Army Hopes Dropouts Can Fill Gaps

Opens First Prep School Aimed At Students Who Quit High School

(AP)  Austin Swarner left high school to care for his mother while she fought a losing battle with cancer. Tony Brown wanted to begin supporting himself and left two classes shy of a diploma. Haelee Holden got tired of trying to make it through school while flipping burgers until 1 a.m.

But the U.S. Army, eager to fill its ranks amid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't see them as dropouts. They are recruits who only need a GED before they're ready to begin basic training.

And so, the Army formally opens its first prep school Wednesday.

"It's academic immersion," explained Col. Jeffrey Sanderson, chief of staff at Fort Jackson, home of the Army's largest basic training school. "Our studies show that with only three out of every 10 people of military age being capable of joining the Army, we are going to have to do something different."

That includes turning six World War II-era buildings at the base into a mini-campus of spartan classrooms and barracks. Under the yearlong pilot project, classes of about 60 soldiers will enter the monthlong program every week.

Their day begins in uniform at 5 a.m. with physical training. Then they attend about eight hours of academic review classes, followed by homework each evening. An hour of marching drills and military discipline is thrown in for good measure.

"It's a tough, structured day. Some of them have sat on the couch for 18 years, but I haven't heard any howling yet," said social studies instructor John Solis, one of 14 certified teachers on hand. "By and large, they are chomping at the bit; they are ready to go."

The soldiers work in small classrooms outfitted with simple desks, chairs, and dry-erase boards. In-desk computers are used for test-taking. Grouped three to four to a class, the students hunch over special GED preparation books, working on basic math, social studies and reading selections.

Recruits must score in the top half of the Army's aptitude test to qualify for the prep school and get two tries at a General Educational Development certificate. If they still can't pass, the Army will release them from their contract, Sanderson said.

He said the Army prefers those who graduate from high school on their own, because it demonstrates "tenacity." But the reality of current graduation rates has the Army pressed to find an alternative, Sanderson explained.

Holden, 18, of Medford, Ore., is racing through her first week of practice tests before taking a formal GED exam soon. She left home at 16, one of nine children of a mill worker, and wants to be a military police officer.

"There's no jobs out there, nothing. It's just horrible. And it got hard just trying to support myself and go to school at the same time," Holden said.

Swarner, a native of Baton Rouge, La., left school in the ninth grade. Now 20, he dreams of becoming a combat engineer.

With the small classes, hovering teachers and a disciplined schedule, Swarner said he's learning quickly.

"The teachers here are helping a lot. My best class is English, the hardest is probably the math," he said.

With the GED behind them, Swarner and his classmates will enter basic training at Fort Jackson, where more than half of all incoming male soldiers and more than 80 percent of female recruits go through basic combat training. Others will go to one of the Army's three other basic training sites.

Those entering prep school have signed on for a two- to four-year stint, just like any new recruit.

"We have two missions: get the GED and prepare them physically and mentally for basic training," said the school's commander, Capt. Brian Gaddis.

Last October, Army officials said they intended to expand the force by adding 74,000 soldiers by 2010, with the active duty force growing to a total of 547,000.

But Sanderson said the Army's own studies show that only 3 in 10 people ages 17 to 24 are eligible to enlist, with the remainder barred by health or legal issues, or the failure to earn a high school diploma or equivalent.

A study issued by the National Priorities Project released in January found that while the Army has a goal that 90 percent of recruits be high school graduates, it hadn't met that percentage since 2004. In the 2007 budget year, the Project found that only 71 percent of soldiers entering the service had graduated.

Gaddis said he knows his students might have quit high school, but believes that shouldn't be held against them. He added that the school is a move to reach those who have been left behind, not to attract those who are less qualified or lower than the Army's standards.

"These kids may have quit at some point, but the big thing is, a lot of people have quit on them," Gaddis said. "We are not going to allow them to quit."

[midvale3]

Bring on the cannon fodder.

[docpeter-2009]

They just to educate them enough to follow orders.

[marshall_nee]

John Kerry was right!

[bretster7]

This is just the result of the past 40 years of the "failed policies" of the NEA and the willing accomplices on the left. Liberals are pro choice when it comes to abortion, but not pro choice when it comes to school choice.
Keep em'' dumb so they vote Democrat

[hermitdave]

Sounds like a clever way to draft the dumbest kids. What do they care they want them for cannon fodder.

