Military to Teach Children in Florida?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why Florida's plan to recruit veterans as teachers is troubling​

Florida is struggling to hire teachers, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ regressive influence on the state’s education system — affecting signage on the wall to class curriculums — is arguably a prime factor.

But the DeSantis administration declines to look inward to assess why so many teachers have left their jobs. Instead, it's pushing a dubious quick fix: hiring military veterans without degrees to teach.

Florida’s Education Department announced last week that it will give veterans five-year temporary certificates while they finish their bachelor's degrees. Vets must pass subject tests and have completed 60 college credits (around two years of a four-year degree program) to obtain the certificate.

On the one hand, if someone is really qualified to teach and merely hasn't obtained a degree--can prove it by passing qualification testing, while there is a shortage, then I think it makes sense economically and for sake of efficiency to allow those people to temporarily teach until eventually getting through all the bureaucratic red tape. That ought to apply to all qualified persons in a shortage crisis, not merely veterans.

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

 

[Jarhyn]

Why Florida's plan to recruit veterans as teachers is troubling​

Florida is struggling to hire teachers, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ regressive influence on the state’s education system — affecting signage on the wall to class curriculums — is arguably a prime factor.

But the DeSantis administration declines to look inward to assess why so many teachers have left their jobs. Instead, it's pushing a dubious quick fix: hiring military veterans without degrees to teach.

Florida’s Education Department announced last week that it will give veterans five-year temporary certificates while they finish their bachelor's degrees. Vets must pass subject tests and have completed 60 college credits (around two years of a four-year degree program) to obtain the certificate.

On the one hand, if someone is really qualified to teach and merely hasn't obtained a degree--can prove it by passing qualification testing, while there is a shortage, then I think it makes sense economically and for sake of efficiency to allow those people to temporarily teach until eventually getting through all the bureaucratic red tape. That ought to apply to all qualified persons in a shortage crisis, not merely veterans.

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

This is a feature, not a bug, from DeSantis's point of view.

 

[Rhea]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

I agree this is very VERY troubling.
And it is monumentally, achingly stupid to think the pool of non-military people doesn’t hold equal or better partially-qualified people.
And it is even more stupid to let go of the already qulaified teachers because you can’t be bothered to understand their needs, while being simultaneously shortsighted that your new military teachers aren’t going to care about the same things and quit themselves when they find it lacking.

We’ve already seen the terrible result of militarising our police. Our 6-year olds are not equipped for that.

 

[Politesse]

And it is even more stupid to let go of the already qulaified teachers because you can’t be bothered to understand their needs, while being simultaneously shortsighted that your new military teachers aren’t going to care about the same things and quit themselves when they find it lacking.

This seems, to me, like the most likely outcome. People like deSantis think of soldiers as dispensable resources, who can be ordered to do anything without complaint and with minimal compensation. But they're not correct about that. If someone is trying to build a civilian life for themselves as a teacher, they are probably going to object to the conditions Florida has laden its teachers with just as much as any other prospective teacher.

I am not so concerned about the ideological views of veterans, these are not as homogenous as you may be imagining, and if these are individuals who are planning to pursue a teaching career over the long term, I wouldn't expect them to be all that different from Florida's normal teacher pool.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I am not so concerned about the ideological views of veterans, these are not as homogenous as you may be imagining, and if these are individuals who are planning to pursue a teaching career over the long term, I wouldn't expect them to be all that different from Florida's normal teacher pool.

Exactly. Thank you.

Troops to Teachers has been around for years. I've seen no goose stepping six year olds yet. Though I have recently witnessed some praying to their goose god.

DeSantis is making political hay out of it. Ja'han Jones is making leftist hay out of it. They're both full of shit.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

Congratulations! You have refuted Godwin's Law!

The probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler as an online discussion grows longer cannot approach 1 if it's already 1 from the get-go.

I am not so concerned about the ideological views of veterans, these are not as homogenous as you may be imagining, and if these are individuals who are planning to pursue a teaching career over the long term, I wouldn't expect them to be all that different from Florida's normal teacher pool.

Exactly. Thank you.

Troops to Teachers has been around for years. I've seen no goose stepping six year olds yet.

^^^^ This ^^^^

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I was commissioned I was searching around for a possible job for my soon-to-be wife. Many people wanted to hire me! That was surprising at first but then I realized it was because the local school districts were simply struggling to find teachers to fill positions. I had a job, of course, but it was quite easy for my wife to become employed as she was a teacher by profession.

So I don't think that at its very core this is much different. The Nazi governor of Florida wants us to think it's something special but it's just an attempt to fill vacant positions and make a bit of political hay in the process.

