Turf Wars: School Administrators and Military Recruiting: Brian W. Lagotte

465115
812465115Educational PolicyLagotte
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:

EPX28410.1177/0895904
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Article
Educational Policy
Turf Wars: School

2014, Vol. 28(4) 547–577
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
Administrators and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0895904812465115
Military Recruiting epx.sagepub.com
Brian W. Lagotte1
Abstract
Although a decade has passed since passage, few have noticed that section
9528 in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates schools to assist military
recruiting.This article focuses on administrators’ responsibility to inform par-
ents of their privacy rights and the struggle to manage recruiting in schools.
I highlight two conclusions with policy implications. Although parents and
school staff speak as adversaries regarding military recruiting in public high
schools, they are both accurate in their positions. Furthermore, recruiters are
overly aggressive in schools, resulting in stress for staff or a strategic move to
isolate individuals who become liaisons with the military.
Keywords
education reform, educational policy, militarization, legal issues, No Child Left
Behind Act, policy implementation, qualitative research, federal policy
1
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA
Corresponding Author:
Brian W. Lagotte, University of Kansas, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd., Strong Hall #38, Lawrence,
KS 66046, USA.
Email: lagotte@ku.edu
Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

548 Educational Policy 28(4)
I would bet parents would say “they bury it in the newsletter.”

Well, where the hell else are we supposed to put it?
-Principal Newcomb, at Rockport High
Background
Although a decade has gone by since its passage, few have noticed that sec-
tion 9528 in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates that schools assist
military recruiting in two distinct ways. One, schools must provide student
directory information to local military recruiters—though they must inform
parents of their right to protect their children’s privacy. Second, schools must
allow military recruiters access to high school campuses equal to university
or career recruiters (Feder, 2008; Furumoto, 2005; Zgonjanin, 2006). If
schools fail on either the information sharing or campus access stipulations,
they lose important federal funding. There are no oversight requirements,
however, for the activities of military recruiters in and around high schools.
As such, little evidence exists about how the NCLB military recruiting man-
dates have been working in school districts around the country.
A number of projects in the last decade examined a general trend of mili-
tarization of the educational space, but did not evaluate the specific policy in
NCLB and its effects on individual practices. For example, the edited volume
by Saltman and Gabbard (2003) contain a number of chapters addressing
militarism in schools, specifically speaking of Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps (JROTC). Henri Giroux (2004, 2007) has been consistently
critiquing militarism of the public sphere, but his longer education work on
this topic focuses on higher education, serving as a useful comparison.
Combining privatization, militarism, and high schooling, Pauline Lipman
(2004) has done powerful work in Chicago schools, but not specifically on
the policy I evaluate. Furthermore, from a slightly different and important
direction, public health experts are questioning the legitimacy of aggressive
military recruiting of youth (e.g., Hagopian & Barker, 2011; Hardoff &
Halevy, 2006). Elsewhere, I have done historical analysis of the military/
education policy connection (Lagotte, 2006), shown how students can shape
education policy around military encroachment (Lagotte, 2010), and illus-
trated the neoliberal turn to convert military recruiting in schools into a high-
powered sales campaign (Lagotte & Apple, 2010). However, while there is
no shortage of academic journal articles on militarism, schools, and society,
even these works have not been extensive examinations of the implications of
the specific section in NCLB, all the more important as current reform accel-
erates (Anderson, 2009; Evans, 2008; Gill, 2004; Lipman, 2005; Lutz, 2002,

Lagotte 549
2006; Lutz & Bartlett, 1995; Ross & Gibson, 2007). Thus, while interest is
high regarding the issue of militarization and public schooling, the research
has not been policy focused just yet. This article serves as a supplement to this
body of research, and provides a specific analysis of policy implications.
The language in the bill is brief and seemingly straightforward. The most
important portions for the analysis are the first three paragraphs.
SEC. 9528. Armed forces recruiter access to students and student recruit-
ing information.
(a) Policy—
(1) Access to student recruiting information—Notwithstanding section
444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except
as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiv-
ing assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by
military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to
secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.
(2) Consent—A secondary school student or the parent of the student
may request that the student’s name, address, and telephone list-
ing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written
parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school
shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply
with any request.
(3) Same access to students—Each local educational agency receiv-
ing assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the
same access to secondary school students as is provided generally
to postsecondary educational institutions or to prospective employ-
ers of those students.
(b) Notification—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, shall, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, notify principals, school admin-
istrators, and other educators about the requirements of this section.
(c) Exception—The requirements of this section do not apply to a pri-
vate secondary school that maintains a religious objection to service
in the Armed Forces if the objection is verifiable through the corpo-
rate or other organizational documents or materials of that school.
(d) Special rule—A local educational agency prohibited by Connecticut
State law (either explicitly by statute or through statutory interpretation
by the State Supreme Court or State Attorney General) from providing
military recruiters with information or access as required by this sec-
tion shall have until May 31, 2002, to comply with that requirement.1

The two items that have proved to be the most controversial are the notifi-
cation of the right to opt out of distribution of directory information required
by the consent clause (a2) and the “same access” clause (a3).
Regarding the first issue, since there is no specific instructions as to how
schools or districts must notify parents, practices fluctuate, and the pattern in
the data below shows a lack of clarity and transparency. Therefore, parents in
my larger research sample often accuse schools of masking unpopular policies
with lax notification methods. They are kept out of the loop regarding military
contact with their children; for example, “there’s not many details talking
about military recruitment, not linking it to NCLB” (Wanda Reynolds, per-
sonal communication, June 25th, 2009);2 “it is not that easy to understand . . .
number one, you won’t get it in the first place if you’re not anticipating it”
(Heather Morris, personal communication, June 16th, 2009); and, “I’d like
more information about what this actually means” (Wendy Martin, personal
communication, June 9th, 2009). But, when the general topic of opt-out forms
comes up in an interview with an administrator, the opening epigraph shows
that Principal Newcomb sees where the conversation is going a mile away.
The issue is not “schools bury these notifications in the back of newsletters,”
it is “schools distribute important notification through monthly newsletters.”
Moreover, the majority of interviewees (including parents) reported that a
newsletter mailed directly to homes is the most effective way to get parents to
read these types of materials. Case closed, what is the problem?
Perhaps there is no problem. NCLB mandates that schools provide student
directory information to military recruiters and inform parents of their right
to opt-out of that process in writing. Schools distribute, not bury, that infor-
mation in newsletters, a process guidance counselors and principals say is
effective at increasing parental awareness. Parents who follow their chil-
dren’s schooling read it, decide if it is of interest, and acquire the opt-out form
according to those interests. Therefore, we must ask certain questions here.
Parents complain that schools do not distribute needed information clearly.3
Principals point to the clearly distributed notices in the newsletters to answer
this charge. Instead of asking who is correct, this article investigates how
each person is correct from their own perspective in order to provide more
specific ideas for policy intervention.
The second issue, the equality of access to high school campuses, proves
controversial because of the aggressive tactics recruiters employ once on the
school grounds. The claim that recruiters are overly aggressive due to a com-
plete lack of oversight comes directly from the United States government
itself. After the initial years of the new NCLB directives, recruiter misbehav-
ior reached such a level that the Pentagon publically suspended all recruiting