[bretster7]

Looked at the poll. Really grasping at the straws there aren''t you midvale? All of the results are within the margin of error. So are you talking about the post grads? Big deal, it is just the Liberal college profs that they are surveying. All the others with college degrees actually went out into the world and became productive. Those who can do., those who can''t teach. Funny how you failed to mention the Gallup poll that shows your Obama 3 points behind. LOL

[concorde5]

No one wants to join the military now so Bush having to get the uneducated to do it. What''s next drafting the homeless?

Bush is a total failure.

[bretster7]

No one wants to join the military now so Bush having to get the uneducated to do it. What''''s next drafting the homeless?

Bush is a total failure.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by concorde5 at 12:48 PM : Aug 27, 2008



Your statement shows you fit the bill, when are you joining?

[jackmayoff2]

THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THAT, JUST HAVE ALL THE REPUBLICANS BE DRAFTED

[blamegovt]

They just to educate them enough to follow orders.
--------------------
Posted by docpeter

LMAO. Either you stutter as bad as Joe Biden once did or you are an uneducated imbecile. Typical LIB Dummycrat.
Dummycrats would rather give the money to these kids rather than have them achieve something along the way and gain confidence serving their country. But that is such a common theme with these flaming LIBS.

[whatithink-2009]

bretster7,

One thing to remember - the majority who have aligned themselves with McCain ARE THE SAME who aligned themselves with Bush.

The majority who have aligned themselves with Obama ARE THE SAME who voted AGAINST Bush Twice.

You want to talk about experience? Let''s say that experience has shown that the average McCain supporter makes bad voting decisions.

[beehive21-2009]

Wonderful idea, most the dropouts don''t have a stable life,like the ones that do graduate,however they''re eager and intelligent.This program should be instituted in every city,give em a change,$$$ well spent and invested into the future.The work force too rebuilt the inter structure of the United States, may also develop.

[midvale3]

Thanks lib. Can''''t refute so we must name call. Typical of the Failed policies of the NEA and the Democrats. LOL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bretster7 at 12:30 PM : Aug 27, 2008

You make a blanket statement that Democrats want people stupid so they vote for them, impling that people who vote for Democrats are Stupid. Then, when I call you a stupida@@ for demeaning Democrats and give you a source to refute your statement, you don''t address your incorrect statement, but imply I have no reply to your obvious brilliant statement other than name calling. Thanks for confirming, your a dumba@@.

[midvale3]

Looked at the poll. Really grasping at the straws there aren''''t you midvale? All of the results are within the margin of error. So are you talking about the post grads? Big deal, it is just the Liberal college profs that they are surveying. All the others with college degrees actually went out into the world and became productive. Those who can do., those who can''''t teach. Funny how you failed to mention the Gallup poll that shows your Obama 3 points behind. LOL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bretster7 at 12:37 PM : Aug 27, 2008


I did mention that in reference to another of your conservative brethern saying McCain is ahead. My point was in showing more "less" educated people support McCain. You weak arguement that PhD''s don''t count confirms the poll, thanks.

[blamegovt]

Hey! Give him a break. What he meant to say was "bullet catching doesn`t require an education."
And, remember, McCain was against increased post-service educational benefits too.
----------------------
Posted by Nancy_Naive

Kids are safer in the military than they are on most of out city streets nowadays. But that is the tactic of the Dummycrat Party - keep them stupid so they vote for the party. Naive is very appropriate.

[deacon20081]

I inlisted in the Army at 17 without a high school diploma. My older friends were doing everything they could to avoid the draft. My first duty assignment requested was Viet Nam. I had good grades but was bored with school as there were no challenges. I would miss weeks at a time and still walk in to classes and ACE the tests.
It made my teachers furious. In basic training I attended two weeks of classes and passed the GED exams with ease. Now I am older better educated and own a business. My "diploma" is a copy of my GED from the Army. If a kid can pass the entry level apptitude exams for the service they deserve a chance. If they fail the GED in Basic they should be discharged.
My children have all graduated high school and have no desire what so ever to join the military while George Bush wags the dogs tail for more war.

[bretster7]

Given what the Repugs have done to the K-12 education system AND the economy... yeah, there will be LOTS of dropouts.

I wonder if the military "prep schools" will allow prayer or teach evolution?