 

[laughing dog]

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

 

[Oleg]

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

Given the low quality of a lot of US high school graduates, indeed, what is the point of cetification?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

Congratulations! You have refuted Godwin's Law!

The probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler as an online discussion grows longer cannot approach 1 if it's already 1 from the get-go.

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons. Because the aggregate statistics of the "military subgroup" are different than the non-military subgroup, there would be a skew. In theory, those things can play out in subtle ways in history class when teaching about, say, the Viet Nam war, the Iraq wars, 9/11, or in things like pledging to the flag in terms of aggregate differences with these educators vs non-military.

And it is even more stupid to let go of the already qulaified teachers because you can’t be bothered to understand their needs, while being simultaneously shortsighted that your new military teachers aren’t going to care about the same things and quit themselves when they find it lacking.

This seems, to me, like the most likely outcome. People like deSantis think of soldiers as dispensable resources, who can be ordered to do anything without complaint and with minimal compensation. But they're not correct about that. If someone is trying to build a civilian life for themselves as a teacher, they are probably going to object to the conditions Florida has laden its teachers with just as much as any other prospective teacher.

I am not so concerned about the ideological views of veterans, these are not as homogenous as you may be imagining,

I do not believe that they are a homogenous group. From personal experience of serving in the military, I know that they are not a homogenous group.

and if these are individuals who are planning to pursue a teaching career over the long term, I wouldn't expect them to be all that different from Florida's normal teacher pool.

I do not expect them to be extremely different from Florida's normal teacher pool, but instead to be different in the aggregate.

I also expect that anything I say regarding veterans to be unpopular and any suggested change in policy to also be unpopular. Still, as in the op post, I suggest that if it is truly efficient and effective to reduce the red tape for veterans and allow certificates later for in-progress work, then there are other non-military sub-groups that ought to be considered as well such as just decent people trying to education degrees/certificates. Call it a Veterans as Educators bill or whatever and throw on an amendment for non-veterans.

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

Indeed. If I accept that underlying assumption of this legislation that there is something overly bureaucratic about the certification(s) or the process they entail, then ought this way of allowing a way around the bureaucracy apply to non-military subgroup of people who have equal or greater qualifications as the military sub-group?

When I was commissioned I was searching around for a possible job for my soon-to-be wife. Many people wanted to hire me! That was surprising at first but then I realized it was because the local school districts were simply struggling to find teachers to fill positions. I had a job, of course, but it was quite easy for my wife to become employed as she was a teacher by profession.

My experience is half-different and one factor might be that I was enlisted. After completing basic training and AIT in my MOS, returning home to be in the Reserves, employers at all the types of jobs I had tried to get into out of desperation before joining wanted to hire me. The nature of these jobs were not like teachers or very educated jobs, but desperate manual labor jobs.

So I don't think that at its very core this is much different. The Nazi governor of Florida wants us to think it's something special but it's just an attempt to fill vacant positions and make a bit of political hay in the process.

I think I agree with what you are saying. This is classic conservative elitist tactic of making two subgroups of little guys fight each other to advance themselves. To clarify, I am not saying I think the bill ought not be a thing, but instead that, if it is true that certifications are overly bureaucratic, then it ought to apply to everyone, not merely just veterans.

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

I agree this is very VERY troubling.
And it is monumentally, achingly stupid to think the pool of non-military people doesn’t hold equal or better partially-qualified people.

Yes. Logically speaking, a person who truly believes partially qualified people ought to be utilized, it seems to make no sense to ignore the non-military pool of people. I realize mentioning such a thing will be unpopular. I also agree with a couple of others that DeSantis is playing games trying to make groups fight in order to climb the ladder for himself.

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

Given the low quality of a lot of US high school graduates, ...

Why do you hate Merica?

 

[Jarhyn]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

Congratulations! You have refuted Godwin's Law!

The probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler as an online discussion grows longer cannot approach 1 if it's already 1 from the get-go.

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons. Because the aggregate statistics of the "military subgroup" are different than the non-military subgroup, there would be a skew. In theory, those things can play out in subtle ways in history class when teaching about, say, the Viet Nam war, the Iraq wars, 9/11, or in things like pledging to the flag in terms of aggregate differences with these educators vs non-military.

And it is even more stupid to let go of the already qulaified teachers because you can’t be bothered to understand their needs, while being simultaneously shortsighted that your new military teachers aren’t going to care about the same things and quit themselves when they find it lacking.