Lagotte 551
for one day to acknowledge there was a problem brewing. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO), in response to “overly aggressive tactics,”
which could taint the image of the military to the general public, investigated
“the extent to which DOD and the services have visibility over recruiter
irregularities; what factors may contribute to recruiter irregularities; and,
what procedures are in place to address them” (Government Accountability
Office, 2006). Although slightly all-encompassing, the GAO definition of
recruiter irregularity does serve use:
For the purposes of this report, we define recruiter irregularities as

those willful and unwillful acts of omission and improprieties that are
perpetrated by a recruiter or alleged to be perpetrated by a recruiter to
facilitate the recruiting process for an applicant. (Government
Accountability Office, 2006, p. 3)
Therefore, the problem the GAO identifies is also a leading concern of this
research. Since very few people know the actual practices of recruiters in
schools, and because the NCLB legislation makes no mention about how to
monitor these practices, abuse is prevalent.
The type of abuse also varies. Misbehavior can be as simple as showing up
to a school for a visit without making an appointment or as serious as sexual
assault on high school children by military recruiters. Moreover, the incidents
are increasing. Documented in the GAO report, and then synthesized by both
the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a sam-
ple of the statistics shows:
1,118 recruiters were investigated for irregularities (one in five recruit-

ers); 6,600 allegations of recruiter wrongdoing in 2005 (a 50% increase
from 2004); 70 criminal violations—including sexual harassment—in
2005 (30 in 2004); the Pentagon confirmed 630 offenses in 2005, up
from 400 in 2004 (320 of those cases were in the Army alone); and,
finally, in 2005 the Pentagon found that 1 in 5 recruiters claim that
irregularities occur frequently. (cited in American Civil Liberties
Union, 2008, p. 19)
As an example, in one high school a Marine accosted a student peace activist

in school, then left a threatening message on his home phone, causing the
principal to intervene and the superintendent to confirm the “aggressiveness
of the Marines and other military recruiters” (Dobbs, 2005). Therefore,
throughout the early years of NCLB, military recruiters became increasingly

aggressive, manipulative, and coercive—according to the government. To

state this correlation is not the same to argue causality, but it does at least
raise the possibility that some form of monitoring is required to see if this is
a troubling trend or simply an anomaly. Without accountability, the GAO
itself is unsure of how accurate its own assessment is, citing “poor tracking
and reporting” to say that the data above is likely an underestimation. “Poor
tracking and reporting” is exactly what this article addresses regarding the
second mandate of section 9528.
This article highlights two main conclusions with policy implications.
One, although parents and school staff speak as adversaries about the notifi-
cation of the school’s opt-out policy, they are actually both fairly accurate in
their positions—but misunderstanding the other. In other words, parents mis-
takenly accuse schools of hiding the notification, when actually schools just
fail to specify the military recruiting aspect in a general privacy notification.
Schools accuse parents of completely missing the clear notifications covering
opt-out rights, when actually parents are just demanding more specificity.
One significant cause for this confusion is that school administrators assume
that the more general Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), in
place since 1974, accomplishes the opt-out notification requirement in the
more recent NCLB. I will discuss this specific complication more in the con-
clusion below. Two, recruiters are overly aggressive in schools, which either
results in greater stress for staff or a strategic move by recruiters to isolate
sympathetic individuals who then become de facto school liaisons with the
military. Either way, without oversight measures, schools staff must shoulder
that entire burden themselves, while trying to manage an environment already
complicated by the much more well-known accountability aspects of NCLB.
Research Framework
My conceptual framework focuses primarily on a Gramscian (1971, 1994;
Gramsci and Forgacs, 1988) understanding of power struggles between
groups shaping understandings within particular social fields to privilege their
own interests. In Gramscian terms, groups attempt to create and disseminate
hegemonic ideologies in order to shape the general understanding of military
recruiting in ways that they can reap the greatest benefit. For an example in
broad generalizations, parents want to protect their children’s privacy, school
staff want to effectively run schools, and recruiters want to make monthly
quota, so each group wants everyone to consent to their particular goal.
Gramsci would refer to this, in an unfortunate military metaphor, as a “war of
position” where groups move to occupy and control social spaces.

Lagotte 553
The war of position encapsulates the struggle of groups to have their explana-
tion of social conditions in particular fields take precedence so the group’s inter-
ests are served best. This research addresses the field of “high school military
recruiting,” which includes the physical spaces of recruiting, the actors touched
by the project, and the discourses associated with the process. For example,
when asking “what is the role of military recruiters in high schools,” competing
explanations exist. Recruiters would like most people to believe that recruiting
is merely career counseling; they “just want to give [students] the information”
(Schwom, 2006). Recruiters would like more parents to believe that they are
“not creating killers. What we are creating is citizens for tomorrow” (Freking,
2009). So, recruiters are counselors just presenting information for an alterna-
tive path after high school, one which students who have few other options may
find as the perfect opportunity to raise their station in life. The military would
like this to be a strongly hegemonic discourse, meaning that many more people
consent to its truth than doubt its accuracy.
Currently, the main competing discourse it that military recruiting in high
schools is a sales campaign, where recruiters use sophisticated marketing tech-
niques to pitch a life in the armed forces as a commodity. Recruiters have their
own sales quota as their top priority, not necessarily the futures of the high school
students with whom they interact. Evidence for the second narrative abounds.
First, the three main research studies dealing specifically with section 9528—a
Government Accountability Office (2006) report, a Rutgers Law School Study
(Venetis, 2008), and an ACLU (2008) study—highlight the aggressive nature of
recruiting. Second, the majority of parents, school staff, soldiers, and even the
navy recruiter I interviewed never challenged the notion of recruiting as sales. We
had lengthy discussions on the effects of recruiting as sales, but few had any
reservations discussing the recruiting as marketing. Finally, literature and media
provide a variety of instances where recruiting is sales (e.g., Davenport, 2004;
Davey, 2004; Marshall, 2007; McCarthy, 2005; Schwom, 2006; Shartin, 2004).
Even in the face of this evidence, the recruiter as salesman narrative is not the
hegemonic discourse; that is, not everyone in the field of military recruiting con-
sents to that belief. And, the continuing success of the military in accessing high
school students to pitch is related to the amount of resources (e.g., political power
and money) the Pentagon has versus parents or schools.
The concern is that groups with different access to social and material
resources can, instead of attempting to increase transparency and mutual
understanding, skew the consent of less powerful groups. In this case, groups
may have certain beliefs, “common sense” understandings, that are not entirely
accurate or helpful. Common sense understandings, in Gramsci’s terms, have
two particular characteristics: One, the beliefs may not exactly be in line with

the evidence (but the evidence may not be available); and, the understanding
may induce practices that are against one’s self interests. These characteristics
point to the importance of transparency, education, research, and oversight.
For example, if parents believe that recruiting is career counseling during
infrequent school visits because they lack evidence that recruiters are pitching a
hard sell to their kids in school, they may be consenting to a belief that goes
against the educational interests of their children. Transparency about recruiting
practices (generated by strong oversight) can provide an appropriate amount of
evidence for individuals to decide if these practices are in their best interest (for
Gramsci, these more accurate understandings are “good sense”). Furthermore,
sales is normally a strategic presentation of information rather than transparent,
so this is perhaps not the best vehicle for introducing children to a career in the
armed services. Finally, since there has been little oversight or attention to the
consequences of section 9528, research can provide evidence for potential
reform. With this conceptual framework in mind, we can look at how adminis-
trators understand the recruiting mandates, how well these understandings align
with evidence, and how these beliefs influence practices in and around schools.
In line with the conceptual frame, I conducted an extended multisited eth-
nographic evaluation of the effects of this little known section of NCLB. This
article is a piece of a larger research project—which included 25 participants
representing four different high schools, three different districts, and two dif-
ferent states—and focuses only on administrators’ responsibility to inform
parents of their privacy protection rights and the struggles to manage military
recruiting in schools. The entire research project deals with a range of actors
to benefit from a multisited perspective (Abu-Lughod, 2005; Marcus &
Fischer, 1986) that includes a “vertical slice” of power relations (Nader,
1972, 1980). Different groups, with different capabilities, are included
because ethnographic curiosity in research on social control rests in groups
interacting through educational practices. If groups are interacting in differ-
ent social spaces, groups representing different levels of power and resources,
then looking vertically in multiple sites follows logically from the theory.
The careful connection between theory, methods, and data offer the
opportunity for a consistent logic throughout the argument. Unfortunately,
for publication purposes, it brings a certain limitation. Each of the policy
mandates implicate different actors interacting with school administrators:
Parents with the opt-out form and recruiters with the equal access to school
grounds. And, the amount of data in the overall project is immense.
Therefore, the choice is trying to stuff all the actors in one piece, which may
lead to a broad understanding with less depth, or focus mainly on the story
of one role in a series of separate pieces. I have chosen the latter, specifically

