Militarizing youth in public education: observations from a military-style charter school.

• Date: 22 September 2005
• Author: Aguirre, Jr., Adalberto,Johnson, Brooke
• Published date: 22 September 2005
• Author: Aguirre, Jr., Adalberto

EVER SINCE THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, EVERYDAY LIFE IN U.S. SOCIETY HAS been assaulted by the camera surveillance of public spaces, the wiretapping of personal conversations under the auspices of the Patriot Act, metal detectors in public schools, unlawful searches in schools and workplaces, and a redundant war on poverty, crime, drugs, and terrorism. Everyday life in this society has become filled with images and overtones of militarization. Our public spaces are being booby-trapped and our private lives plagued by a culture of war. As we lay prone before our TV sets and watch the latest invasion and scenes of battle unfold, neoliberalism chums our public lives into private, super-sized profits.

The connection between militarization and neoliberalism is not a recent phenomenon. The U.S. military has long been a trailblazer for U.S. neoliberal policies in the world system. Historically, the United States has supported nations seeking independence from colonial masters or oppressive political regimes, especially if U.S. military intervention would result in greater access to raw materials and consumer markets for corporate elites (Sommers, 2002). The invasion of Iraq by U.S. military forces, for example, was portrayed as a strategy for spreading democracy into a region of the world ruled by evil political forces. However, the invasion simply disguised the spread of neoliberal policies that seek to increase the "dominance of international corporations, international financiers, and sectors of local elites" (Tabb, 2003: 25).

Ironically, the invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public as a quick and easy fix to an undemocratic regime. Domestically, the recent trend toward both privatizing and insinuating neoliberal values into the U.S. public education system has become aquick and easy fix for low test scores and underperformance. Neoliberal terms, such as "regimentation," "discipline," and "commitment," are introduced into school practice to enforce a corporate identity in students that rewards competition and success. From the neoliberal perspective, schools and students underachieve because they lack the drive to compete for success. The attempt, for example, to introduce"merit pay" or"combat pay" for teachers in public schools is a neoliberal tool for transitioning teaching and learning practices into a market-driven mindset (Furillo, 2005; Gledhill, 2005).

To remedy underachievement issues and concerns, the U.S. public education system is being infused with neoliberal values that embrace the concepts of a free market, a market-driven education, and a voucher system that provides families and persons with a broader range of educational choices (Desmond, 2002). The infusion of neoliberal values into public education runs parallel with the increasing militarization of public education as schoolchildren are exposed to metal detectors, bag/backpack and locker searches, and pat-down searches by security officers (Pinard, 2003; Reid, 2004). Local schools are becoming publicly funded, privatized militarized zones, with no one questioning the transformation from public to private, from civilian to enlisted (literally or ideologically), and from learning ground to battleground.

In his 2004 budget, for example, President Bush proposed $694 million for school safety. The National Association of School Resource Officers argues that the money is needed to develop antiterrorist measures in public schools for dealing with school shootings (Toppo, 2003). According to Sgt. Pat Kissane, vice president of the New Jersey Association of School Resource Officers, "after Sept. 11, everyone was focused on bridges and tunnels, but nobody was focused on schools.... But there had been small acts of terrorism going on at public schools throughout history, such as [the shootings at] Columbine. The Department of Homeland Security should be focused on schools as well" (Carroll, 2005: A1). The school shooting at Red Lake High School (Red Lake, Minnesota) on March 21, 2005, has drawn comparisons with Columbine and has increased discussion among school resource officers for more sophisticated security plans for schools (Cauchon, 2005: 4A).

Our purpose in this article is to describe a military-style charter school. We do not argue that the charter school was created in response to the need for expressing neoliberal values. Instead, we suggest that the charter school serves as a context for examining the utility of transferring neoliberal values into school practices. In particular, we discuss the charter school as a vehicle for the military indoctrination and recruitment of youth. As U.S. society faces increasing pressure from proponents of neoliberal values and supporters of the Ownership Society, it becomes necessary for us to examine possible outcomes of such pressure to change public education. To this end, we describe a military-style charter school as one response to this pressure.

Education and Neoliberal Values

Regarding public education, neoliberal values underlie the idea that uniform standards and enhanced accountability increase quality in education (Apple, 2001). Central to neoliberal values is the notion that competition improves social conditions in society by making persons more productive and efficient. For example, proponents of neoliberal values argue that educational vouchers will increase competition among schools--a necessary process for stimulating improvements in all schools and for producing a superior educational system. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) schools are often presented as successful models that demonstrate the utility of neoliberal values for improving achievement in schools, especially for Black and Latino students (Bridglall and Gordon, 2003). In particular, DOD schools are used as examples to demonstrate how uniform standards and accountability are instrumental in improving academic achievement among students by making them more competitive.

However, because of state and federal restrictions placed upon public schools, neoliberal proponents argue that schools are not truly free to compete. Neoliberal proponents use the "school choice movement," with its emphasis on accountability through standards and high-stakes testing, to push charter schools as an alternative to regular public schools (Bolick, 2004; Winerip, 1998). Charter schools are the neoliberal answer to what is perceived as an unsound and structurally problematic system of public education in the United States. According to Smith and Scoll (1995), the push for charter schools during the 1990s was dominated by neoliberal rhetoric in which children were depicted as "human capital" and schools were portrayed as "training centers" for workers needed in an expanding global economy.

The California Department of Education (2002), for example, lists educational initiatives for charter schools on its web site. The educational initiatives listed contain language (e.g., catchphrases) often used by neoliberal proponents. Though some of these terms or phrases are often found in educational plans or proposals, they are key features of a neoliberal view that seeks to implement a market-driven learning model. Among the phrases found are: "encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods," "provide parents and students with expanded educational opportunities ... without the constraints of traditional rules and structure," and "shift from a rule-based system to a performance-based system of accountability and provide competition within the public school system to stimulate improvements in all public schools." As such, the language used to identify initiatives for charter schools is nested within neoliberal values that push privatization, accountability, and standardization in education.

Recruitment, Advertising, and the No Child Left Behind Act

The military has been the strong-arm of U.S. neoliberal policies, the logic of free markets, and bigger profits in the world system. However, in 1973 the United States ended conscription and turned its military into an all-volunteer force reliant upon recruitment to keep the ranks of the military filled (Segal and Wechsler, 1983). Thirty years ago, Janowitz (1975) argued that the change in policy from conscription to an all-volunteer force would have two repercussions. One was that it would weaken the linkages between the military and civilian society. Although this might have held true initially, the increased militarization of post-September 11 U.S. society--as observed in a heightened sense of patriotism from the invasion of Iraq, the presence of civilian paramilitary units along the U.S.--Mexico border to turn back terrorists, and the Patriot Act's infringement on people's public and social lives--challenges Janowitz's argument. The ease with which security measures for monitoring persons in the U.S. were implemented after September 11, and their reinforcement by passage of the Patriot Act, suggests that a strong link between the military and civilian society has always been a principal root of this country.

A second repercussion, notes Janowitz (1975), is that an all-volunteer military would be less representative of the diversity in this society than would be the case with a military system based on conscription. Janowitz's...