Thread: Ex Forces Personnel Drafted Into Problem Schools.

Warning: post contains huge generalities.

Jesus H Christ. I suspect the UK has got the same problem that we do in Ireland: rich kids go to private schools, or really good public ones. Poor kids go to bad public schools, with tons of social problems. In the end of the day, the system gets so segregated, that the poor kids have no hope. They're in with a load of other dead-ends, and that fosters an environment where crime and violence can grow.

If schools have a mix of children from different social classes, the problem decreases. Children from the upper and middle classes are usually pressured at home to succeed. They're parents did, so it's natural. In poorer families? It varies, but usually not so much. The better off children would give the class a better sense of direction.

There needs to be a way more communication between schools and parents. Parents need to be encouraged to invest in their children's education. They should cooperate to spot violent and criminal behaviour in its early stages, and get it dealt with before it erupts into something far worse. One of the few really good things Stalin did was prosecute parents for the crimes of their children before a certain age. I'd say that would give parents to play a more active role in the well being of their children.

There would be no need of the kind of measures that the OP suggests, if we treated the source of the problem, and that is a two tier education system. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a socialist, but I believe in true capitalism - the true American dream, if you will. That everyone should have equality of opportunity, and just because you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, that you should get an easier run in the education system.

If politicians had an imagination, this might be possible, but they don't, so it isn't.

Originally Posted by Baron

Posting one line from a report and your opinion of that one line hardly qualifies as providing facts to support your personal comments. You might also benefit from watching the news special that I linked to. The opening sequence shows weapons training in the schools concerned. As I said in my previous post, it shows the positive and the negative sides of the argument.

I've lived long enough to see the erosion of personal freedom in the UK since the 1960s. I've also witnessed military discipline being imposed on a civilian population in Northern Ireland. Winston Churchill was branded a war monger and alarmist for simply studying trends and watching their progression. You put me in good company.

Lol. I posted a fact from the same source you used in the OP. Your other "source" is a work of fiction (1984). This is also from the article in the OP.

Neil MacKintosh, the assistant head, tells the programme: “Things have changed in the last 12 years. There seem to be less gang related incidents or fewer pupils on the fringes of gang related culture outside school, fewer challenging individuals around school, and the place is certainly calmer.”

Note (also in the article) that the only children who are interacting with the soldiers are kids who already have discipline problems and are at risk of being expelled. Soldiers are not being brought in to discipline well adjusted students. They are not merely disciplining the troubled students either. The article mentions that the ex-soldiers are acting as mentors to those students. And nowhere does it say anything about enforcing MILITARY style discipline on the students.

George Orwell, Winston Churchill, Hitler Youth, Fascism, North Ireland...None of that has remotely anything to do with using former soldiers as teachers in severely troubled schools.

Originally Posted by Fiachra

Warning: post contains huge generalities.

If schools have a mix of children from different social classes, the problem decreases. Children from the upper and middle classes are usually pressured at home to succeed. They're parents did, so it's natural. In poorer families? It varies, but usually not so much. The better off children would give the class a better sense of direction.

There needs to be a way more communication between schools and parents. Parents need to be encouraged to invest in their children's education. They should cooperate to spot violent and criminal behaviour in its early stages, and get it dealt with before it erupts into something far worse. One of the few really good things Stalin did was prosecute parents for the crimes of their children before a young age. I'd say that would give parents to play a more active role in the well being of their children.

There would be no need of the kind of measures that the OP suggests, if we treated the source of the problem...

If politicians had an imagination, this might be possible, but they don't, so it isn't.

Agreed.

Baron, what is the point of having a monarchy in England if they can't protect the people from the Government?

I tend to agree with, Edge, on this matter. Plus, England has an increasing amount of problems it seems. Youths of mob attacking people on trains or buses. Youth stabbing each other. But none of you want to carry a .357 magnum and blow a hole through the chest of some young chap. I don't get you English. You all demand the local or federal governments protect you all from domestic muggers and other criminals instead of you all packing firearms in your own trousers and being responsible for your own safety. Yet you English complain when local governments install CCTV cameras or take other actions to police or reform your wayward and violent youth.

My opinion is more English youth could use a military boot in their ____. Some of the real hard cases probably could be taught in a special behavioral school run by British ex-convicts on early release, 200 and 50 pounds type chaps, that have developed a special affinity for youthful looking boys.

Using Hollywood as a source of inspiration to cure the scholastic problems of any country is daft, all you have a choice of is soldiers or nuns.
Any education system that is tailored to large numbers of pupils, is going to be a human sausage machine. Trouble is there are not very many human sausages around. Despite this, most of the problems experienced in schools, are a product of external forces, so how do you fix the external problems in a school ?

You talk to any adult who had a little Saturday job way back when they were a kid, and watch them go all misty eyed at the memory. That little job gave them a chance to have a bit of responsibility, some pride, a feeling they were taking part in something worthwhile. It gave them an example of how work would be rewarded with money and trust. Now a days we insist they have a childhood, and to buzz off and keep out of our way. So the only adults they have any real contact with are the ones with no job, sometimes they have alcohol or a drug dependency. They get a really biased account of how everything they want will be given to them, and would they like to try this stuff, go on its good for your image.

Children now have money, so they become a target for the advertising industry. This can be really profitable because most kids have little in the way of experience to defend themselves against the bull that is used to exploit them.

Then there is the music industry, which is now ' a lifestyle ' industry. The glamour of modern pop video's demonstrates an amazing understanding of adolescent boys. if you want a cool car, and scantily clad honey's, just throw away your conscience and get a gun. No need to be a slave to the machine like your dad, you don't have to work, you can be proud and deal in drugs, that's where the money's at.

