IMPACT OF JUNIOR OFFICER TRAINING CORPS (JROTC) ON EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOMES DAVID C. CALLAHAN

Transcription

1 IMPACT OF JUNIOR OFFICER TRAINING CORPS (JROTC) ON EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOMES by DAVID C. CALLAHAN B.A, University of Northern Colorado, 1988 M.B.A., Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 1998 M.M.A.S., Command and General Staff College, 2002 A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Research, and Foundations 2016

2 2016 DAVID C. CALLAHAN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

3 This dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophe degree by David C. Callahan Has been approved for the Department of Leadership, Research, and Foundations by Aldo Ramirez, Chair Joseph Taylor, Methodologist Patricia Witkowsky Margaret Scott Hal Bidlack Date November 1, 2016 ii

4 Callahan, David C. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership, Research and Policy) Impact of JROTC on Educational and Socioeconomic Outcomes Directed by Professor Aldo Ramirez ABSTRACT Despite a century of existence in the secondary educational system, the societal value of JROTC remains at odds among researchers, policy makers, and educational administrators alike. Much of the debate circulates around the role of Junior Reserve Training Corps (JROTC) in the American secondary education system as a youth development program or as a federal government program to militarize American adolescents. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether JROTC participation influences educational outcomes associated with: accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship; and, socioeconomic status (SES) outcomes as measured by: income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige. Research to date has primarily focused on traditional educational outcomes of JROTC participation associated with accomplishment and responsibility, such as graduation/dropout rates, discipline and suspension issues, and JROTC s role in military recruitment. This study, using longitudinal data derived from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002), breaks from the traditional patterns of research and includes educational outcomes associated with citizenship and service, along with socioeconomic outcomes associated with income, educational attainment and occupational prestige. The research suggests that JROTC participation has mixed results with respect to educational outcomes as determined by the selected proxy variables utilized in this study. JROTC participants generally reported iii

5 lower GPA, ACT, and SAT scores, along with lower high school attainment rates, as compared with non-jrotc participants. JROTC cadets additionally reported higher levels of suspension and discipline issues, while having lower tardiness and dropout rates than non-jrotc participants. JROTC participants also reported higher levels of service and citizenship outcomes associated with service recognition, community service, importance of helping others, voting behavior, participation in citizenship activities and being patriotic, while having lower levels of participation in school service and student government activities. JROTC cadets also reported lower levels of performance across all SES outcomes associated with: income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige. However, research clearly suggests that the number of years of JROTC participation, within the JROTC group itself, has a positive effect among JROTC participants with respect to educational and socioeconomic outcomes. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...1 Purpose of the Study Research gap...3 Research questions....3 Scope of the Study Limitations and delimitations...5 Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...7 JROTC History Origin and evolution Policy and curriculum Educational Outcomes Accomplishment Responsibility Service...21 Citizenship Social Economic Status Outcomes Income...31 Education Occupation...32 v

7 III. METHODOLOGY..33 Study Purpose and Design Sample design and data collection Base year (2002)...35 First follow-up (2004)...35 First follow-up transcript study (2004) Second follow-up (2006)...36 Third and final follow-up (2012)...36 Postsecondary transcript collection (2015)...37 Sample Data Weighting and Imputation.37 Weighting...40 Imputation Measures and Covariates Independent variable...44 Dependent variable Educational Outcomes...44 Accomplishment Responsibility...46 Service...48 Citizenship SES Outcomes Control Variables vi

8 Statistical Model...53 IV. RESULTS Educational Outcomes Accomplishment Responsibility...60 Service...63 Citizenship...65 Socioeconomic Outcomes...67 Income...67 Educational attainment.68 Occupational prestige SES Composite V. DISCUSSION Educational Outcomes...73 Accomplishment...73 Responsibility...75 Service..76 Citizenship...77 Socioeconomic Outcomes...78 Income...79 Educational attainment.80 Occupational prestige vii

9 SES Composite Threat to Validity...83 Future Research REFERENCES...85 APPENDICES A. Name, Label, and Description of Variables...96 viii

10 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics Categorical Frequencies Construct Alignment with Educational Outcomes Covariates ATET GPA ATET ACT ATET SAT ATET High School Attainment ATET Tardiness ATET Discipline ATET Suspension ATET Dropout ATET Service Recognition ATET School Service ATET Community Service ATET Helping Others ATET Voting Behavior ATET Student Government ATET Units in Citizenship ATET Being Patriotic ATET Income ix