Lagotte 555
because the stories of parents, school administrators, and soldiers managing

the consequences of section 9528 each deserve their own telling, but accept-
ing the critique that having all the actors in one piece would have provided
a beneficial perspective in itself. This article tells the administrators’ tale and
what it means for potential policy reform and execution.
Specifically, there are five guidance counselors, two principals, and three
district staff including a Chief Academic Officer. In Weston, counselors rep-
resent two different high schools within the same district—a miniature hori-
zontal comparison. As sometimes happens, the schools have different
demographics. Counselor Davenport works at Turtlecreek, located near a
neighborhood populated by faculty of the local university. Counselor
Fairchild, at Chelsea, claims that one reason his school is heavily targeted by
recruiters is the differing demographics.
Parents don’t have the economic means, which sometimes means that
they don’t have the time, or the interest, to put in the schools that par-
ents . . . I mean, at Turtlecreek High, 32% of the parents have graduate
degrees. At Chelsea High, it’s like 1%. (personal communication, June
27, 2010)
Although it would be easy to reduce the difference to these class or education

characteristics, the story below will become appropriately complicated.
Counselor Fairchild serves as a contact person with a particularly strict view
of school visitation rights and volunteered to be the liaison with the military
recruiters. Counselor Davenport did not serve as the point of contact at
Turtlecreek, and the counselor who did was much more sympathetic to the
recruiters’ needs. Although there is a slight difference in the key marker of
“students on free and reduced lunch,” Counselor Davenport puts his school at
35% whereas Counselor Fairchild claims 42%, the real difference seems to
be who is acting as the buffer between school and recruiter.
In Central City, I interview a principal and counselor at one school,
Rockport High, setting up a miniature vertical comparison. The issue of
demographics here is a temporal comparison of before and after rather than
between schools. Rockport once was primarily a “college preparation” school
with a majority of students going to four year institutions. That was before a
strong JROTC developed at Rockport, and the economic situation of the dis-
trict deteriorated. Now, the military option plays a larger role.
That is just a more different, a more positive way, of looking at what

the military has to offer as far as career options. Our kids see that much

differently than they did before JROTC, and before the switch in the
demographic of our school population. (Counselor Henderson, per-
sonal communication, March 15, 2010)
Counselor Henderson works in the career resource center, an item on the

school budget that has recently seen significant cuts. She does not liaison
with the military, however, because at Rockport that is handled by the lead
JROTC instructor. Oddly, Principal Newcomb said that the incredible hassle
and aggressive behavior by recruiters was “fixed” by assigning a military
man the liaison position. Whether that is a result of actual better behavior or
merely continuing aggressive behavior—but out of the Principal’s hair—is a
topic of consideration.
Lastly, in Edmonville, I concentrate on one high school, but speak with
two counselors within this same school and the principal. Furthermore, I
speak to the District’s Communication Director, Strategic Planning Director,
and Chief Academic Officer. Beyond adding perspectives of what happens
within schools, this group of participants also illustrates how policy moves
from the district to the school level.
There are two missing voices in this article. In Weston, at Turtlecreek, I
invited the counselor in charge of working with the military for an interview
to triangulate some of the information I received from Counselor Davenport.
I also invited the JROTC instructor from Rockport to comment on the record
to get firsthand information about the program rather than relying solely on
the transcripts from the principal and counselor. Both participants declined to
speak on the record. I do not have enough empirical evidence to speak to the
reasons both refused an interview, so for now I leave it as coincidence that the
sources who could have spoken for a closer relationship between schools and
recruiters, who serve as more willing gatekeepers, refused to participate. For
the reader’s convenience, I show the horizontal and vertical positions of the
interviewees in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Breakdown of Interview Participants.

City Weston Edmonville Central city
School Turtle Creek/Chelsea Yellowbrook Rockport

Chief academic officer Kirkpatrick
Communication director Jenkins
Strategic planning director Peters
Principal Anderson Newcomb
Guidance counselor Davenport/Fairchild Bradford and Livingston Henderson

Lagotte 557
Notifying Parents About Opting Out4

For each interview, after introducing the purpose of my research, the first
question was how the school handled the parental notification for the opt-out
portion of NCLB. I was interested in discovering both the actual practices
within the schools and the knowledge that individuals had regarding the
process. For the former, my focus is the consistency with which policy is
conducted in assorted particular examples. For the latter, my interest lies in
the ways administrators at different levels of the policy process are interpret-
ing the federal requirements of NCLB.
At Yellowbrook High in Edmonville, Principal Anderson explains that
they conduct the opt-out notification through “newsletters and back-to-school
mailings, such as the July enrollment newsletter” (personal communication,
March 9, 2010). In order to get the opt-out form, however, the parent must
attend the enrollment dates where they normally pay fees. According to
Counselor Livingston,
they are available at fee and registration sessions, which happen in

August. So, if students elect to opt out, they can pick up a form at that
point, sign it, and return it. They simply check a box, and it is recorded
on their computers. If they don’t return the sheet, they are not opting
out. There is just a table of various forms, and it is included. (personal
Communication, March 24, 2010)
Counselor Bradford explains that the school is also flexible in the distribution
of materials (personal communication, March 24, 2010). They now provide
more information via the website, but they can send hardcopies through the
mail. Furthermore, the school can translate the materials into any requested
language.
Problematically, administrators sometimes speak about the effectiveness
of their parental notification without confidentially describing what is actu-
ally happening in schools. For example, above Counselor Bradford is speak-
ing about the lengths the schools goes through to inform parents. But, early
in the interview his answer about the notification methods was to say, “I think
it is advertised in some fashion, whether it be on the website. I think there is
a signature, um, something. I would imagine that. . . . All I know is that there
is an opt-out policy. Honestly I haven’t even seen the form, but I know it
exists.” So, when I ask Counselor Bradford a fairly basic question about prac-
tices, his answer is vague. “I don’t know exactly where it is or on what form,
but I am pretty sure it is out there.” But, when I ask a much more difficult

question about parental knowledge and intention, his answer is unequivocal,

“I’ve been here five years, and I think I have only heard about two complaints
about this opt-out stuff, so I think we do a pretty good job at it.” Although he
is unclear of the process of the policy at his school, he claims that the lack of
complaints (and students opting out) is because “people are satisfied.”
Regardless of the disconnect, we can roughly say that the mode of distribut-
ing opt-out notification at Yellowbrook High is through a beginning-of-the-
year newsletter or an opt-out form left on a table during registration week.
These patterns repeat at Rockport High, referring to both the mode of dis-
tribution and the lack of concrete knowledge by school administrators. It is
safe to say, considering the opening epigraph, that Rockport High has some
form of notification in the newsletter. That is about all we can be certain of at
this point, however. Principal Newcomb explains, “we do that in a mailing.
It’s in our, it’s in the materials that we publish . . . um . . . it may even be in our
handbook. I think it’s in, maybe, our student handbook. But, I do know that we
put it into the newsletter” (personal communication, March 10, 2010). When I
asked Counselor Henderson this same question to corroborate, she said “I
have no part and I do not know how we distribute it. I do not know that we do.
I am curious to know what Principal Newcomb might have answered to that”
(personal communication, March 15, 2010). When asked about the opt-out
form itself, however, not the notification process, Counselor Henderson notes
a method similar to Yellowbrook High, “It normally comes with the large
enrollment pack because students and their families go through the enrollment
process in August, paying fees and all of that.” Therefore, like Yellowbrook,
parents are notified of the opt-out policy through newsletters, while they or the
students can also acquire the form directly at registration week.
Hardly anyone at Rockport, like Yellowbrook, fills out the form. Thus, the
same question: is that because over 90% of parents do not mind that schools
pass their children’s directory information to the Pentagon for recruiting pur-
poses, or is it because they do not know exactly what this from does? When I
ask Principal Newcomb directly about parental awareness, he answers “I don’t
know [if people know about it]. How do I know what parents think? I am actu-
ally thrilled when we can get parents to pay attention to anything.” Although
initially he seems to be raising a somewhat overused explanation of parental
apathy, he focuses on an area for further investigation,
We put out a lot of information. And, quite frankly, I am not going to

be responsible for what information parents pick out and what they
retain. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about this form, or any
other form. (personal communication, March 10, 2010)

