The good news is there is a way out for your child, read the article to find
out.
---------------------------------------------------------
October 15, 2004 at 6:54 PM
No child left unrecruited
Kim Ode, Star Tribune
October 16, 2004 ODE1016
It's not that I object to our kids being made aware that military service is
an option once they graduate from high school -- they've known this ever
since they played G.I. Joe.
What I object to is our schools being strong-armed to serve as vast
databases to provide military recruiters with our kids' names, addresses and
phone numbers, or risk losing federal funding.
And what I object to is where this new wrinkle in recruiting is found: deep
within the No Child Left Behind act.
It's true: Irony is dead.
The No Child act blandly states that the military recruiters should get the
same access provided to colleges and universities, or any other prospective
employer. After all, military service is a job and can help pay for
education.
Fortunately, one of its sponsors, Rep. David Vitter, R-La., has felt less
constrained about connecting the dots. He has said that high schools
receiving federal funding must allow access because armed forces recruiters
are "sworn to protect and defend the lives of their students and teachers."
The No Child Left Behind Act became effective in January 2002, but little
was said about this amendment, given the greater controversies over testing
and funding. Now, though, some folks have unearthed this provision from page
559 of the 670-page act, not to repeal it -- fat chance -- but to alert
parents that there is an "opt-out" policy.
Here's what the act says: "A secondary school student or the parent of the
student may request that the student's name, address and telephone listing
.... not be released without prior written parental consent." The act also
says that schools "shall notify parents of the option."
It used to be that a school could decide whether or not to allow military
recruiters on campus. A school used to be able to have a policy against
disclosing "directory information" to outsiders. Although it can still have
such a policy now, it must comply when the military asks.
Schools already have quite enough to do without getting letters from parents
asking that they delete their kids from the database. But that's how the
government, which seems to get bigger and more meddlesome by the week, set
it up.
Charles Kyte, the executive director of the Minnesota Association of School
Administrators, said he hasn't heard much about the provision since the act
was passed, but then again, that was before the war.
When the provision was discussed, "a few of us kind of raised our eyebrows a
bit," he said. In the past, most schools gave access to recruiters, but the
act forces all schools to comply.
"Now with everything that's transpired, all of a sudden you have a higher
concern on the part of parents that the military is a more dangerous option
today than it was four years ago," he said.
Chances are, parents had an opportunity to keep their children's names off
the recruiters' lists while filling out all those forms at the beginning of
the school year. The one to block the release of private information to
outsiders may not have specified the military, he said, but that's likely
the one that schools used. He expected that most schools would try to
accommodate a parent who wants to "opt-out" now.
Kyte said he expects the issue to heat up, especially as students grow more
convinced that the draft will be revived.
"There is sort of a symbiotic relationship between recruiters and schools,
but also a slight tension," Kyte said. "Traditionally, the military has
represented clean-cut men and women who provide students with a way to get
further education that they couldn't otherwise.
"On the other hand, our young people more and more are being put in harm's
way than they traditionally were."
Our country deserves the best of defenders, and smart, talented men and
women will always enlist. So will those who see few alternatives. But there
aren't enough enlistees, which sends recruiters to their phones and into our
schools. The government says the improving economy is tempting young adults
into civilian jobs. Maybe. But I think it's also because the flip side of
service -- the trust that our defenders will not be used unwisely -- has
been betrayed.
For American soldiers in Iraq, it's become achingly clear that we sent them
into harm's way without a good enough reason, and without a good enough
plan. For American teenagers here, they shouldn't have to be ambushed by
their own side.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/859/5034320.html
--
They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned
before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
.
|