There is about 10,000 more words I would like to rant on this subject, but I need to calm down, so I'm going to take the dog for a walk.
Night night
Bazz

Originally Posted by Baron

A large proportion of ex-servicemen cannot cope with civilian life once they're discharged from service. These are facts.

Of course they can't; it's a culture shock going from an environment of responsibility and duty to one of laziness and selfishness, where people complain about authority, not for legitimate reasons, but out of some nebulous abstract idea that anything to do with authority is inherently wrong. Yes, many ex-servicemen are hurt physically, mentally, emotionally after discharge, but the ones who have significant life-problems because of it are not the majority. Just because most movies focus on the crazed ex-solider who goes on a Rambo rampage or the homeless Vietnam vet, doesn't mean it represents the mean of the experiences of troops, but rather the extremes. Just because something is culturally ingrained does not make it the truth.

Really, the majority who can't relate after their military experience are those who go from a structured, high pressure environment where being lazy gets you killed, to an environment comprised of self-righteousness complainers who flap their lips, but when it comes to taking action, would rather go home and twiddle their thumbs.

The main purpose of the military is to be trained to kill people.

The main purpose of the military is to train to kill, but that doesn't mean that everything a service member does has to do with killing. Quite the opposite. Ask any recruit from boot-camp and they'll tell you what takes up most of their time---cleaning, shining shoes, and pressing uniforms. The military's goal is the application of lethal force, and yes following orders is huge because of the way the military is set up, but self-discipline, not a thirst for blood or a robotic following of orders, is what defines today's military. If all the military had to do was teach someone to kill, they'd just hand a gun off to any random civilian and take a few minutes to teach them how to operate it.

To think that the impression the soldiers are trying to impart on the students is following orders or violence is a ridiculous generalization. It's self-discipline that the administrators want to teach the students. It's a transferable skill-set, one which is useful and probably the key to success in a society of lazy narcissists.

First off the problem in Britan is similar to the problem we face here (no not terrorists). about 80% of students here in school are addicted to at least on kind of drug, ranging from smoking to marijuana. Of those 80% about 10% percent will at least carry daggers or the sort with them (these figures are based on personal experience). Now I have studied in an army school, where we were taught by retired officers. Now often what happened is that as soon as we did any thing 'bad' we were told to run around the foot ball field ten times or if we were really bad we were sent to the adjudants office (that guys degree was in swearing, and how to perform push-ups for the whole afternoon).

Instead of this stopping us it had the opposite effect, in my school things were so bad that once we lit the library and chem lab on fire and didnt let anyone put the fire out. The point here is if the soldiers teach them discipline then they may act civilized but they will rebel against authority in increasing bursts. Children that need to be taught discipline must be taught so at home, trust me a smack on the back of the head (just a smack on the head) will set the person straight and should correct most of the behavioral problems at an early age.

This may happen to be a good move. There is the promotion of the person, the growth of the individual which is so important in a military school. There are opportunities to accept leadership roles in the many activities. Even simple parade and drill activities see students undertake responsibility and accept roles of leadership. Military schools place a great emphasis on peer pressure, on students being part of a team and helping one another. This develops a real esprit de corp and makes friendship and support for one another to be an important part of life.

Originally Posted by Baron

Posting one line from a report and your opinion of that one line hardly qualifies as providing facts to support your personal comments.

There's only two real indicators of success for the goals: improved academic performance and improved discipline. The line he quoted (from your own source) indicated both have been occurring in the school. I can't see why this wouldn't be sufficient?

Originally Posted by Baron

Winston Churchill was branded a war monger and alarmist for simply studying trends and watching their progression. You put me in good company.

I don't think he mentioned Winston Churchill? Maybe he mentioned Chairman Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, or George W. Bush? I think they were all branded war mongers and alarmists as well. I'll have to go back and check.

Originally Posted by Baron

The main purpose of the military is to be trained to kill people. A large proportion of ex-servicemen cannot cope with civilian life once they're discharged from service. These are facts.

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

Doesn't look like the military swears to go out and kill people, looks like they swear to defend and be loyal subjects. If anything, I'm more afraid of the Queen now than I am of that school! The queen can still order the military to go to war! Yowza! Hope none of the other sovereigns at the wedding gave her son a bum gift!

All kidding aside, the military provides many more services than just defending the country with any level of force required. The Canadian military provides support of humanitarian relief efforts domestically and abroad, as well as speak in schools and at public events. I won't try to list everything off, but your view of them as trained killers is oversimplified at best.

Many countries all over the world have ROTC, ROTP, and other military-based education programs that help instill discipline and a sense of purpose in youth. It also provides underprivileged families with a way to send their children through post-secondary education, an opportunity otherwise outside their reach.

You also have many countries that mandate mandatory military service. Some on the list have questionable ethics, but you'll also see counties such as Greece, Finland, Denmark, Brazil, Austria, Norway, and Switzerland on the list. I don't think any of us are afraid of the trained-killer-freedom-hating Swiss going rogue on us anytime soon.

I do appreciate your eyes on the program though. I think you are perfectly correct that these programs can easily be twisted into something not originally intended, and the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I won't mock you for questioning the motivations or implementation, because I think that's the civic duty of everyone in a just and free society.

I think in this situation the idea has merit, and it seems to be getting great results in several key metrics. I'm willing to see where this leads, but I'll grab my pitchfork and line up with you if things go Orwellian on us.