Lagotte 559
There is good sense in this argument. Perhaps policy researchers should think
about how much pressure directives place on principals to make every piece
of information parents receive salient enough to garner attention.
A principal, under the current pressures of educational reforms, cannot be
expected to foresee how any given notice would best be distributed in a for-
mat that will draw attention from 100% of parents. NCLB orders schools to
notify parents, so they send out the information in a newsletter. People do
read hardcopy newsletters—at least at Rockport. In his now familiar style,
Principal Newcomb can testify to this, “I know a lot of people read our news-
letter, because if it is a day late we start getting calls.” Now the argument
shifts into considering the issues revolving around a glut of information, not
a lack. If there is an overload of information, how do issues gain greater
salience than others for parents as individuals and perhaps “in general”?
Therefore, to help parents make decisions with fuller knowledge, we should
think of convenient modes to distribute information that increase the percent-
age of parents who find that information salient for their lives.
In Weston, the final city, the pattern of distribution holds steady with news-
letter mailings and registration forms, but the knowledge of school policy var-
ies. In Chelsea, Counselor Fairchild initiated a table during registration where
students and parents could find the opt-out form. Furthermore, “there are two
notices. At Chelsea we decided to notify twice in the newsletter—once in
August or July before they register and another in October” (Counselor
Fairchild, personal communication, June 27, 2010). At Turtlecreek, Counselor
Davenport was a bit less sure of school practices,
So, I think, the only time that really, that, what happens is that at reg-
istration in August, I don’t know if they give them directly to parents
or if they just put them on a table. I am usually in my office so I don’t
really know. Otherwise, I am guessing that it is probably something
that you download and print off. Or, and I am sure we have them in,
like, in the offices in the school. I don’t know for sure. But it’s the par-
ent’s responsibility to get it, sign it, and turn it in. (personal communi-
cation, June 17, 2010)
The counselor who volunteered to strictly monitor the relationship with the
military could clearly explain how his school handled the opt-out procedure,
going as far as proactively ensuring the forms were present at registration.
The counselor who did not have this responsibility could not speak to the
practices at his school with any certainty.
With the vertical data from Edmonville, the phrase “in schools” in the
claim above may be more complicated. Even at the district level, the

understanding of what practices are associated with the NCLB prescriptions

varies with accuracy. In an exchange with Strategic Planning Director Peters,
tasked with creating policy with the school board for high schools,
SPD: I would have to email the forms from the Communication Direc-
tor because, yes, they are allowed to opt out. And, I don’t think we
let them come on campus.
BL: The recruiters?
SPD: Right. (Pause) Are we suppose to?
BL: It is my understanding that the federal law takes your funding
away if you do not let recruiters come to campus like college or
career recruiters.
SPD: Oh! Then we must. Sorry, I don’t know. (Strategic Planning
Director Peters, personal communication March 18, 2010)
Conversely, Communications Director Jenkins, mentioned in the dia-

logue, has much more experience with the opt-out process as she deals with
contacts between schools and parents. She easily provides a list of the many
places where parents can find the FERPA notification of a parent’s opt-out
rights: “it’s on our website, it is in student handbooks (the secondary school
has those types of rules in the back of their planners), it’s in the enrollment
packets when families sign up for school” (Communications Director Jenkins,
personal communication, March 16, 2010). As mentioned above, Jenkins
immediately begins discussing FERPA during an NCLB discussion because
of the administrative complexity between the two. At the district level, there-
fore, the pattern repeats. Practice is to distribute the notification through a
mailed notice or during the initial week of registration. And, only particular
administrators (variety existing even within the same section) know exactly
what said practice is.
So far, the district-level participants above are only talking about the noti-
fication of the right to opt out, however, because the actual opt-out form is
much more difficult to acquire. The notifications inform parents they can
request the form, but the form itself is not widely distributed. As
Communications Director Jenkins explains,
It’s not included in like, enrollment packets and handbooks when the
notice goes out, because we were finding people automatically signing
it and not knowing what it meant. We’ve taken that off because we
found that was confusing people. So, when we do our annual notice of
FERPA, families may request that nondisclosure of student informa-
tion form if they do want to restrict their students’ directory informa-
tion from public release. (personal communication, March 16, 2010)

Lagotte 561
Moreover, it was only a few years earlier (around 2006) that the Assistant
Superintendent of Edmonville schools even developed an actual nondisclosure
form. The form needed revision because of the confusion Jenkins describes
above. Basically, the form needed two sections: One for release of information
to yearbooks, local newspapers, and the like (according to Jenkins, parents “do
not mind the student directory being used in that way”); and, the other for the
military.
Equal Access to High School Campuses

In comparison, the other half of the NCLB requirements, access to high
school campuses, exhibits a tremendous variation in practice, little parental
knowledge, and zero parental recourse. There is no opting out for students
who do not want to encounter recruiters in their schools. Certainly the hair
could be split in saying there is no obligation for students to approach the
recruiters at the tables in the lobby of the school (which they have to pass to
get to class). They do not have to choose to do push-ups in the cafeteria to
win a t-shirt. They are not forced to watch the Blackhawk helicopter hover
over the football field as the tank rolls over campus. That argument, how-
ever, has such a tenuous definition of recruiting one must argue that the
student in the above example, making all the right choices, would thus be
completely uninfluenced by recruiters—she had opted out of recruiting vis-
its. I do not see that holding though. I claim that while students can opt-out
of the directory information sharing process, there is no equivalent practice
for school visits; therefore, the military can be present in every public high
school students’ life.
Currently, the major problem is a lack of any evaluation or accountability
system as to what is considered equal access to school or what practices are
acceptable once the recruiter has access. First, there seems to be a gradient
between two themes around the phrase “equal access.” On the one hand, the
“equal” can mean that if a university recruiter comes once a semester, the mili-
tary recruiter and private industry recruiter can each come once. One can
already see another problem here. Does each university visit qualifies for a
new military visit, or is it “once for Ohio State, once for the Army” and until
the university comes twice the Army cannot visit again? That would skew the
amount of military visits considerably. On the other hand, “equal” could mean
that the doors are wide open for university, military, and private industry
recruiters equally, and they may come to schools however many times they are
able. This obviously can also skew the military visits. After all, a university—
even of substantial stature—has nowhere near the recruiting resources of any
branch of the military. The University of Miami, for example, does not spend

hundreds of millions of dollars every year recruiting (students) around the

country and paying bonuses to the recruiters and recruits alike.
My research provides examples near the poles of this continuum and a few
examples more near the center. Stemming from a complete lack of policy
supervision one can discover a repeating pattern of issues in the stories from
the media, government reports, NGO reports, academic reports, and finally,
triangulated here with actual interviewees in and around schools. First,
recruiters are too aggressive—with children and administrators. Second, the
military presence, especially when considering the material resources they
bring to the school both large and small, distracts from the educative focus of
the school. Students are pulled away from time dedicated to learning and
toward a commodified, packaged military sales experience. Beyond the
larger issue of the military resorting to romanticized, focus-group-refined
marketing campaigns to recruit future soldiers, this article simply argues that
the school is not the proper location to allow recruiters to conduct these prac-
tices with no oversight. Finally, it is a battle—word chosen purposely—
between school-level administrators and recruiters over the school space.
Even success stories of proactive guidance counselors protecting the school
space show exactly how difficult this perspective is to hold in the face of the
constant barrage of recruiting requests.
This article data pales in comparison to the project required for true moni-
toring of military practices in high schools. But, if one is critiquing a lack of
oversight, and recommending a greater oversight of practices, then he should
provide some general sketches of what this might look like. Therefore, I will
highlight three stories of recruiters and administrators interacting in regards to
school visits to look for the themes present in the GAO research—aggressive-
ness, harassment, or misinformation. If the samples I provide confirm these
general trends, then I argue that the legislation regarding schools and recruiting
should begin a system of tracking recruiting practices within public schools.
Due to the size of the issue, this research merely shows this evaluation process
needs to be established at the federal level with genuine oversight.
Aggressiveness: Pushing Buttons at Chelsea

At Chelsea, Counselor Fairchild took over military responsibilities with the
help of a new principal. Before this transition, the military had wide-ranging
access to the school campus, including classrooms. A compliant former prin-
cipal and a bullied guidance counselor enabled this practice. The previous
counselor, Henry Douglas, had been pushed to his breaking point. He was
adamant about supervising recruiters in school, but lacked the personality to
draw strong boundaries. According to Counselor Fairchild,