11 22. ATET Educational Attainment (Bachelors) ATET Educational Attainment (Associates) ATET Educational Attainment (Post-secondary) ATET Occupation (1-year JROTC) ATET Occupation (4-years JROTC) ATET SES.. 71 x

12 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. JROTC Cadet Creed as adopted by the U.S. Army Conceptual Model of JROTC Influence on Educational and Socioeconomic Outcomes xi

13 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) was established by Congress in 1916 with the passage of the National Defense Act. The act authorized the loan of federal military equipment and active or retired military personnel to serve as instructors in secondary schools, with a prescribed program of military training and instruction. Schools were required to maintain a minimum enrollment of 100 students over the age of 14 and provide three hours of military instruction per week for a period of three years (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). Initially operating in 30 schools with about 45,000 students during the school year, JROTC has experienced various periods of expansion and growth through the years because of public support and several legislative acts. Such actions have expanded JROTC s presence within the American secondary educational system to more than 500,000 students and nearly 3,500 schools (Laurence & Estrada, 2002). The program of instruction has also evolved over the years from a drill and ceremony, military focused training program, to curricula including instruction on leadership, technology awareness, self-esteem, citizenship, human relations, and life skills for high school and beyond. The emphasis placed on motivating young people to be better citizens has also evolved over the years as reflected in the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the respective services JROTC mission statements (Department of Defense Instruction, 2006). Despite a century of existence in our secondary educational system, the societal value of JROTC remains at odds among researchers, policy makers, and educational administrators alike. Much of the debate circulates around the role of JROTC in the

14 2 American secondary education system as a youth development program or as a federal government program to militarize American adolescents (Jones, 2013; Lutz & Bartlet, 1995; Morales, 2012; Taylor, 1999; Walls, 2003). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate whether JROTC participation influences educational outcomes associated with: accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship; and, socioeconomic status (SES) outcomes as measured by: income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige. This quantitative study will measure such outcomes in the hope of providing educational administrators and policy makers with empirical evidence that will assist them in understanding the effect of JROTC participation on educational and SES outcomes. Such information will be of value in understanding the actual societal benefit of JROTC and the future federal, state, and school district resourcing of JROTC programs. Research to date has primarily focused on the traditional educational outcomes of JROTC participation associated with accomplishment and responsibility, such as graduation/dropout rates, discipline and suspension issues, and JROTC s role in military recruitment (Bartlet & Lutz, 1998; Bulach, 2002; Pema & Mehay, 2005; Taylor 1999). Much of JROTC research studies have also been conducted at the local versus national level, with many of the studies analyzing data from just a few schools, districts, or states (Ameen, 2009; Bachmann, 1994; Elliott, Lawrence, Hanser, & Gilroy, 2002; Marks, 2004; Pollard, 2007; Schmidt, 2003; Stevens, Schroder, Kwari, & Sanchez, 1996). This study breaks from the traditional patterns of research generally focused on accomplishment and responsibility (Ingels, Glennie, Lauff, & Wirt, 2012), and includes educational outcomes

15 3 associated with citizenship and service, along with SES outcomes, which remain fertile ground for further study. Research gap. Variance in the findings of educational outcomes that measure accomplishment and responsibility, along with limited studies that address citizenship and service, and absence of studies that explore JROTC correlations with SES, suggest the need for further study and research with respect to the effect of JROTC on such outcomes. As such, the aim of this study is to expand the understanding of JROTC s effect on educational outcomes associated with accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship; and provide empirical evidence of JROTC s potential effect on life outcomes as measured by SES indicators of income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige. Such findings will potentially serve to validate existing literature with respect to the traditional indicators of educational outcomes, while also contributing to the limited literature associated with service and citizenship, fill a void in literature with respect to SES outcomes of JROTC participants, and demonstrate the value and effectiveness of JROTC programs. Research questions. The questions driving this research are focused on the impact of JROTC on educational and SES outcomes. The research questions are: (1) What effect does JROTC participation have on educational outcomes associated with accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship; (2) What effect does the number of years of JROTC participation have on educational outcomes among JROTC cadets; (3) What effect does JROTC participation have on SES outcomes associated with income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige; and (4) What effect does the number of years of JROTC participation have on SES outcomes among JROTC cadets?

