The article suggests several causes:
1. Bias in population - these students all have families where at least one parent has a stable job, which isn't true elsewhere. There could also be other factors, for instance maybe people who enter the military are more motivated on average and that genetically or through parenting is passed on to their kids.
2. Better funding
3. Frequent feedback to teachers and more methodical planning
4. Excellent racial & socioeconomic integration
Is there a way to tease out the contribution in each area through controlling for variables. I suspect #1 is the largest by far, but I think this could be statistically controlled for partially by looking at children of parents who attend non-military schools. Curious for thoughts from HN.
No. #1 is your CO will chew your ass out in front of everyone (which is a big no-no in leadership, yet it's accepted regarding your children). I saw first hand my E6 got called to battalion CO to answer why his son was bullying other kids (I think some civilians from DoD). I still remember CO said, if you don't fix this, I march the whole damn battalion to your house and make you do push ups while your son watch.
This is also the best reason to NOT use stuff on base! The day I got pulled into my squadron commanders office because my dorm “was a mess” was the same day I applied for BAH.
I spent time in the US military many years ago. From my sample size of one:
1) This is population bias and self-selection. Everyone I met in the service was extremely patriotic and wanted to succeed in everything. Many came from desperately poor backgrounds and saw the service as their way to the middle class. Those who joined for other reasons were quickly forced out. At the time, when people asked me what my job was in the military, I joked that I was a "bullet stopper". I was joking but I honestly believed everyone in my team would take a bullet for each other.
2) Funding is questionable. Military pay is a joke. Many of the enlisted I knew received food stamps and WIC (women infant children supplement monies to feed themselves). The housing is old, probably contain asbestos and lead, mold etc. But at least its warm. Probably most important there was almost zero theft, burglaries, or crime you see in troubled cities. Healthcare is almost free.
3) Teaching. The military does things by the book. Many books. Thousands of pages. Most of which is bull shit. The military makes up for it through sheer determination.
4) Racial integration. Hmmmm. The US military at least has a huge problem with racism, sexism, all kinds of isms. Sexual assault is a taboo subject that happens under the surface and commanders at all levels are at their wit's end. If my daughter wanted to join the US military, I would actively encourage her and secretly worry that she would be sexually assaulted. I would try to warn her indirectly and tell her things like don't go to private parties. Drink only in a public setting with a designated person looking out for trouble. The service is an honor but also has its own problems.
Sexual assault is a taboo subject that happens under the surface and commanders at all levels are at their wit's end.
First, I assume that here, "sexual assault" is perpetrated by men against women. (Yes, I know there are other forms.)
In your opinion, what do you think is the root cause of this problem? And, is the rate of sexual assault higher for women in the military vs civilians? (I assume yes due to self-selection for more aggressive men.)
Females are overwhelmingly the victims. I don’t dare guess what the root cause is. I just know it was rarely reported. Over the years, it has actually gotten worse. So much so the DOD has taken away commanders disciplinary authority in this matter. I have no idea if the rates are higher or lower compared to the civilian population.
>3) Teaching. The military does things by the book. Many books. Thousands of pages. Most of which is bull shit. The military makes up for it through sheer determination.
>4) Racial integration. Hmmmm. The US military at least has a huge problem with racism, sexism, all kinds of isms.
There is something to be said for applying 3 to help fix 4 through, as you said, "sheer determination". Frank da Cruz, the creator of Columbia Kermit, tells in his autobiography online of how when he was in the Army in Germany in the 1960s he saw white sergeants lecturing soldiers in deep Southern accents on the evils of race prejudice.
All of those have multiplicative effects. Good home/parents make students more motivated, good teachers are able to work well with motivated students, capable classrooms are able to handle more demanding classes. I don't suspect socioeconomic integration matters here though if everyone is getting the same treatment. Standardization is also good when we see wildly different results in different classrooms. Harder to do in more fragmented and less well funded school districts.
But these are all well known factors. Not much to learn drom here, but it's nice to see it confirm the theory.
This. Mother and family spent careers in early childhood education.
- In order for learning to happen, kids have to be non-disruptive.
- In order for kids to be non-disruptive, they have to have their basic needs met: safety, food, stability, etc.
- In order for a kid's basic needs to be met, there has to be a source of income and time to care for them.
Absent that chain of dependencies, young children are in no state to learn anything, and distract the kids around them. And every minute of every week spent papering over deficiencies there is one less minute devoted to learning.
F.ex. in Title I schools, it's not uncommon to have families where the only book in the house might be one a child is sent home with.
If teachers received tabula rasa children, results would be much more even.
But they don't, which results in kids at bad schools being unable to focus, which means they don't learn basic material, which perpetuates income disparities later in life, which continues the cycle through lack of time and money.
The military has many bad aspects, but a parent with a steady job, housing, and benefits is a solid foundation for childhood academic success.
Yeah I have family in education too and it's a sad reality that schools just can't help most students because they come from broken homes. There are marginal improvements you can make like providing free lunch and good after school activities, but an actual solution would require other fundamental problems to be solved in society, or a radical reimagining of public education.
On a more nutty note, for the possible reforms I've heard of everything from public boarding schools so kid don't have to spend time in their bad home, to firing all teachers and paying children for testing well.
At the root, caring for and raising children well is an extremely time intensive endeavor.
It's hard to see a way we could fundamentally afford to pay someone to do it, at scale.
And the solutions that don't involve "someone" (at an extremely low child:caregiver ratio) don't seem like they'd produce success.
I do think schools should financially incentive performance, though! Not firing teachers, but just paying students directly for academic achievement -- make kids care.
I think these are good points, I am hugely in favor of expanding food stamps and child tax credits for this reason. One estimate is that every $1 spend on food stamps expands GDP by $1.50, so this is really good for the overall economy. I have heard of much higher estimates, but cannot easily find the source. We definitely need to help poor families break the poverty cycle. Schools should have free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and after school programs as well to deal with lack of food at home and 2 parents working full-time.
The parental bias is two-pronged - officers, many are college-educated, esp. from the various armed forces academies - West Point, Annapolis, et al., and those recruited into the armed forces have to overcome various hurdles, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/every-branch-us-milita...:
"The pool of those eligible to join the military continues to shrink, with more young men and women than ever disqualified for obesity, drug use or criminal records. Last month, Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville testified before Congress that only 23% of Americans ages 17-24 are qualified to serve without a waiver to join, down from 29% in recent years.
An internal Defense Department survey obtained by NBC News found that only 9% of those young Americans eligible to serve in the military had any inclination to do so, the lowest number since 2007. "
So out of the possible Americans aged 17-24, less than 2.3% would serve in the military. The partner/spouse may not have to pass those hurdles, but having at least one parent with those attributes and employed would help the family wellbeing.
Is there a way to tease out the contribution in each area through controlling for variables. I suspect #1 is the largest by far, but I think this could be statistically controlled for partially by looking at children of parents who attend non-military schools. Curious for thoughts from HN.