Lagotte 563
The person that had it when I came in really was, it was Counselor
Douglas, and he became, it became too much of an agitation for him.
He was just having a hard time controlling how emotional he became
over the issue. But, in the same sense, kind of let them run him over. I
mean, he has a hard time being assertive. He was happy to let it go. He
was a little over the edge. He became really angry a couple times at the
recruiters, and I just said that this shouldn’t happen. (personal com-
munication, June 27, 2010)
Coincidentally, I had met Henry Douglas on two separate occasions before

my interview with Counselor Fairchild. The first instance was at a meeting
held by the community peace network to discuss the upcoming 2008 election
candidates.
During a break I described my research to Henry, and he responded
quickly with his concern over the opt-out form. That was the reason he was
at the meeting, to update everyone about the form and what recruiters were
doing in schools. “Parents don’t understand.” “No one knows what’s happen-
ing.” He invited me to the more specific group in the city organizing around
military in high schools. Here, he waited patiently while each person spoke in
the group, and when it was his turn he launched into the same campaign
against the opt-out process. Henry was informed, experienced, and very pas-
sionate about the issue. In hindsight, I can see that his passion on this single
subject stemmed from his experiences at the school.
The reaction at Chelsea is unique in that once recruiting irregularities
created too great a tension for the individual involved, the person who
stepped into the space increased the oversight in the school rather than
eased access. Counselor Fairchild took the role of liaison to increase the
professionalism on both ends, no shouting at recruiters and no free access.
A new principal in the school with similar intent helped, and they called a
meeting to set ground rules.
So, what we needed to do is call every branch of the service into the
office and explain to them what the law is, what their rights are, what
our rights are, and if they have any questions. We will clarify it, we will
set the dates up for visitations, at that point of time. And, we let them
understand that they do not have the right to walk into this building
without just cause. We called on every branch of the service, people
came, we told them what was expected of them, and what our stan-
dards are. (Counselor Fairchild, June 27, 2010)

Recruiters would no longer be able to come and go as they saw fit, there
would be no lunchroom visits with free t-shirts, and there would certainly be
no more Blackhawk helicopters flying onto campus.
Most importantly, Counselor Fairchild pointed out that recruiters would
clearly understand that “they had no right to interfere with any teaching
moments that kids had.” That had not been the case in the past. Before, the
Marines had come to vocational classes (woodshop) and more traditional
academic classes (biology) to teach a lesson gained from their experiences in
the armed forces. Counselor Fairchild said, “I had one guy come in with his
uniform and teach the class.” So, the new regulation was that the recruiters
could come in plain clothes as a guest lecturer if the materials remain solely
on the curriculum designed for the course. That style of visit never material-
ized. “It was total recruitment. It was hoo-rah-rah, that kind of stuff.”
Therefore, Counselor Fairchild suspended the practice.
The new framework consisted of two visits per year. One event was junior
night, where colleges, companies, and the armed forces could have a table to
recruit students. Then, they had one flexible visitation during the other semes-
ter. “So, it was equal access.” It was equal access in the first sense mentioned
above, the colleges come twice and the military can come twice. This arrange-
ment was acceptable for everyone but the Marines. Counselor Fairchild
reports that “the other recruiters didn’t like it, but they respected it.” At
Chelsea, like the example above, the one branch was more aggressive than
the others. “The Marines are always trying for more. They tried to figure out
how to get in. He would call and say ‘I need to come in and get so-and-so’s
grades.’” As for a more direct issue of recruiting irregularity
He would come in and try to sneak in, but we had a visitation desk
because security is very tight in high schools. They would call and say
that this guy tried to sneak in, and he went to the music room. He went
in one time [because] this Marine had a senior that [he was] enlisting
to play music. I said, “what are you doing here?” I got upset. “You
know the rules. You talk about, you marines talk about trust and
respect? What are you doing here? You are not respecting me, I am
suppose to trust you. What’s your code again? Honor, trust,” I said,
“how do you explain this?” He wouldn’t say a word. He was a snake,
he was just a snake. (Counselor Fairchild, June 27, 2010)
This is one struggle that occurs between school guidance counselors and mili-
tary recruiters over the school space—battling for position in the longer war.
Some part of the policy is not working when school-level administrators
must take time away from student services to call law enforcement on

Lagotte 565
overzealous military recruiters. Counselor Fairchild had to tell the Marine,

“If you don’t leave now, I will call an officer to escort you, you are trespass-
ing.” If this is the only recourse school officials have to put limitations on
recruiting practices, irregularities seem inevitable. Rather than having a spe-
cific framework in place so both schools and recruiters clearly understand
their responsibilities, the policies at Chelsea were enacted by sheer force of
will. “If you come across a recruiter like that,” Fairchild explains, “you have
to put them in their place.”
Harassment: Major Mannheim the Mediator

Although in a school context that is highly sympathetic to the military and
military recruiting, Rockport High suffered through its own period of
recruiter irregularities. Then, surprisingly, a transition to lead JROTC teacher
as military recruiting coordinator seemed to have decreased inappropriate
practices. The one question that still remains to be answered, through much
longer in-school observations, is if the irregularities significantly decreased,
or if the recruiter no longer needed to behave aggressively because Major
Mannheim was providing much easier access. Regardless of this later
inquiry, even in a school that has a famous JROTC color guard team and
allows a Blackhawk helicopter, a Humvee, and a tank on campus, the recruit-
ers wanted more and more access.
JROTC was not always so prevalent at Rockport because the demograph-
ics used to look very different. Rather than a focus on the armed forces as a
post–high school pathway, the majority of the students went on to university.
Counselor Henderson explains,
I’ve been here 34 years and so, when I first started here at Rockport,
everybody was college bound, and now it switched to our demographic
is not all college bound, we have a very highly respected JROTC pro-
gram here, and so I think that plays into the whole thing also. (personal
communication, March 15, 2010)
The demographic switch that Counselor Henderson describes is from primar-

ily White bodies from families of comfortable means to Black and Brown
bodies from poorer families. Central City has been hit particularly hard by
recent financial troubles, resembling larger cities like Detroit in this regard.
More direct funding cutbacks have occurred at Rockport beyond the gen-
eral financial malaise. One reason that JROTC is becoming more of a central
focus after high school is that much of the career counseling at Rockport is
being defunded.

And, so whether it comes down to NCLB, or the state Department of

Education, you don’t have the resources to implement the programs,
that philosophically I believe in. For example, career pathways that are
being established right now through vocational classes. But, believing
in them, and actually helping them come to fruition, with a comprehen-
sive program in the school, how do you do that when your plates are
already full and the money gets cut off at the other end. Then you run
into a brick wall. (Counselor Henderson personal communication,
March 15, 2010)
The career center at Rockport, once a vibrant center for industry and aca-
demic opportunities, also monitored the military recruiting visits before
JROTC took over. But, the aggressiveness of the recruiters soon over ran that
position. “We have more kids in recent years who go on to combine the mili-
tary with university in the ROTC program.” Instead of working through the
center and Counselor Henderson, the recruiters were treating the school as an
open invitation. Therefore, without funding for career counseling and an
increasingly stable military relationship, Rockport High seems to have made
its decision on what type of adult it will educate. As a painful epilogue,
Counselor Henderson closes this argument with the final evidence, “Case and
point, [my] position is going next year.”
It would appear on the surface, at least, that the Rockport context would
be fertile enough for military representatives, so there would be little need for
aggressive irregularities. The JROTC program is funded, the career counsel-
ing program is not. Students used to be college prep, but now that option
eludes many. Students used to aspire to firmly middle-class careers and life-
styles, now the city’s economic situation leave options for few. The school is
developing an award winning color guard that performs locally and nation-
ally, so militarism was a greater, and more positive, influence than in Chelsea
High. What more, one could ask, do recruiters want from high schools than
that? Recruiters want the one thing that all the other bells and whistles are
designed for: The greatest amount of direct, one-on-one face time with chil-
dren as possible (preferably without parents around).
Even with a school administration as willing to accommodate the military
relationship as Rockport, the principal drew a clear line between student time
and recruiting time. Then, he spent many hours of many days putting recruit-
ers back on the correct side. On top of all the “real” school stuff the principal
addresses, tracking and reprimanding military recruiters on his campus wore
on Principal Newcomb. This part of the story resembles Chelsea. Instead of a
framework of practices, one individual was responsible for constant over-
sight of aggressive invasions of his school space.