16 4 Scope of the Study Educational and SES outcomes are compared between JROTC and non-jrotc participants using nationally representative longitudinal data derived from the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002). The focus of ELS: 2002 was to assess students trajectories from the beginning of high school into postsecondary education, the workforce, and beyond, which makes this study ideal for analyzing longitudinal data associated with educational and SES outcomes (Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, 2015). Longitudinal data will be selected from high school transcript data in 2005, and each of the four waves of ELS: The four waves consist of: (1) the base year (BY) in 2002 when students were high school sophomores (2) first follow-up (F1) in 2004 when students were high school seniors (3) second follow-up (F2) in 2006 when students were in post-secondary attendance or had entered the workforce and (4) the third and final follow-up (F3) in 2012 when most students had completed their post-secondary education and were actively engaged in the workforce. Propensity score matching (PSM) will be used to identify matched sets of treated and untreated subjects for data comparison purposes that mimic characteristics of a randomized control trial. The means of these matched sets are estimated to determine the average treatment effect on treated (ATET) of participating in JROTC with respect to the various continuous outcomes of interest. A probit and logistic regression model, using covariate adjustment, will be used in determining adjusted odds ratios for the dichotomous and multinomial outcomes (Austin, 2011).

17 5 Limitations and delimitations. This study is limited to quantitative data obtained during the four waves of the ELS: 2002 study. After data cleaning, and adjustments for missing data, the sample size consists of 598 JROTC participants and 10,890 non-jrotc participants. Four proxy variables are selected from the ELS: 2002 data set for each of the constructs representing accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship. Proxies for accomplishment are limited to GPA during the first follow-up in 2004, ACT and SAT scores obtained through high school transcripts as of 2005, and high school attainment indicators as of the second follow-up in Indicators of responsibility are limited to data on tardiness, discipline, and suspension as collected during the base year of the study in This limits the effects of these variables on JROTC participation to only one year. Dropout status measures are restricted to data only gathered during the first follow-up in 2004, and do not include alternate completers beyond that period. Service proxies include service award recognition that is only available in the base year data (2002) and does not capture follow-up service recognitions. The remaining service proxies: school service, community service, and helping others are only available during the first follow-up, which limits the nature of the effect beyond high school attendance. The citizenship construct includes data on student government participation, units in citizenship, and demonstrating patriotism, all of which are as collected during the first follow-up in Voter behavior, however, is restricted to the third follow-up in 2012, when the sample members were all voting age and had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election.

18 6 Income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige data were all restricted to data observed at the time of the third follow-up in 2012 as well. The purpose of this limitation was to allow much of sample members adequate time to obtain their personal education attainment, and have established themselves in the workforce. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 presented the introduction, purpose of the study, research questions, scope of the study, and concludes with limitations and delimitations of the study. Chapter 2 contains a review of related literatures and research related to the origin and evolution of the JROTC program, and a review of JROTC policy and curriculum development. Literature is then presented with respect to educational and SES outcomes. The methodology and procedures that will be used to gather data for the study are presented in Chapter 3. The results of analysis and findings that will emerge from the study will be contained in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will contain a summary of the study and findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and recommendations for future study.

19 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Although the Junior Officer s Training Corps (JROTC) program is approaching nearly a century of service to the American education system, the actual effect of this government subsidized program, with respect to educational and socioeconomic outcomes, remains largely unsettled. At the heart of the debate is the effectiveness of JROTC with respect to educational outcomes associated with accomplishment and responsibility, most notably academic achievement, graduation and dropout rates, discipline related issues, and JROTC s role in military recruitment. Despite the longevity of JROTC, the volume of literature was found to be limited and more prevalent during periods of debate concerning the value and purpose of JROTC. Literature also remains scarce regarding educational outcomes associated with service and citizenship, and void with respect to socioeconomic outcomes. While the effect of JROTC on educational outcomes remains at odds within the research community (Ameen, 2009; Bachmann, 1994; Berlowitz, 2000; Bogden, 1984; Hauser & Warren, 1997; Lutz & Bartlet, 1995; Marks, 2004; National Research Center for College & University Admissions, 2014; Schmidt, 2003), the effect of JROTC on SES outcomes remains unknown. The objectives, and more importantly the impact of the JROTC program on educational and socioeconomic outcomes, serve to guide the literature review, with an emphasis on literature that encompasses such outcomes. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) number provides the framework for the educational outcomes of interest for this review. The educational outcomes identified in DODI include: a sense of accomplishment, personal responsibility, service to