This seems, to me, like the most likely outcome. People like deSantis think of soldiers as dispensable resources, who can be ordered to do anything without complaint and with minimal compensation. But they're not correct about that. If someone is trying to build a civilian life for themselves as a teacher, they are probably going to object to the conditions Florida has laden its teachers with just as much as any other prospective teacher.

I am not so concerned about the ideological views of veterans, these are not as homogenous as you may be imagining,

I do not believe that they are a homogenous group. From personal experience of serving in the military, I know that they are not a homogenous group.

and if these are individuals who are planning to pursue a teaching career over the long term, I wouldn't expect them to be all that different from Florida's normal teacher pool.

I do not expect them to be extremely different from Florida's normal teacher pool, but instead to be different in the aggregate.

I also expect that anything I say regarding veterans to be unpopular and any suggested change in policy to also be unpopular. Still, as in the op post, I suggest that if it is truly efficient and effective to reduce the red tape for veterans and allow certificates later for in-progress work, then there are other non-military sub-groups that ought to be considered as well such as just decent people trying to education degrees/certificates. Call it a Veterans as Educators bill or whatever and throw on an amendment for non-veterans.

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

Indeed. If I accept that underlying assumption of this legislation that there is something overly bureaucratic about the certification(s) or the process they entail, then ought this way of allowing a way around the bureaucracy apply to non-military subgroup of people who have equal or greater qualifications as the military sub-group?

When I was commissioned I was searching around for a possible job for my soon-to-be wife. Many people wanted to hire me! That was surprising at first but then I realized it was because the local school districts were simply struggling to find teachers to fill positions. I had a job, of course, but it was quite easy for my wife to become employed as she was a teacher by profession.

My experience is half-different and one factor might be that I was enlisted. After completing basic training and AIT in my MOS, returning home to be in the Reserves, employers at all the types of jobs I had tried to get into out of desperation before joining wanted to hire me. The nature of these jobs were not like teachers or very educated jobs, but desperate manual labor jobs.

So I don't think that at its very core this is much different. The Nazi governor of Florida wants us to think it's something special but it's just an attempt to fill vacant positions and make a bit of political hay in the process.

I think I agree with what you are saying. This is classic conservative elitist tactic of making two subgroups of little guys fight each other to advance themselves. To clarify, I am not saying I think the bill ought not be a thing, but instead that, if it is true that certifications are overly bureaucratic, then it ought to apply to everyone, not merely just veterans.

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

I agree this is very VERY troubling.
And it is monumentally, achingly stupid to think the pool of non-military people doesn’t hold equal or better partially-qualified people.

Yes. Logically speaking, a person who truly believes partially qualified people ought to be utilized, it seems to make no sense to ignore the non-military pool of people. I realize mentioning such a thing will be unpopular. I also agree with a couple of others that DeSantis is playing games trying to make groups fight in order to climb the ladder for himself.

If these uncertified teachers show themselves capable, then what would be the point of certification?

Given the low quality of a lot of US high school graduates, ...

Why do you hate Merica?

Or, it could be seen as a jobs program for a population that more or less is close-ish to being capable of dealing with a large number of childish idiots who low-key hate each other while trying to teach them something.

 

[Toni]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

I agree this is very VERY troubling.
And it is monumentally, achingly stupid to think the pool of non-military people doesn’t hold equal or better partially-qualified people.
And it is even more stupid to let go of the already qulaified teachers because you can’t be bothered to understand their needs, while being simultaneously shortsighted that your new military teachers aren’t going to care about the same things and quit themselves when they find it lacking.

We’ve already seen the terrible result of militarising our police. Our 6-year olds are not equipped for that.

I don't mean to insult the military but military personnel are accustomed to doing what they are told (within certain parameters) and are used to working in harsh, even dangerous conditions. That's what they signed up for, in part. So, I see the appeal to any totalitarian types of simply directing military personnel or those who have recently left the military and are struggling to find civilian jobs (less a problem now) to step in and fill in empty slots. Because military personnel are used to being considered units, and cogs in wheels and indeed are trained so that largely, they are interchangeable. I realize that I am greatly oversimplifying what it is to be in any branch of service and that this applies much more to footsoldiers than more senior personnel. Still, military are used to being sent on assignment to wherever they are deemed to be needed, regardless of their personal preferences. I do not mean this as any insult to any military personnel or any branch of the military. It's just part of the job.

Of course some military personnel are well educated and some are well suited towards teaching, and not just training. I would wager that very few are competent in terms of understanding developmental stages of childhood or various learning styles or methods, etc. I would even guess that many would struggle with classroom discipline. Some, no doubt, would do a fine job because some are well educated, knowledgeable and have the desire and the aptitude and perhaps even training to be decent teachers. In certain ways, this is not much different than allowing any parent to home school their children. Some will do an excellent job because they have the intelligence and the knowledge and the aptitude and temperament to do well with a small group/single student especially when they have total control over the environment, etc. Most would struggle.