Lagotte 567
There were times when I was just being bombarded by these people. I
can think of two situations, at least, where military recruiters were
showing up after they had been asked to work through our system.
And, they showed up anyway and were pursuing kids that did not nec-
essarily want to be pursued. I mean, they would get kids and talk to
them after their lunch hour and kids were being thirty minutes late to
class. Because, military recruiters, quite frankly, can be really aggres-
sive, and they can show up in classrooms. They can show up. . . I mean
they will . . . they really get aggressive with kids. Some of them really
. . . um . . . really can harass kids. (Principal Newcomb, personal com-
munication, March 10, 2011)
In the end, at Rockport this constant oversight was such a distraction that
Principal Newcomb simply delegated it away. The school relies on the lead
teacher of the JROTC program to serve as buffer between administration and
recruiter.
Major Mannheim handles all issues regarding school visits, such as indi-
vidual appointments, lunchroom tables, and military days where he brings in
soldiers repelling from combat helicopters and driving tanks and Humvees
through the back parking lot and onto the football field.
Major Mannheim has a good relationship with all the services and all
the recruiting. In fact, we brought in [the] recruiter’s supervisor, and
we reached an understanding about why we needed to maintain some
kind of control over it, so that it wasn’t intruding on class time. It was
probably more me just getting . . . it has taken me out of the loop, I’ve
got other things to do. Finally, the stock answer is that all military
recruitment goes through our military recruiting coordinator, Major
Mannheim. (Principal Newcomb, personal communication, March 10,
2011)
It may be true that a senior military representative can take more of an author-
itative role with new recruiters, and the recruiting irregularities will decrease
over time. Perhaps all the individual meetings are arranged in a school space
by Major Mannheim, however, and the new policy is simply moving the has-
sle out of the busy principal’s inbox. This would require a longer concen-
trated observation/interview protocol within the one school, but for now we
can explore the repeated theme between Chelsea and Rockport. Recruiters
find access, no matter what. If the liaison at the high school is not helping this
project, recruiters will wear that individual down until she (or the recruiter) is
replaced—hopefully with an individual more “compliant” than the previous.

Misinformation: A Principal Scorned

Although the term “false promises” in the GAO report normally refers to sales
pitches to youth that do not reflect reality, administrators are not immune to
this recruiting irregularity. In Edmonville, a pivotal conflict between a
recruiter and the administration resulted in the same theme interpreted from
events at Chelsea and Rockport. Wear them down, and get access now. At
Yellowbrook, in the third school in the study, Principal Anderson took a much
more active role as the liaison with the military himself.
Principal Anderson represents another interesting set of contradictions. On
the one hand, his position on large props resembled the Rockport theme. For
example, Principal Anderson viewed the presentation of an Army NASCAR on
campus as merely a passive presentation, not active recruitment. “They literally
just pulled that thing up here, and people could walk up if they felt like it. Our
auto tech class came out, and they didn’t say a word about joining the armed
forces. That’s where I think it ought to be” (Principal Anderson, personal com-
munication, March 9, 2010). This is a much more open relationship than
Chelsea, but a bit more restrictive than Rockport. It is clear, however, that
Principal Anderson understands the tone of the military relationship:
That’s the thing that is tough because they offer all these things, and you
think they are making this offer to be visible, to be a presence, so that
people stop by. But, there is always a string attached to everything that
their doing. “Oh, we need to talk to the football team now.” So, that’s
the feeling I get. I used to teach econ, so I am totally aware of “no such
thing as a free lunch.” Well, with them, there is no such thing as a free
lunch. (Principal Anderson, personal communication, March 9, 2010)
But, recognizing that recruiting is advertising does not necessarily equate as

a negative school activity for Principal Anderson. “It’s no different than if
Coke pulled up a car; there is a message there too. I am ok with them sponsor-
ing a high-school All-star game, and if a student sees that and thinks ‘that it
is cool, I will think about joining the Army,’ I am ok with that.” Now, it looks
like Principal Anderson has a much wider view of third-party visits to school
campuses, and marketing falls within that range.
As the story continued, however, Principal Anderson became incrementally
more critical of military recruiting in high schools. At first, I thought that the
recruiters really had carte blanche in the school: tables in the hallway, tables in
the cafeteria, NASCAR visits. For a portion of this research (12 months) I lived
within a block of Yellowbrook, and three different times saw the Army
Experience tractor-trailer. The semitruck included video game shooting

Lagotte 569
simulators, hip-hop music, and free t-shirts. On two different occasions I

watched a recruiter leading small groups of children, during school hours,
away from the classroom and out to the truck. A color guard came and volun-
teered at the new football stadium. All that was missing, it seemed, was the
Black Hawk and the tank.
Slowly, though, it became evident that the relationship was much cooler at
the time of research. Principal Anderson was warming interaction because
the military was “working very hard to improve relations because they did
change recruiters, and they felt like the recruiters they had before were rub-
bing the Lawrence schools in particular the wrong way.” Rubbing the
Lawrence schools the wrong way brings us to false promises. “This is what
lead to a little bit of strife in our relationship.” At the very beginning of this
history, Principal Anderson did not want the military coming on campus very
often except for the monthly table in the cafeteria (and the occasional
NASCAR). But, the recruiter successfully wore him down. “We just didn’t
open it up, I didn’t open it up. I didn’t want to do it. They kept hittin’ us, and
hittin’ us, and hittin’ us, and finally we had a couple things that took us a step
back” (Principal Anderson, personal communication, March 9, 2010).
Principal Anderson continued to speak about this issue rather vaguely.
When I pressed about the dust-up, he simply replied “We had an issue with
them because they had a promise that if we did x, y, and z they would give us
money, and then some people had done x, y, and z, and then they didn’t give
us any money.” By now it was evident that he was ready to tell the story, so I
simply asked if he had any idea of what x, y, or z was, and he recounted the
following:
I know exactly what it was. Our small engine teacher has lawnmower
races everyday in the spring. Before we had turf fields, they would do a
dirt track on the softball field. They would do a tractor pull where they
would pull some sled. And then, they have like a hot rod show where
they show them all off and give varying rewards. Well, it was getting
bigger and bigger and bigger. So, they decided that they were going to
combine some Career Technology Education fields, and they were going
to have an art show, and they were going to have this and have that.
So, we pulled this all together, and the armed forces recruiter came in
and said we have marketing money, we’ll do all this stuff and we’ll
have some t-shirts printed with our logo on them. I don’t remember
exactly what they said, but we’ll do all this and “all we need is a pur-
chase order.” So, they went through and pulled all this stuff together,

and you have $2500 to work with, and we had spent $2100, and then
the check never came in. And, so we ended up having to deal, and they
kept going around and around saying, “it didn’t get sent off, it didn’t
get sent off, it didn’t get sent off.” Well, we basically said that we have
this issue, we are going to limit your access to campus, you can come
once a quarter and this and that. Things went really, really bad.
Then, one of the guys said he would write a personal check. Well, the
personal check came after I had called the Brigadier Commander and
said look, what is going on here? We have got all these bills, this is
stuff you said you were going to pick up, and it has your logo on it. We
ended up having a big sit down with someone from the Regional
Headquarters last year.
It’s one of those things where they have two commanders that came in
and the main recruiter guy here, and they want you to tell them every-
thing bad that happened in front of the other guys. I said, “we’re not in
the military. There were mistakes made, he can tell you the truth. If you
want someone to tell you what happened have him tell you and I will
sit here and listen—I’m not going to play that game.” Then, they came
around wanting to meet with me in July and August telling us that they
have a new recruiter.
So, it is evident that Principal Anderson and Yellowbrook High took this per-
sonally, as one might when left to pick up a tab that was promised to be taken
care of. But the interview happened after this event, therefore the newfound
criticality about military relations could merely reflect this affront. We can
ask, hypothetically, what would have happened if the recruiter simply had
promptly paid? Would there have been Army sponsored t-shirts and a
NASCAR present at the lawnmower races the following year, perhaps with a
bigger budget?
The new recruiter illustrates an established theme as well, finding a strategic
link within the school. As Principal Anderson provided so much insightful cri-
tique for this article, he should have the stage to make the last analytical point:
Well, interestingly enough, [the new recruiter] is Ozzie Duncan. He

went to [a local] High School. And, his mother is Lisa Duncan, our
registrar, so our relations are much better. That was a clever personnel
decision on their part. Danny has been very respectful and knows
more. I would think that is the ideal situation if you have somebody