20 8 the United States, and a value of citizenship. Socioeconomic status outcomes are considered as conceptualized and measured by a combination of educational attainment, income and occupational measures. This literature review is constructed in three sections. Section one examines literature on JROTC history, from its origin through its policy and curriculum development within the American secondary education system. Section two explores literature from opposing studies and perspectives with respect to educational outcomes aligned with accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship. This literature review concludes with a review of literature regarding the identification and measurement of SES from multiple perspectives, and the selection of individual proxies and composite measures of SES used in this study. JROTC History Origin and evolution. Historical literature, with respect to the JROTC program, was surprisingly scarce, and primarily limited to Long s (2003) work on the origins and early developments of JROTC, and the U.S. Army Cadet Command: The Ten-Year History (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). A Comprehensive Study of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Program, sponsored by the Accession Policy Directorate in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness, provided additional historical insights regarding the evolution of JROTC from inception to its present-day position in the American secondary education system (Laurence & Estrada, 2002). Initially created to provide officer candidates and enlisted recruits in the time of war, the JROTC program evolved over the years to its present mission of motivating young people to be better citizens. In fact, JROTC is one of the few ways in

21 9 which the military has served American society in other than a warfighting capacity, and remains the Department of Defense s (DOD) largest youth development program (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). The National Defense Act of 1916 authorized the establishment of a senior and junior division of ROTC that was staffed by active or retired military personnel who provided military and drill instruction three periods per week for two years. Military equipment was authorized on loan to secondary educational institutions that followed a mandated curriculum, as established by the Secretary of War, and maintained a minimum enrollment of 100 physically fit male students over the age of 14 (Long, 2003). Operating in 30 schools with approximately 45,000 students during the school year, JROTC increased to 295 units and an enrollment of approximately 72,000 by Following World War II, JROTC growth was frozen due to federal funding and manpower constraints. Such actions, coupled with the creation and expansion of the National Defense Cadet Corps (NDCC) between the inter-war period, resulted in a decline of the number of JROTC units to 254. In 1961, seeing no direct contribution to military requirements, and having a cost of $4.7 million and 700 active duty personnel to serve as instructors, Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara directed the conversion of JROTC into NDCC units, which were less costly. McNamara underestimated the public support of the JROTC programs in local communities, and thus, JROTC supporters in the House of Representatives introduced legislation that expanded the JROTC program to a maximum of 2,000 units, with Navy and Air Force representation as well (Cuombe & Harford, 1996).

22 10 The ROTC Vitalization Act that shortly followed in 1964 required services to increase their JROTC programs and achieve a more homogenous geographic distribution of units across the nation. A new provision also incentivized high schools to hire military retirees as JROTC instructors, which further separated the active duty connection with JROTC. During the next decade, the JROTC program grew from 294 to 646 units, and enrollment increased from 74,421 to 110,839 (Cuombe & Harford, 1996). Following the end of the Vietnam War in the early 1970 s, the All-Volunteer Force (AFV), which derives its manpower from volunteers versus mandatory service, presented new challenges for the JROTC program. Faced with recruitment challenges, the Army authorized advanced grade enlistments for JROTC participants, as well as nominations to a military academy dependent on performance and experience in JROTC. This period also witnessed the inclusion of women in JROTC in the school year (Laurence & Estrada, 2002). The next significant change in JROTC was initiated by President George H.W. Bush on August 24, 1992: Today I m doubling the size of our junior ROTC program. We re going to expand it from 1500 to 2900 schools. JROTC is a great program that boosts high school completion rates, reduces drug use, raises self-esteem, and gets these kids firmly on the right track (Cuombe & Harford, 1996, p. 276). A renewed emphasis at the national level for such a significant growth in JROTC programs was most likely attributed to the Los Angeles riots in April, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell was touched by the aftermath of disturbances he witnessed first-hand and characterized JROTC as the best opportunity

23 11 for the Defense of Defense to make a positive impact on the nation s youth in a memorandum he sent to the Secretary of Defense on June 8, 1992 (Cuombe & Harford, 1996). Public and legislative support for increasing the number of JROTC programs was so great during this period that the actual number of JROTC programs was raised from 1,500 to 3,500 with the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act of Expansion focused in underrepresented areas in the northeast and inner-cities with populations greater than 150,000. The justification of such a significant increase was based on the argument that JROTC increased high school completion rates, reduced drug use, raised self-esteem, and kept students on the right track (Laurence & Estrada, 2002). This period also saw the growth of JROTC Career Academies, which was a joint venture between DOD and the Department of Education (DOE) for improving educational outcomes of diverse, lower socioeconomic and at-risk student populations. Several JROTC Career Academy studies have indicated positive student outcomes in GPA, attendance, and high school attainment, while others have found improved student satisfaction and higher post-secondary attendance rates, more so for at-risk versus general population or vocational students (Elliott, Hanser, Lawrence & Gilroy, 2001; Kemple & Snipes, 2000; Stevens, Schroder, Kwari & Sanchez, 1996; Wonacott, 2002). Attempts by the Senate Armed Services Committee to cut JROTC by 10%, just a few years later in 1996, found strong opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senator Sam Nunn from Georgia, and once again JROTC withstood such forces to reduce its presence and capability (Laurence & Estrada, 2002).

