Are Public Military High Schools Good for Teens?

In Chicago, many people debate about the militarization of high schools, since Chicago has the highest number of Public Military High Schools (PMHC). It regards the future of the nation and what the next generation will be like, and the quality of the next generation is fundamentally linked to the system of education. The leaders of these schools claim that the Junior Reserve Officer Training Course (JROTC), present in 33 schools, teaches students discipline and leadership. Non-supporters of the program suggest that these schools are just attempting to lure students into the military after graduation. This essay will discuss some of the arguments put forward by the various parties and organizations. It will also determine why PMHCs are not what is best for teenagers.

Supervisors of the JROTC program claim that the PMHCs give students discipline and leadership skills, through drills and more drills. Drills have more than become a novelty to schools, it has become a necessity. For example, students have to stand at attention during roll call in a crisp uniform until his or her name is called. When people know that someone has been to a PMHC, that person is expected to be a disciplined and obedient individual, a soldier, in short. PMHCs make students into hardy and rugged soldiers who are controlled and obedient.

However, many parents and protesters insist that discipline does not necessary come with a multitude of drills. Discipline need not be synonymous to obedience. Students should learn to be a person with strict principles and morals but not someone who does whatever the sergeant of head officer orders. Discipline will come with maturity. Students should be robust and an innate knowledge of what is wrong and what is right. Instead of drills, experienced educators and programs that teach life skills should be introduced in schools.

In PMHCs, subjects such as naval science are taught to educate students about certain subjects that are not available on the other schools. They learn about wars and have field trips to the naval academies. They learn about the history of US, its battles and wars. The field trips to naval academies also educates them the about the defense of their own nation. These are in addition to the core curriculum of schools, such as: mathematics and English. Their grades are in the average range, but it is acceptable and is rising. The extra subjects do not impede the development of the students’ knowledge and intelligence.

The subjects associated with military that was just mentioned are targets of protestors. It is argued that too much of the students’ time is devoted to these subjects that bear a military affiliation. Pupils need to improve and study subjects that they need for occupations such as engineering or medicine.

Many people believe that PMHCs are there to indoctrinate students into the military. This is not wrong as defense is an important part of a nation. The programs are military in nature to let students who are not very books-oriented to have a safe future in the military. But students should be left to make his choice; instead of the school doing all it can to encourage the students to join the military. In an environment where the staff supports military occupation aspirations and peers wanting to join the Army (or the Navy; or the Air Force; or the Marines), it is difficult not to be influenced to converge with the majority. Thus PMHCs make having a wide occupation choice difficult by advocating military-type futures.

In conclusion, these PMHCs should still be open to the public, but adopt a more general and mainstream curriculum. Drills should also be placed at secondary importance. Discipline should still be there. Through these, a much better school, producing much better students, could be achieved.