Lagotte 571
that they’ve pegged for that assignment. It seems you want to send
them back to their hometown.
Not just the hometown hero, but the registrar’s son. Normally, the registrar is
the one responsible for ensuring that student contact information gets to
recruiters. That is certainly a clever personnel decision.
Conclusion
The goal of this article was to highlight the work of school administrators man-
aging the twin mandates in section 9528 of NCLB. Driven by a theoretical
framework that examines the struggle of groups with various resources to con-
trol framing in different fields of interaction, the study relied upon a multisited
ethnographic approach, including a vertical perspective of administrators from
the district to the school. The findings show that administrators sometimes con-
flate the FERPA and NCLB regulations on opt-out notification, decreasing the
transparency of the military project. Also, a shifting understanding of “equal” in
the equal access clause sometimes allows recruiters to harness their vast
resources in aggressively targeting children and school staff. Finally, the incon-
sistency between states, districts, and schools in executing the provisions illus-
trates the need for a systematic system of tracking and oversight of recruiter
practices in and around schools. The remainder of the conclusion provides
related policy implications, which address these three general themes.5
First, schools and districts can design their own opt-out form to distribute to
parents and still align with the NCLB regulations. To target the confusion about
the form, I would suggest a simple one page document that gets mailed directly
to the home—not just posted on the school or district website. The form might
have four simple questions with a “circle yes or no” format: Do you want your
child’s directory information to go to colleges and universities?; Do you want
your child’s directory information to go to local media (e.g., athletic or honor
role achievements)?; Do you want your child’s directory information to go to
private corporations (e.g. class ring or yearbook companies)?; and, Do you
want your child’s directory information to go to military recruiters? Districts
can adjust the number and type of questions to suit their needs, but the main
point is to educate parents on what specific third-parties are collecting student
data and allow them to make more fine-tune decisions on who may receive the
directory listing.
As argued above, the knowledge resources employed by administrators
and parents to understand the opt-out process are different enough to disrupt
clear transmission. When administrators say “exercise your FERPA rights and

responsibilities,” parents do not hear, “do you want military recruiters to get
your child’s directory information?” The layers of meaning that separate each
party, even when engaging in the same concept “the annual notification of
student privacy protection,” are simply too many for shared understanding.
The brief message is suppose to immediately register, in a parent’s mind, to
“this includes a form you should fill out to decide if the military and/or col-
leges get your child’s contact information.” But to make this connection as
one reads the privacy notice in a newsletter one must know: Schools regularly
provide third-party vendors student directory information; districts often sub-
sume NCLB notification under the broader FERPA notification; NCLB pro-
vides the military all-access privilege to this information; there is a form that
you can sign to limit this distribution if you so choose; and, if you contact the
school or the district office, they will send you the form. Parents do not have
that background information to make that leap of inference. Practices directed
from much higher levels are embedded in a vague “polices” that obscure the
everyday implementation and decrease the effectiveness of the policy.
Effective for whom, however, is a question that looms large. As written and
implemented, the policy is awfully effective in filling recruiter databases with
millions of children’s names, addresses, and telephone numbers (at the very
least). Evidence may not point to a conscious decision to design policy in this
frame, but the Pentagon is certainly happy to capitalize on the arrangement.
The policy structure for recruiter recourse and penalizing schools for noncom-
pliance is much clearer than the recourse for schools and penalizing recruiting
irregularities. Furthermore, the newest reform proposal by Representative
Duncan Hunter (R-CA), titled the Fairness for Military Recruiters Act, basi-
cally states, in the clearest of language, that any whiff of an opt-in process will
be prohibited. Therefore, perhaps the policy was not purposely designed to
privilege recruiters over parents, but it is currently functioning as such, and the
Pentagon is working to preserve that advantage.
Unfortunately, even when schools just list the FERPA notice in the back of
a school handbook, the majority of times schools are deemed to be in compli-
ance. As the controversy around the military data collection through NCLB
gained more visibility, Jody Feder (2008) provided a lengthy congressional
legal review arguing that the NCLB requirements squarely fell under the
FERPA protections (even though some details differed, such as who could
actually opt-out). If parents (and sometimes guidance counselors and princi-
pals) are unaware of the opt-out process, but schools are in full compliance of
the policy as is, then there is something confusing with the policy in itself.6
Thus, a brief single-page form, where parents can simply circle a yes or no
and mail in back to the school/district, can do a significant amount of

Lagotte 573
educative work. Keep in mind, the cost of mailers in a time of austerity must
be overcome, and parents who do not return the forms must understand the
data is distributed anyway.
The second suggestion, which does not have the same budgetary or logis-
tics complications as the first and aligns with NCLB, is for schools to inter-
pret the “equal access” clause to mean an equal amount of visits rather than
equally unlimited access. For example, in Chelsea High recruiters could
come once in the fall and once in the spring because universities and employ-
ers could come the same amount of times. Furthermore, these visits had staff
oversight and were conducted in the evenings, after the school day. In the
other schools, however, any third party could come as many times for which
they had the resources. And, while the universities and employers were still
able to come once or twice a year, the military had the means to: come once
or twice a month; set up tables in the foyer; bring climbing walls to the caf-
eteria; transport a Humvee, Blackhawk helicopter, NASCAR, and entertain-
ment semitruck to campus; visit band classes; and, have a color guard perform
at football games (to mention a few examples). The point being that relative
to universities and employers, the extraordinary budget that military recruit-
ers have to work with completely distorts the word “equal” when the clause
is defined as equally free access.
Finally, the equal access discussion draws attention to the level of aggres-
sion expressed by recruiters seeking access to children. The repeating aggres-
sion in the stories from schools above, even under quite different comfort levels
of the military/school relationship, begins to form a worrisome theme. When
listening to administrators describe how recruiters conduct themselves in
schools, a two-prong strategic infiltration of the school grounds takes a rough
shape. One, do anything at all to speak with children individually, even if that
means breaking school protocol. Two, aggressively target individuals within
the administration that will provide the easiest path to the children. If they do
not, wear them down until they are replaced by someone who will. The armed
forces recognize this maneuver and fold this tactic into the overall strategy.
Pencils, bagels, and trips to the nearest base for simulation visits all round out
the many perks involved with being a military liaison—or, Center Of Influence
(COI).7 The conflict between staff and recruiters, and the targeting of individu-
als in schools, can be tempered by a system of tracking practices.
Oversight policies in schools and districts should avoid forcing this
responsibility—to regulate, oversee, and reprimand military recruiters—
upon only guidance counselors or principals. Although I am highly sympa-
thetic to the GAO, ACLU, and Rutgers reports cited in this article, I differ by
arguing that having one member of school staff be the liaison with the

military is not the best decision. This individual not only faces enormous
stress, but if they are personally sympathetic to the armed services in general,
they could provide enhanced access to campus, students, and private data.
Keep in mind, overzealous critics of armed service careers can also exploit
this inconsistency to keep recruiters isolated during school visits—although
that is by far the exception rather than the rule. I claim that an overcompart-
mentalization of military relations in schools creates an environment where
only one actor knows what school practices actually are; therefore, these key
individuals have an enormous sway over the type of relationship the school
has with the military (and are targeted by recruiters for this reason). This role
becomes tactically crucial to occupy, so to mitigate this move, schools should
have a formal system in place for tracking recruiting behavior in schools, and
all staff should have an equal responsibility to oversee the system once in
place. Understandably, this may create additional bureaucratic headaches on
already overworked staff in an era of “accountability,” but until Congress
looks to reform this section of federal education policy, local educators can
protect students.
Considering that NCLB will be renewed in some form, perhaps education
policy that enables military representatives to harass children and administra-
tors, encroach on educational space, and crowd out other post–high school
opportunities requires reevaluation. Although I understand that a process to
collect enough evidence from enough schools to definitely form a framework
that decreases recruiting irregularities is in itself no mean feat, the evidence
to date is such to confidently claim that we should at least immediately take
a look to make sure there are not systemic problems within the current policy.
This article is merely an addition of fieldwork to a stream of evidence, start-
ing within the government itself, that says lightly regulated military access
enables abusive practices around children.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Notes
1. Retrieved from the Department of Education website, http://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg112.html#sec9528

Lagotte 575
2. All names from the fieldwork are pseudonyms to protect anonymity.