24 12 Although initially created to provide officer candidates and enlisted recruits in the time of war, JROTC has evolved through the years in response to the political and public pressures it has faced, and has significantly expanded its presence within the American secondary educational system to more than 500,000 students and nearly 3,500 programs, with an emphasis on motivating young people to be better citizens (Laurence & Estrada, 2002). Policy and curriculum. The DOD objectives of JROTC are to instill the value of citizenship, service to the United States, personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment (Department of Defense Instruction, 2006). Within that respective guidance, each service has developed their own service specific curriculum and program of instruction and each service funds their respective programs. The Army s JROTC program, given its longevity and size as compared to the other services, is the focus for the remainder of this literature review. Since its inception in 1916, and through the 1970 s, JROTC curriculum and instruction was focused on military training. For example, textbooks contained organizational structures of military units, instruction in field sanitation, drill and ceremonies, marksmanship, and other combat related tasks (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). In fact, it wasn t until the mid-1980 s, with the adoption of the JROTC Improvement Plan (JRIP), that there was a shift from military training to the field of technology. A shortage of scientists and engineers in the military was the driving force behind the curriculum change. The Army s goal had shifted to attracting more academically-oriented students in schools that historically had been concentrated in poor schools that did not send students to college (Coumbe & Harford, 1996, p. 263).

25 13 In 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General John A. Wickham, requested a detailed review of the JROTC program. This review identified an absence of a formal and coordinated growth plan, cadre selection and training program, and a lack of policy. Surprisingly, the review revealed that the JROTC program had operated since 1916 without a mission statement, which was identified as a significant shortcoming. The Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proposed a mission statement that highlighted the importance of the citizen-leader aspect of the JROTC program. It read: To develop informed and responsible citizens and to promote an understanding of the U.S. Army in support of natural objectives (Coumbe & Harford, 1996, p. 266). This mission statement clearly demonstrated the importance that the study group envisioned between citizenship and supporting national objectives. Lacking academic credibility in the eyes of General Wickham, a more detailed ambitious mission statement was proposed and adopted: To help develop informed and responsible citizens, aid the growth of their leadership potential, strengthen their character through teaching of the values associated with service life, acquaint them with the technology inherent to a modern Armed Force, and promote an understanding of the historical role of citizen-soldiers and their service and sacrifice to the nation, thereby creating an interest in military service as a career (Coumbe & Harford, 1996, p. 266). It is with this mission statement that the elements of citizenship, service, and responsibility began to shape the current objectives and purpose of JROTC. The JRIP also recommended that JROTC be a more prolific source of recruits for the Army; however, Major General Prillaman, Deputy Chief of Staff ROTC, did not want JROTC to

26 14 be perceived primarily as a recruiting source for the regular Army and this recommendation was not approved (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). This decision further demonstrates the Army s long-term commitment to JROTC s purpose of motivating young people to be better citizens, rather than becoming Army recruits. The Army s JROTC mission statement, adopted in 1987, was: To motivate young people to be good Americans (Coumbe & Harford, 1996, p. 269). This mission statement was later changed during the revision of Army Regulation 145-2, Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Program Organization, Administration, Operation, and Support in 2000 to state: To motivate young people to be better citizens. The following excerpt from AR 145-2, paragraph 1-5, details the current mission philosophy for JROTC: Junior ROTC is a national program authorized by laws enacted by Congress and conducted by the Department of the Army in cooperation with educational institutions in response to needs expressed by the people of the United States. a. Mission. The mission of the Junior ROTC is: To motivate young people to be better citizens. b. Purpose. The program works to instill in students in United States secondary educational institutions the values of citizenship, service to the community and the United States, personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment. c. Objectives. The Army Junior ROTC objectives are to develop in each cadet- (1) Appreciation of the ethical values and principles that underlie good citizenship which include integrity, acceptance of responsibility, and respect for constituted authority.