Posted by Nancy_Naive





LOL the Republicans? Wow your name really fits.
The NEA has been in bed with what party for the past 50 years? In my home state (controlled by liberals for the past 20 years) they spend $9,500 per student per year. Only $2,300 actually get down to the student level. That is why I am so sick of maintainence levees, kids constantly knocking on my door to raise money for this school activity and that school project, and we have sme of the lowest SAT scores in the nation. No wonder homeschooling has been increasing by 20% per year, and the biggest jump is in the secular home.
Example, 17 year old homeschooler is finishing his GUR''s on-line and at the local Community College for an EE degree. He is going to join the Air Force to become a pilot. The neighbor, who''s father is a principal at a local grade school, is 19 and works as a laborer for a construction company.

[blamegovt]

THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THAT, JUST HAVE ALL THE REPUBLICANS BE DRAFTED
-----------------------------
Posted by JackMayoff2

Stupid phvuck still thinks that there is a draft in this country. LMAO. Only draft is coming from your open mouth while you insert foot.

[midvale3]

Kids are safer in the military than they are on most of out city streets nowadays. But that is the tactic of the Dummycrat Party - keep them stupid so they vote for the party. Naive is very appropriate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BlameGovt at 01:08 PM : Aug 27, 2008


Another NASCAR genius. I like your name, do you realize your party has been leading the Government for the past 8 years (except the last 2 in Congress)?

[deacon20081]

THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THAT, JUST HAVE ALL THE REPUBLICANS BE DRAFTED
Posted by JackMayoff2

Absolutely! Great idea. The republicans and their minions seem to relish sending other peoples kids to war, but we have to make sure that Deferments are OUT (Cheney 5 times) and awols like Bush are send to the Stockade.

[jmurrieta1]

And if McCain gets elected, look for a startup of the military draft again.

McClone is going to need it for the war he wants with Russia.

[bretster7]

Another NASCAR genius. I like your name, do you realize your party has been leading the Government for the past 8 years (except the last 2 in Congress)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by midvale3


More liberal name calling and stereotyping. Please get over yourself.

[bretster7]

Absolutely! Great idea. The republicans and their minions seem to relish sending other peoples kids to war, but we have to make sure that Deferments are OUT (Cheney 5 times) and awols like Bush are send to the Stockade.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by deacon20081




And you served when deacon?

[midvale3]

THEY DONT HAVE TO DO THAT, JUST HAVE ALL THE REPUBLICANS BE DRAFTED
Posted by JackMayoff2

Absolutely! Great idea. The republicans and their minions seem to relish sending other peoples kids to war, but we have to make sure that Deferments are OUT (Cheney 5 times) and awols like Bush are send to the Stockade.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by deacon20081 at 01:13 PM : Aug 27, 2008


It won''t matter, these Republicans can see it, taste it and feel it but if they are told p1ss is rain by their masters Drugbaugh or LetmeFeelyouupOriley, they drink like they are coming out of the Sahara.

[blamegovt]

midvale3 is one of most Dummycrats that says Support the Troops, yet the only way they demonstrate that is to place a yellow ribbon on their car. Typical Dummycrat Flag Wavers.

[midvale3]

More liberal name calling and stereotyping. Please get over yourself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bretster7 at 01:15 PM : Aug 27, 2008

You are such a good little GOP YOUTH. Don''t answer the charge, just dismiss it in little words.

[armysgt5]

ainttaken,

Great point about who did not serve, but I believe you forgot a few (Clinton and Obama come to mind). Make sure you put all the names in, not the the ones you do not like or agree with.

[midvale3]

midvale3 is one of most Dummycrats that says Support the Troops, yet the only way they demonstrate that is to place a yellow ribbon on their car. Typical Dummycrat Flag Wavers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BlameGovt at 01:17 PM : Aug 27, 2008

Most people I see with yellow ribbons are chickenhawk Republicans like yourself. I already served and do support the people serving now. That does not mean I have to support the policies of this government that are getting them killed when I think they are not correct. We as US citizens owe the troops that. If you are willing to lose a child, it better be a ***- good reason, and I haven''t seen a good enough reason. Of course, there is always hope as the reason for invading Iraq changes ever month or so as the facts stack up to even where the morons holding the torches for the Repugs need a new lie.

[armysgt5]

ainttaken

"Obama and Clinton have not beat their gums to death for war"

I am not sure if you remember how many conflicts we were involved in under Clinton. He even struck targets inside Iraq every week.