3. Although the obscurity of the law keeps the majority of parents unaware of the
two recruiting mandates, when parents become aware of section 9528 they often
get organized. Although outside the scope of this article, many of the counter-
recruiting movements around the country are driven by community activists. For
an example of students joining with community projects see (Lagotte, 2010), and
for an example of PTA involvement see (Hagopian & Barker, 2011).
4. This article discusses only the data collection of the student directory lists
demanded by NCLB. Readers should be aware that the Department of Defense
has formed a much, much larger (and I argue more intrusive) data collection
program called the Joint Advertising Marketing Research & Studies (JAMRS)
program. Elsewhere I have introduced the program’s general shape (Lagotte &
Apple, 2010) and described its structure in depth (Lagotte, in press).
5. This article discusses general suggestions for individuals to shape to their par-
ticular circumstances. For a greater variety of specific practices that schools and
districts have employed to mitigate aggressive recruiting, see the list created by
the National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth at www.nnomy.org
6. An unstated assumption in this argument is “the policy is not actually designed to
limit the amount of knowledge the parents have about said policy.” Time will tell
if this is a safe assumption.
7. If it is a teacher, military recruiters use Educator Of Influence (EOI).
References
Abu-Lughod, L. (2005). Dramas of nationhood: the politics of television in Egypt.
Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2008). Soldiers of misfortune.Retrieved from http://
www.aclu.org/human-rights/soldiers-misfortune-abusive-us-military-recruit-
ment-and-failure-protect-child-soldiers
Anderson, G. (2009). The politics of another side. Educational Policy, 23, 267-291.
Lagotte, B.W. (In Press). Selling Children a Military Future. In J. Hall (Ed.), Chil-
dren’s Human Rights and Public Schooling in the United States. Rotterdam, Neth-
erlands: Sense Publishers.
Lagotte, B. W. (2010). Gunning for School Space: Student Activists, the Military, and
Education Policy. In R. Verma (Ed.), Be the Change: Teacher, Activist, Global
Citizen. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lagotte, B. W., & Apple, M. W. (2010). Neoliberalism, Militarization, and Education
Reform. In P. Trifonas & B. Wright (Eds.), Critical Issues in Peace and Educa-
tion. London: Routledge.
Lagotte, B. W. (2006). Because We Said So: Educational Refrom in Occupied Japan.
Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies, 6(2), 239-256.

Davenport, C. (2004, August 8). The mission. Washington Post, p. W12.

Davey, M. (2004, June 14). Recruiters try new tactics to sell wartime army. New York
Times, p. 1.
Dobbs, M. (2005, June 19). Schools and military face off. Washington Post, p. A3.
Evans, G. (2008). Recruiting children into the US Military. Retrieved from http://
www.ringnebula.com/Oil/recruiting-children.htm
Feder, J. (2008). Military recruitment provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act:
A legal analysis. In P. H. Berkhart (Ed.), No child left behind: Issues and develop-
ments (pp. 131-136). New York: Nova Science.
Freking, K. (2009, April 24). Congress to debate role of recruiters in schools. New
York: Associated Press.
Furumoto, R. (2005). No poor child left unrecruited: How N.C.L.B. codifies and per-
petuates urban school militarism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 200-210.
Gill, L. (2004). The school of the Americas : Military training and political violence
in the Americas. Durham: Duke University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2004). War on terror: The militarising of public space and culture in the
United States. Third Text, 18(4), 211-221.
Giroux, H. A. (2007). The university in chains: Confronting the military-industrial-
academic complex. Boulder: Paradigm.
Government Accountability Office. (2006). DoD and services need better data to
enhance visibility over recruiter irregularities. Washington, DC: Author.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New
York: International.
Gramsci, A. (1994). Antonio Gramsci: Pre-prison writings (R. Bellamy & V. Cox,
Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gramsci, A., & Forgacs, D. (1988). A Gramsci reader: Selected writings, 1916-1935.
London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hagopian, A., & Barker, K. (2011). Should we end military recruiting in high schools
as a matter of child protection and public health? American Journal of Public
Health, 101(1), 19-23.
Hardoff, D., & Halevy, A. (2006). Health perspectives regarding adolescents in mili-
tary service. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 18, 371-375.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education : Inequality, globalization, and urban
school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lipman, P. (2005). Educational ethnography and the politics of globalization, war,
and resistance. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36, 315-328.
Lutz, C. (2002). Making war at home in the United States: Militarization and the cur-
rent crisis. American Anthropologist, 104, 723-735.
Lutz, C. (2006). Empire is in the details. American Ethnologist, 33, 593-611.

Lagotte 577
Lutz, C., & Bartlett, L. (1995). Making soldiers in the public schools: An analysis
of the army J.R.O.T.C. curriculum. Retrieved March from http://www.afsc.org/
Youth&Militarism/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/3770
Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An
experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Marshall, S. (2007, July 2). NYC teens say “Hell no” to Army. Crain’s New York
Business, p. 1.
McCarthy, S. (2005, December 10). “Making mission” in a tough market, Globe and
Mail, p. A23.
Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up.
In D. H. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology (pp. 284-311). New York:
Pantheon Books.
Nader, L. (1980). The vertical slice: Hierarchies and children. In G. M. Britan
& R. Cohen (Eds.), Hierarchy and society: Anthropological perspectives
on bureaucracy (pp. vi, p. 186). Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of
Human Issues.
Ross, E. W., & Gibson, R. (2007). Neoliberalism and education reform. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Saltman, K. J., & Gabbard, D. (2003). Education as enforcement : The militarization
and corporatization of schools. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Schwom, P. (2006, October 29). You could be in the Army now. Boston Globe, p. 1.
Shartin, E. (2004, August 14). Fliers advise teens on rights. Boston Globe, p. B1.
Venetis, P. (2008). Targeting Youth: What everyone should know about military
recruiting in public high schools. Retrieved from http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/
files/u/ MilitaryRecruitingReportConLitFinal.pdf
Zgonjanin, S. (2006). No child left (behind) unrecruited. Connecticut Public Interest
Law Journal, 5(2), 167-195.
Author Biography
Brian W. Lagotte is an anthropologist focused on issues of educational policy. His
takes a critical view of law in action to examine how federal and local policies can
work to the benefit of some and/or to the harm of others.

Turf Wars: School Administrators and Military Recruiting: Brian W. Lagotte

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turf Wars: School Administrators and Military Recruiting: Brian W. Lagotte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

465115

Reprints and permissions:

Turf Wars: School

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

I would bet parents would say “they bury it in the newsletter.”

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

For the purposes of this report, we define recruiter irregularities as

1,118 recruiters were investigated for irregularities (one in five recruit-

As an example, in one high school a Marine accosted a student peace activist

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

aggressive, manipulative, and coercive—according to the government. To

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

because the stories of parents, school administrators, and soldiers managing

Although it would be easy to reduce the difference to these class or education

That is just a more different, a more positive way, of looking at what

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Counselor Henderson works in the career resource center, an item on the

Table 1. Breakdown of Interview Participants.

School Turtle Creek/Chelsea Yellowbrook Rockport

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Notifying Parents About Opting Out4

they are available at fee and registration sessions, which happen in

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

question about parental knowledge and intention, his answer is unequivocal,

We put out a lot of information. And, quite frankly, I am not going to

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

understanding of what practices are associated with the NCLB prescriptions

Conversely, Communications Director Jenkins, mentioned in the dia-

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Equal Access to High School Campuses

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

hundreds of millions of dollars every year recruiting (students) around the

Aggressiveness: Pushing Buttons at Chelsea

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Coincidentally, I had met Henry Douglas on two separate occasions before

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

overzealous military recruiters. Counselor Fairchild had to tell the Marine,

Harassment: Major Mannheim the Mediator

The demographic switch that Counselor Henderson describes is from primar-

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

And, so whether it comes down to NCLB, or the state Department of

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Misinformation: A Principal Scorned

But, recognizing that recruiting is advertising does not necessarily equate as

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

simulators, hip-hop music, and free t-shirts. On two different occasions I

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Well, interestingly enough, [the new recruiter] is Ozzie Duncan. He

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015

2. All names from the fieldwork are pseudonyms to protect anonymity.

Downloaded from epx.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on May 1, 2015