27 15 (2) Leadership potential with the ability to live and work cooperatively with others. (3) Ability to think logically and to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. (4) Appreciation of the importance of physical fitness in maintaining good health. (5) Knowledge of the effects and dangers of substance abuse, ways to resist negative peer pressure and how to support others in drug use avoidance. (6) Mental management abilities such as goal setting, visualization, and positive self-esteem. (7) Familiarity with the history, purpose, and structure of the military services with emphasis on the accomplishments of the United States Army. (8) Knowledge of educational and vocational opportunities and the development of the basic skills necessary to work effectively as a member of a military or civilian team. (9) Understanding the importance of high school graduation to a successful future. It is clear from this mission philosophy that the main objectives of the Army JROTC program are on developing personal skills that improve one s citizenship, versus the militarization of students in our secondary schools. A review of the current JROTC curriculum also finds a shift from the old curricula that included weapons training and tactical instruction. The JROTC Program of Instruction (POI) includes: leadership, self-esteem, goal setting, ethics/values, human

28 16 relations, citizenship, life skills, American history, communication, physical fitness, map reading, first aid, technology awareness, math module, science module, career opportunities, role of the Armed Forces, current events, and management/budget (Coumbe & Harford, 1996). This POI clearly demonstrated an academic versus militaristic concentration of instruction and is aligned with the DOD objectives of instilling the value of citizenship, service to the United States, personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment in students of American educational institutions. The following outcomes of JROTC, as established by Cadet Command further demonstrate a commitment of motivating young people to become better citizens: a. Act with integrity and personal accountability as they lead others to succeed in a diverse and global workforce. b. Engage civic and social concerns in the community, government, and society. c. Graduate prepared to excel in post-secondary options and career pathways. d. Make decisions that promote positive social, emotional, and physical health. e. Value the role of the military and other service organizations (Army JROTC curriculum, 2015, p. 1). The intent of this section was to gain an understanding of the events and forces that shaped the development of JROTC over the past century. With this understanding, one is more equipped to further explore the relationships and implications of the educational and socioeconomic outcomes associated with JROTC. The next section will review the literature with respect to the educational outcomes associated with JROTC, more specifically: accomplishment, responsibility, service, and citizenship.

29 17 Educational Outcomes Equality of education remains one of the top issues and concerns of academic researchers and government policy makers (Aikins & Barbarin, 2008; Coleman et al., 1966; Coley, 2002; Dewey, 1916). Since the publishing of the Coleman Report in 1966, this landmark study has had a significant impact in the shaping of numerous social and educational research studies and government policies regarding equality of education. Key findings of this study suggested that equal opportunity was best assessed by equality of outcome rather than equality of input, and how schools could overcome such inequalities (Scott & Marshall, 2009). As such, this review is focused on educational outcomes versus inputs. Outcomes in education have traditionally been studied (Bogden, 1984; Coleman, Hoffer & Kilgore, 1982; Elliott et al., 2002) and measured using educational achievement metrics associated with graduation/dropout rates, attendance, improvements in test scores and grade point averages, and ultimately post-secondary attendance and educational attainment. Socio-economic status is also a common factor and variable of interest in many studies concerning equality of education and remains a common variable of interest, whether as an indicator or control (Bornstein, & Bradley, 2012; Sinclair, Doughney, & Palermo, 2002). The Coleman report found that variations in school quality had minimal association with educational outcomes when comparing students of similar social economic backgrounds across schools; however, differences in students backgrounds were found to have significant associations with achievement. Educational attainment was also found to have a strong correlation to the backgrounds of other students in the

30 18 school. These findings led academic researchers and policy makers to argue that it was families, not schools that mattered with respect to educational attainment (Scott & Marshall, 2009). Coleman later reported in follow-up research that school characteristics did matter after controlling for social economic factors (Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982; Coleman, & Hoffer, 1987). As briefly noted above, academic researchers have obtained varied results regarding the characteristics that influence educational outcomes. The educational outcomes of interest selected for further review in this study include traditional indicators associated with accomplishment and responsibility, and less researched outcomes associated with service and citizenship. These educational outcomes provide the focus for further review. Accomplishment. Much debate exists around the effectiveness of JROTC in instilling educational outcomes associated with a sense of accomplishment, which has typically been measured by grade point average, academic testing, attainment, and graduation. These markers were found to be prevalent in the research and at odds with each other. An independent report of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) study group on education and the military, conducted in 2010, found some common ground in military-style education meeting accomplishment goals of not only the military itself, but also higher education and the business community (National Association of State Boards of Education, 2010). For example, this study found that Chicago Public Schools military academies, on average, had higher ACT composite scores; 17.7 as compared to 17 for other district students. This study also found national