[midvale3]

ainttaken

"Obama and Clinton have not beat their gums to death for war"

I am not sure if you remember how many conflicts we were involved in under Clinton. He even struck targets inside Iraq every week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ArmySGT5 at 01:27 PM : Aug 27, 2008

Good point. How many countries did we invade and how many service people were killed under CLinton? Just want to compare notes with W''s record.

[armysgt5]

midvale3

You are right, not as many service members were killed. That is becuase Clinton would not stay and fight. He would order air strikes and when forces were on the ground he would pull them out at the first sign of trouble.

[midvale3]

CAN ANYBODY TELL US WHAT IS THE CHANGE HUSSEIN PLANS ON MAKING???

SPECIFICALLY,,,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by trrrorislam4 at 01:34 PM : Aug 27, 2008


#1 No more Republicans running the White House.

[bretster7]

another con who doesnt understand his own hypocrisy.
Obama and Clinton have not beat their gums to death for war either


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ainttaken




Yeah kind of like the LearJet limo-Liberals that descended on Denver for the CONvention. They speak about how we all need to reduce our carbon footprint while they continue to spew out tons of the stuff. Algores house that uses 20 time the electricity of the average home.
BTW, the media will try to point out the Republicans use of private jets and lomo''s, but it will not be the hypocricy they are going to invent, you see most thinking republicans have not bought into the climate change sky is falling hype like the liberal sheeple have, so they see no need to preach about reducing the carbon they emit.

[midvale3]

midvale3

You are right, not as many service members were killed. That is becuase Clinton would not stay and fight. He would order air strikes and when forces were on the ground he would pull them out at the first sign of trouble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ArmySGT5 at 01:34 PM : Aug 27, 2008


I guess you are right. It''s better to put them into situations with no support and let them get killed while you figure out what the heck the mission is and how your going to execute it.

[bretster7]

Good point. How many countries did we invade and how many service people were killed under CLinton? Just want to compare notes with W''''s record.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by midvale3



How about three to one. BTW more people were killed in Clinton''s peacetime military (about 1000 per year) during training exercises, due to lack of properly maintained equipment because Clinton gutted the military so he could say he had a balanced budget....all smoke and mirrors

[bretster7]

CAN ANYBODY TELL US WHAT IS THE CHANGE HUSSEIN PLANS ON MAKING???

SPECIFICALLY,,,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by trrrorislam4 at 01:42 PM : Aug 27, 2008




You can keep asking the question, but you will not get any "specific" answers. The Obamaton''s have no idea of why they are supporting him. This election is not a vote for Obama, it is a vote against Bush. They no they cant''t win in the arena of ideas, so they have to make these far reaching comparisons of Bush and McCain, hence the McBush, McSame ,rhetoric.

[armysgt5]

midvale3,

You used the words "No Support". That is where your view is limited. You feel that becuase you disagree then everyone must. You think that becuase you see an article on CNN about the war that you are now an expert. You have not yet realized that their is a lot of information that you will never see. You say no support, but our congressional leaders have supported the war. They voted for it and have continued to vote for funds. If they do not support the war then do not approve funds.

Take a trip to Iraq and then try to tell me that no one supports the war.

[midvale3]

How about three to one. BTW more people were killed in Clinton''''s peacetime military (about 1000 per year) during training exercises, due to lack of properly maintained equipment because Clinton gutted the military so he could say he had a balanced budget....all smoke and mirrors


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bretster7 at 01:39 PM : Aug 27, 2008


The claim that there were more U.S. military fatalities during the Bill Clinton administration than there have been to date under George W. Bush is false. Moreover, that erroneous conclusion was based on falsified statistics.

Using the actual figures from the Congressional Research Service report cited above, the total military deaths under each of the two administrations are as follows:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths
Moreover, of the 7,500 fatalities that occurred on Clinton''s watch, only 76 were attributable to hostile action (as compared to 2,596 under Bush); the rest were the result of accidents, homicide, illness, self-inflicted injuries, or unknown causes.

