If They Can't Get Into College...

This morning NPR ran a story about military recruitment of high school students. According to the story, the National Guard landed a Black Hawk helicopter on the football field of Audubon High School in Audubon, N.J., and then transported a group of teachers to Fort Dix where they were told all about the benefits and risks of serving in the Guard. I don't know how many of these stories I've heard over the past year or so, but it's been a lot. A lot of talk about declining numbers of military recruits and a lot of debate over military recruitment in schools, particularly those launched on school and college campuses (and apparently football fields).

Some of the concern has been focused on the NCLB provision, Section 9528, that requires school districts to provide military recruiters with personal student information. Other concern, more recently, has been over the Supreme Court's unanimous decision affirming the military's right to recruit on college campuses.

With regard to NCLB, there is an "opt out" provision through FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), which allows parents and students to request that personal information not be released (students, even under 18, can make requests too).

But still, the Defense Department has managed to develop a database of millions of 16-25 year old students to help identify potential recruits. As part of DoD's Joint Advertising, Marketing Research and Studies (JAMRS), the project collects personal information on high school and college students. According to a DoD Federal Register notice, they are collecting everything but your kid's blood type. Also good to know that the DoD is paying a nice dime to Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU), a market-research firm aimed exclusively at understanding the teen market. So they know your kid, even if you do remember to fill out that "opt out" form and turn it in to the school.

So one might argue that military enrollment is down, market research is a legit business practice, we're at war, young people should serve their country, etc. But let's be clear. The military is in direct competition with other options that young people are now more likely to choose. High school graduates are headed to college in record numbers. College students are graduating, finding jobs, or joining AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. They are not joining the military.

The DoD knows this (see this and the many other research studies conducted by the National Academies, funded by the U.S. Marine Corps). One of the main conclusions of the 2004 study was that "The dramatic increase in college enrollment is arguably the single most significant factor affecting the environment in which military recruiting takes place." In other words, we need to do something about all those kids running off to college if we want to run an army.

Apparently, another recruitment strategy is to get mothers on board. The National Academies' research identifies mothers as "an extraordinarily important influencer in the aspirations of youth, especially for higher education" and recommends that military recruitment would be improved by increasing and targeting recruitment for parents "with particular attention to mothers". Basically, now that we're better educated (more mothers have college degrees than ever before), our kids are going to try to do the same thing (free fodder for some- if those women would just quit it with the whole "higher ed attainment" thing, we'd have all the military recruits we need).

So what's a DoD to do?

Enter new radio and TV ads aimed mostly at young men (add some rock songs too), add a few targeted campaigns to convince mom that her kid should "accelerate [his/her] life" and sprinkle in the occasional Black Hawk helicopter-on-football field stunt to get the principals and teachers engaged, and you may win the battle (if not the war).

Bogus Allegations of Anti-Unionism

Normally I leave disagreeing with "AFTie John" in the capable hands of Eduwonk. But today's post criticizing our new report, "Echo Chamber: The National Education Association's Campaign Against NCLB" deserves comment.

John calls the report part of Education Sector's "stealth anti-union campaign." First, what's "stealth" about the report? It's an Education Sector report. It says so right on the cover. "Stealth" is when you give other people money to say what you want said, but don't bother to make that relationship plain. That's what the NEA has done, as the report documents clearly.

Much more serious is the characterization of Eduation Sector's work on collective bargaining issues as "anti-union." I won't speak for Joe Williams, who wrote the report, or anyone else at Education Sector, but my personal politics are very pro-union. I think people have an inherent right to organize and bargain collectively, including teachers. I think the creation and protection of labor rights stands as one of the great social and political achievements of the 20th century. I think teachers unions do a lot of good, advocating on behalf of public education in the face of those who would rather use much of the money that currently goes to public schools to finance tax cuts for big corporations and rich people. Teachers unions' political influence--in addition to being their inherent right in a democratic system--also does a lot of good. I used to work in state politics and I personally know a number of great candidates and public servants whose political viability absolutely depended on the organizational and financial support of teachers unions.

But supporting unions generally doesn't preclude me or anyone else from disagreeing with specific choices that unions make. And I don't think all the decisions unions have made in recent years are wise, politically or as a matter of policy. That doesn't make me or an organization that voices similar ideas anti-union, just anti-bad decisions. It's like saying the NEA is "anti-Congress" because they've criticized NCLB, or that a local chapter is "anti-school boards" because of disputes at the bargaining table. To characterize every criticism as existential--to imply that you're either with unions in all things or against them in principle--is dishonest. If you're going to stand up and make your voice heard, you have to expect that people won't always agree with what you have to say, even if they support both you and your right to say it.

State Budget Heyday Getting Closer

The New York Times reported today that an unexpectedly steep rise in federal tax revenues is driving down projected future budget deficits. If this trend continues, it will have real implications for education funding, because the same economic phenonmena will drive up state tax revenues, particularly in states with federal-style progressive income taxes. States don't update their revenue forecasts as often as the federal government, so you won't be reading about this in the newspaper for a while. But as federal revenues go, state revenues will follow.

Some foresightful commentators predicted many months ago that this would happen, and urged education advocates to re-orient their thinking away from the scarcity mentality that has dominated state budgets for the last five years and prepare for the coming abundance of new money. It's not too late to take that advice--2007 will be the year when states are suddenly flush with unanticipated cash and politicians will be looking to use that money to buy voter approval. By 2008 and 2009, most of that money will be spent, and if history is any guide the end of the decade will put us closer to the end of the business cycle and revenues will drop once again. So make your plans and get ready; opportunities to to spearhead new, expensive education programs don't come along that often.