31 19 level evidence that suggested JROTC participants had higher grade point averages (2.9) than their non-participant counterparts (2.7), and that they also experienced higher graduation rates (98%) than the overall school population (89%). Other independent agencies, such as the National Research Center for College & University Admissions (NRCCUA) for the College Options Foundation (COF), found that JROTC students were 30% more likely to be first generational college attendees. This study also found that 40% of JROTC students indicated that they would be the first in their families to attend college (National Research Center for College & University Admissions, 2014). Opponents (Bartlet and Lutz, 1998; Berlowitz, 2000; Jones, 2013; Pema and Mehay, 2005; Pollard, 2007) have provided evidence that JROTC has no effect on educational outcomes associated with accomplishment, while proponents (Elliott et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 1996) have claimed otherwise. Therefore, the educational outcomes associated with accomplishment remain in question and merit further research. Responsibility. Hanser and Robyn (2000) indicated that many employers found recent high school graduates lacking such attributes as responsibility, selfdiscipline, and leadership, which are commonly associated with JROTC curriculum and instruction. Responsibility has also been identified as being one of the top four soft skills needed in today s workplace (Robles, 2012). These findings, coupled with the DOD objective of JROTC of instilling personal responsibility in its participants, warrant a review of applicable literature. The effectiveness of JROTC, with respect to responsibility, varies within

32 20 available literature. Bogden (1984) suggested that the quality of JROTC programs depended greatly on the student enrolled and the inclination of the instructors. Others (Elliott et al., 2002; Stevens et al., 1996) suggested that JROTC has a positive effect on indicators associated with attendance, discipline, suspension and dropout rates, while yet even other authors have found JROTC participation as not having, or having a negative effect on such indicators (Lutz & Bartlet, 1995; Pema & Mehay, 2005). Lutz and Bartlet (1995) clearly presented the most dissenting view of JROTC having a positive effect on responsibility, with claims that neither dropout rates nor educational attainment had been measured and compared. Their claims however were more opinion based, as opposed to being supported by empirical evidence, as later found in the study conducted by Pema and Mehay (2005). There appeared to be a greater availability and consensus among studies that indicated that JROTC cadets exhibit greater levels of personal responsibility than their peers. For example, Schmidt (2003) suggested that the organized team membership present in JROTC fosters accountability and personal responsibility, which in turn reduces delinquency and dropout rates. He provided such evidence, and further correlated that one million dropout students, at the time in prison, who were lacking personal responsibility, would benefit from the aspect of personal responsibility that is fostered in JROTC. Evidence of positive student outcomes in JROTC was also found in a RAND study conducted in 2000 (Elliott et al., 2012), in which attendance rates, along with other educational outcomes of interest, indicated that JROTC students had higher

33 21 attendance rates following enrollment in the program than would have been expected if they had not enrolled in the program. Additionally, comparison of character traits for JROTC students with non-jrotc students clearly supports that the JROTC curriculum has a positive effect on student behavior, specifically regarding the positive effect of peer pressure that occurs with JROTC (Bulach, 2002). This opinion was further shared by school counselors (Perusee, 1997), as well as principals and senior JROTC instructors, who stated that their JROTC programs were cost-effective in reducing dropout rates and increasing college attendance rates at their schools (Marks, 2004). This review of literature suggests that the JROTC program, despite its critics, indicates potential for further study and analysis regarding its effect of instilling and developing personal responsibility, which has been identified as being a shortcoming in high school graduates and one of great demand in the workforce. Service. Service-learning literature revealed that John Dewey s (1916) social and political philosophy on education and its connection with community and democracy align well with JROTC s purpose of instilling the value of service to the United States. Dewey s later works (1933, 1938) further highlighted the importance of the learning experience, inquiry, and reflection in relation to democracy and community, which is reflective in DOD Instruction (DODI , 2006) and JROTC curriculum (Army JROTC curriculum, 2015). Dewey understood the value of an education, not only with respect to the individual, but to the community and democracy as a whole (Dewey, 1916). Giles and Eyler (1994) reviewed aspects of Dewey s educational and social philosophy that they identified as relevant to the development of a theory of service

