not about to submit to military hierarchy (I did ask, though, if they were looking for anyone to jump right in as a General, they just called me smart ass and punched me in the jaw) and I have yet to go to sleep one night and wake up the next to discover that I have suddenly morphed into a soldier (Although there was this one time when I woke up in a neighbors house wearing a sailor's uniform that I am quite sure wasn't up to official decency regulations, but I don't talk about that much).

My God... why haven't I heard of this? Why aren't people angry and on the streets protesting? Why aren't parents calling for an immediate end to this?!

Why? Because all males must give up that information anyway upon turning 18. It's not a choice... it must be given when a person turns 18, under penalty of law. The selective service act passed way back in 1948 already gives the military access to most, if not all, of that information. It states (50 USC 453):

"[I]t shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. ... Regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section may require that persons presenting themselves for and submitting to registration under this section provide, as part of such registration, such identifying information (including date of birth, address, and social security account number) as such regulations may prescribe."
(emphasis added)

And further under 50 USC 465(e)
"In order to assist the Armed Forces in recruiting individuals for voluntary service in the Armed Forces, the Director shall, upon the request of the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security, furnish to the Secretary the names and addresses of individuals registered under this Act. Names and addresses furnished pursuant to the preceding sentence may be used by the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Homeland Security only for recruiting purposes."

And before you go thinking this is some addition by the current president, the only changes to 453 were in 2002 when "secretary of homeland security" was substituted for "secretary of transportation" (see Pub.L. 107-296, § 1704(e)(11)(E)).

In short, no one's up in arms because they've had that sort of information and have been furnishing it to recruiters for nearly 50 years... well before the Bush administration. In fact, the act was enacted while Truman, a Democrat, was president.