RSS
Home
The Pre-K "Cure"
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Military recruiting has always been tough duty. Even in the middle of a recession, with near-double-digit unemployment, it's often difficult to find young Americans who are ready for service in the armed forces.
And it's not the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that makes recruiting so difficult. Despite the hazards of combat deployments--and other hardships--the various military branches have been successful in meeting their enlistment quotas since 9-11. So, the recruiting challenge isn't a shortage of willing volunteers.
Instead, it's a matter of finding recruits who can qualify for military service. By some estimates, more than 70% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 (the primary recruiting cohort) are ineligible for the armed forces due to education issues, criminal records, or health-related problems, including obesity.
Military leaders have been aware of this trend for some time and--not surprisingly--they're concerned. Two years ago, the Commander of the Navy Reserve warned that it might be difficult to sustain current force levels, given the (relatively) small pool of young people who qualify for military service.
Making matters worse, the situation appears to be growing worse. in 2007, 72% of the 18-25 age group were ineligible to enlist in the armed forces. Today, the estimated total is 75%, according to an organization called Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, a group of retired flag officers who advocate "smart investments" for the next generation of America's children.
Members of the Mission Readiness were in Richmond, Virginia this week, touting their new report on the military eligibility problem and its impact on the state. Entitled "Young Virginians: Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve," the study notes that the Commonwealth's high school dropout rate (30%), along with criminal behavior and health issues, prevents many young people from joining the U.S. military.
Few would dispute the statistics cited in the study--and many of them are grim. Statewide, only 69% of Virginia high school students earn their diploma within four years. In one of the Commonwealth's largest school districts (Norfolk), the drop out rate is more than 60%. Without a high school diploma, enlistment in the armed forces is virtually impossible. Students with a GED can enter with a waiver--provided they score high enough on the Armed Forces Qualification Test--but many lack the math and reading skills to qualify. The holds true for many Virginia high school graduates; they simply lack the basic academic skills required by the military.
According to Mission Readiness, fixing the problem will require a massive investment in Pre-K education. Citing various studies over the past five decades, the group claims that quality early childhood education improve high school graduation rates by as much as 44%. Research also suggests that children who participate in such programs are far less likely to be arrested, involved in violent crime, or use drugs.
Sounds reasonable, right? Putting our three and four-year-olds on the right educational track now would almost certainly translate into a larger pool of military-qualified recruits in 2025. Besides, the argument goes, Pre-K programs are far cheaper than prison cells.
But there are some problems with this theory. First, there has been a substantial investment in early childhood education since the 1960s, at the state and national level. Ever heard of a program called Head Start? Established as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, the program has been steadily expanded over the past 45 years, and now offers a wide range of services for children between the ages of three and five and their families.
Secondly, Head Start has never delivered on its original promises. Over the past five decades, more than 22 million children have participated in the program, but the results are decidedly mixed. Data from the comprehensive Early Childhood Longitudinal Study suggests that Head Start (and similar efforts) have no lasting effects on achievement in the early years of school. Economists Roland G. Fryer, Jr., and Steven D. Leavitt reached similar conclusions in an influential 2004 article, published in The Review of Economics and Statistics. Using similar research data, they found that early gains from Head Start are usually erased when children enter sub-standard schools.
While Pre-K education programs have (slightly) reduced the achievement gap between white students and minorities, they have had little impact on the nation's high school graduation rates and other metrics of student achievement. Members of Mission Readiness are quick to tout the results of local studies, but they ignore the dismal record of Head Start, which consumes almost $7 billion tax dollars a year, or roughly $7,200 a student.
Currently, the Head Start program serves about one million children, a relatively small portion of 3-4 age group. The cost of a national Pre-K education program would be much higher, with no guarantee that the expanded effort would be more successful than Head Start. Indeed, the program's five-decade history has coincided with a significant decline in student achievement. That's not an indictment of Head Start, but rather, an indication that the ills affecting our education system (and society as a whole) can't be fixed through national Pre-K.
You would assume that some of the retired generals and admirals who gathered in Richmond understand that concept. After all, those officers spent their military careers managing multi-billion dollar programs and solving complex problems. So, it's a bit disappointing to see them become willing shills for the education lobby, promoting a simplistic solution for problems that defy easy answers.
We commend the former flag officers for their work on the recruiting issue. It's a serious issue that demands attention from military and civilian leaders. But creating a larger pool of military-ready recruits dictates "smarter" investments than a nation-wide Pre-K plan. For starters, how about the restoration of discipline in public schools (six percent of the students cause roughly 70% of the serious conduct problems), and ridding the system of habitual offenders?
Then, there's the matter of school choice. Charter schools consistently out-perform their competitors, but the number of student slots remains relatively low. The same holds true for parochial and private schools. A nationwide voucher system--giving parents a choice in their children's education--would prove more cost-effective than the Pre-K plan.
Education programs that emphasize character development should also be expanded. Junior ROTC detachments at hundreds of high schools have "rescued" countless at-risk youth by emphasizing classroom skills, self-discipline and teamwork. Extending the reach of that program would also prove beneficial, at a lower cost than comprehensive Pre-K.
To be fair, education programs for three and four-year-olds can be beneficial. But many children who benefit from those efforts are already being served, and there's no comprehensive evidence that their "gains" are maintained over the course of their education. Simply throwing more money at Pre-K education won't improve those programs, or the results they produce.
Regrettably, the "Mission Readiness" movement appears to be little more than a Pre-K lobby--at least for now. The group's Virginia report was funded (in part) by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Pre-K Now, an advocacy movement that is also supported by Pew. We'll give them brownie points for honesty; considering their primary source of funding, it's no wonder that Mission Readiness is solidly behind the Pre-K movement, with little consideration for more comprehensive--and fiscally responsible--solutions.
One more thing: did we mention that Pre-K education is a pet project of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, who faces an uphill battle in expanding the program? Or that Mission Readiness delivered a similar report in Pennsylvania three months ago, helping Governor Ed Rendell in his own push for an expanded Pre-K program? Perhaps the members of Mission Readiness should be registered as unpaid lobbyists for the Democratic Party.