For the record, here are the accurate totals for the past 26 years, including those omitted from the message above:

[midvale3]

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006
1980 .... 2,392
1981 .... 2,380
1982 .... 2,319
1983 .... 2,465
1984 .... 1,999
1985 .... 2,252
1986 .... 1,984
1987 .... 1,983
1988 .... 1,819
1989 .... 1,636
1990 .... 1,507
1991 .... 1,787
1992 .... 1,293
1993 .... 1,213 1994 .... 1,075
1995 .... 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 827
1999 ....... 796
2000 ....... 758
2001 ....... 891
2002 ....... 999
2003 .... 1,228
2004 .... 1,874
2005 .... 1,942
2006 .... 1,858

[midvale3]

Note that the erroneous totals in the message were arrived at not only by adding up falsified numbers for each president, but also by specifying incorrect starting and ending dates for their administrations. Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 and left office on January 20, 2001, the same date George W. Bush was inaugurated. In addition, the correct totals comprise only six years of the Bush administration, not seven as claimed.

While it is true that there were 2,392 military fatalities during the final year of the Jimmy Carter administration, what the message fails to share with us -- and there is no clearer indication of its partisan intent -- is a full accounting of military casualties attributable to the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Those are as follows:
Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1988) ........ 17,201 deaths

George H. W. Bush (1989 - 1992) .... 6,223 deaths
Racial demographics

The portion of the message covering the racial demographics of military casualties over the past few years is accurate enough to stand. Based on the CRS raw numbers for 2003 to 2007, I calculated the following percentages:
White .................... 75.07%
Hispanic ................ 10.57%
Black ....................... 9.19%
Asian ....................... 1.88%
Native American ...... 1.05%
Other ...................... 2.24%

[midvale3]

These figures correspond closely enough to the ethnic composition of the general population (cf. 2000 census) to validate the claim that minorities have not suffered disproportionate military casualties during the specified period of time.

The BUSH numbers do not reflect all of 2006, 2007 or 2008 YTD.

[bretster7]

Take a trip to Iraq and then try to tell me that no one supports the war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ArmySGT5 at 01:49 PM : Aug 27, 2008


When you are fully invested in defeat so you can further your party''s political ambitions, no amount of facts to the contrary of your position will cahnge your mind.

[bretster7]

he is going to try and see that most of the 1/3rd people in our nation can get health care and keep us from being the embarrasment of the rest of the world.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ainttaken



And he is going to pay for it by "taxing the RICH'' right? Watch out all you rich people making 50K ayear. LOL

[ramos937]

All wars are terrible but this Iraq war was made more terrible and tragic because it did not have to be waged. Enough information has come out to disprove any validity to it.

Still, the war is winding down and at some point, the Army can be a very good alternative for some young people. I know, I did the best I could in the service and still benefit from my service. And I was considered hopeless during my teen age years. What I needed and got in the army was a big dose of discipline and worth.

[williamfold]

"Army Hopes Dropouts Can Fill Gaps"

also known as:

Socialism for Republicans.

[armysgt5]

bretster7

Provide the facts that say there is "No support" for the war.

[pinkneygreen]

Not one American soldier was lost in under Clinton in the Kosovo War it had to do with a lot of planning and support from our allies.

[midvale3]

That is where your view is limited. You feel that becuase you disagree then everyone must. You say no support, but our congressional leaders have supported the war. They voted for it and have continued to vote for funds. Take a trip to Iraq and then try to tell me that no one supports the war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ArmySGT5 at 01:49 PM : Aug 27, 2008


Weak arguement. What exactly is the trip to Iraq going to prove? The violence is down, that is true, but the Greenzone is still there. The rack and file reporter cannot go out and get stories without heavy escort. The "support" that you say is there is a red herring and you know it unless you are less than candid.The Democrats and Republicans HAVE to vote to fund the Iraq occupation or people like ''ster will say they don''t support the troops and they are dying because they have no funding. Get real. The administration used false/misleading information to invade Iraq to set-up a Democratic ally in the region (similar to Iran before the over throw). The had no follow-up plan because they believed their own "slam dunk" propoganda. The military leaders tried to say they needed more boots to occupy but they were dismissed as the war was being sold as a quick and easy thing. That is what I mean by no support. The militarty can only complete the missions assigned and by having a weak mission, this administration did not support the troops.

[armysgt5]

ainttaken,

Yes, they want us out, but they want us out when the job is done. You said that Talabani wants us out, check the news he wanted us out by 2010. Not today.

[bretster7]

midvale,
nice cut and paste. Thanks, but you forgot one important detail, and that is the ratio of deaths per number of inlisted. On average there were half to 3/4 of a MILLION less active duty from 91 to 2001, so the percentage of casualties is much greater during the Clinton regime.