Of course this is all so much worse than actually creating a work environment that supports teachers and education of children.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".

That's an interesting theory.

 

[Jarhyn]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".

That's an interesting theory.

Hypothesis. It would need testing to be a theory. I certainly do call folks Nazis but...

 

[Politesse]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".

Nazi ideology is not truly conservative; our conservative party is just being hijacked by white nationalist ideoologies at present.

You can want a "traditional national culture" without wanting to violently preserve white power or whatever bullshit they're up to these days. Overtly signalling your friendliness to these groups is absolutely a choice, not something Trump et al are compelled to do just because they are conservatives. They could choose to be better conservatives.

 

[Jarhyn]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".

Nazi ideology is not truly conservative; our conservative party is just being hijacked by white nationalist ideoologies at present.

You can want a "traditional national culture" without wanting to violently preserve white power or whatever bullshit they're up to these days. Overtly signalling your friendliness to these groups is absolutely a choice, not something Trump et al are compelled to do just because they are conservatives. They could choose to be better conservatives.

They're broadcasting loud and clear to anyone who knows how to tune in.

The problem with a strongly normative traditional national culture, and this is an argument mind you, is that it looks down on those who flamboyantly behave as themselves.

Prince is a major part of the traditional national culture of Minneapolis and Minnesota, and the Midwest, and America.

Their orgies were legendary!

Their singing sexual!

Their after parties... Well, I mentioned the orgies already, ya?

There's nothing really conservative about that being born into the world, though, that spirit of new culture and fresh songs.

That's the problem with too "strong" of a "traditional" national culture.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the other hand, politically, not economically, there is a skew with the military subgroup of people in comparison to non-military that would add a nationalistic, pro-war, reich-wing contingent to the pool of educators?

It's pretty uncontroversial that veterans tend to be more conservative than non-military persons.

It's also pretty uncontroversial that "more conservative" = "reich-wing".
...

Nazi ideology is not truly conservative; our conservative party is just being hijacked by white nationalist ideoologies at present.

You can want a "traditional national culture" without wanting to violently preserve white power or whatever ... Overtly signalling your friendliness to these groups is absolutely a choice, not something Trump et al are compelled to do just because they are conservatives.

Trump is a conservative?

They could choose to be better conservatives.

But the people who got accused of being reich-wing here were not "Trump et al", but veterans. It is of course to be expected that partisan attack dogs of any ideological flavor will compare the partisan attack dogs of competing ideologies to Hitler. But overtly signaling that you think everyone less far left than yourself is reich-wing is a choice, not something anyone is compelled to do just because he's a partisan attack dog. He could choose to be a better partisan attack dog.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But overtly signaling that you think everyone less far left than yourself is reich-wing is a choice, not something anyone is compelled to do just because he's a partisan attack dog.

Except I didn't actually write here what you are trying to claim I wrote here.

He could choose to be a better partisan attack dog.

You could try to be a better partisan attack dog by presenting an on-topic, substantive point regarding the issue based on things actually written in the thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nazi ideology is not truly conservative; our conservative party is just being hijacked by white nationalist ideoologies at present.
.... Overtly signalling your friendliness to these groups is absolutely a choice, not something Trump et al are compelled to do just because they are conservatives. They could choose to be better conservatives.

They're broadcasting loud and clear to anyone who knows how to tune in.

The problem with a strongly normative traditional national culture, and this is an argument mind you, is that it looks down on those who flamboyantly behave as themselves.

Prince is a major part of the traditional national culture of Minneapolis and Minnesota, and the Midwest, and America.

Their orgies were legendary!
...
That's the problem with too "strong" of a "traditional" national culture.

That's an odd thing to criticize a strongly normative culture for. Liz Cheney's strongly normative conservative culture looks down on "Trump et al" for flamboyantly behaving as themselves. My strongly normative moderate culture looks down on "Trump et al" for flamboyantly behaving as themselves. Your strongly normative progressive culture looks down on "Trump et al" for flamboyantly behaving as themselves. You're only singling out Prince's flamboyantly behaving as himself as behavior that should be immune to being looked down on by strongly normative cultures because you think Prince flamboyantly behaving as himself is awesome. Traditional national culture isn't doing anything the rest of our cultures don't do; all our cultures just pick and choose which flamboyantly behaving as oneselfs to be strongly normative against.