34 22 learning. In their work, the authors proposed nine areas for theory development and testing of service learning, one of which, labeled the Great Community, is of interest in this study. They proposed, in the context of the Great Community, whether participation in service learning led to a valuing of community. Such a proposition is explored in this study using the helping others indicator of service. It is clear that JROTC curriculum and program of instruction are aligned with the practice of service learning (Furco, 2011; Murphy & Rasch, 2010; National Youth Leadership Council, 2008). In fact, AR (2000) directs the Senior JROTC instructor and the principal to devise a plan whereby each cadet can participate in activities, service learning, and leadership responsibilities throughout the year. JROTC instructors, administrators, and teachers alike all acknowledge the value of service learning, especially for lower SES JROTC students who were normally on the receiving end of service programs. Service learning allowed these cadets to experience the giving side of service, which from a qualitative perspective was seen to improve their self-esteem and the desire to help others. Moral development, associated with volunteer service, was also acknowledged as a benefit of engaging in community service projects (Tully, 2010). However, the absence of quantitative literature regarding the effects of JROTC on service learning indicates a void in literature that this study will address specifically through analysis of the helping others indicator of service. Service was also reviewed in the context of volunteerism, which is rich in literature (Nolin, Chaney, & Chapman, 1997). Astin, Sax, and Avalos (1999) found that self-efficacy was developed through volunteering, which had a positive correlation with

35 23 post-secondary attendance, follow-up educational attainment, and continued volunteer service in the future; all of which are of benefit to society at large and of interest in this study. Young (2004) expanded upon the benefits of volunteerism and provided an overview of volunteerism in the public sector for comparison with the JROTC organizational volunteer. Kackar (2010) additionally provided insights as to the reasons high school students volunteer, and elaborated on their experiences and intentions to continue community service, all of which are of value in understanding the role of service, and its connection with the JROTC objectives of instilling a sense of service in its participants. While much research has been done with respect to young people, volunteering, and civic service, the Institute for Volunteering Research (Gaskin, 2004) found that much remained to be researched on forms, processes, and impacts. This study will address such concerns and further contribute to the literature in understanding the impact of JROTC participation on school and community service. Citizenship. Conover, Crewe, and Searing (1991) provided an understanding of the civic identities, rights, and duties that are foundational to citizenship and part of the JROTC program. Heslep s (1976) third approach to moral/citizenship education, alteration of student behavior in a prosocial direction, is most closely associated with JROTC s mission of instilling the value of citizenship in its participants. Review of the U.S. Army JROTC Cadet Creed, as depicted in Figure 1, demonstrates JROTCs deliberateness of instilling aspects of citizenship and patriotism in its participants. The emphasis of being loyal and patriotic is clearly emphasized in the JROTC Cadet Creed

36 24 and, as such, has been identified as an indicator of citizenship (U.S. Army Cadet Command, 2015). I am an Army Junior ROTC Cadet. I will always conduct myself to bring credit to my family, country, school, and the Corps of Cadets. I am loyal and patriotic. I am the future of the United States of America. I do not lie, cheat, or steal and will always be accountable for my actions and deeds. I will always practice good citizenship and patriotism. I will work hard to improve my mind and strengthen my body. I will seek the mantle of leadership and stand prepared to uphold the Constitution and the American way of life. May God grant me the strength to always live by this creed. Figure 1. JROTC Cadet Creed as adopted by the U.S. Army. Literature provides contrasting views concerning the effectiveness of JROTC with instilling the value of citizenship. Opponents of JROTC claim that the citizenship aspects instilled in JROTC participants are directly associated with militarism in schools and recruitment to military service (Bartlet & Lutz, 1998; Jones, 2013; Morales, 2002). JROTC proponents, on the other hand, claim that society benefits from JROTC s purpose of instilling the value of citizenship to the United States (Roberts, 1991). As such, research remains unsettled with respect to the benefit of JROTC in instilling citizenship and service to the United States.

37 25 Bartlet and Lutz (1998) provided a critical assessment of the JROTC curriculum, and that the message of JROTC is conformity, not individuality, and following duly constituted authority not inherent in true citizenship. The title of their research: JROTC: Making Soldiers in Public Schools is an indicator of their position, as is the quote below that summarizes their thoughts on JROTC s effect on citizenship: JROTC is antithetical to teaching students how to participate in a democracy, resolve conflicts peacefully, evaluate sources, and think analytically. Militarization of education and other social institutions may even pose a threat to the continuation of our democracy. Expansion of the JROTC program constitutes a proliferation of military influence into what should strictly be a civilian world of education and youth services. (p. 13) Bartlet and Lutz (1998) and Jones (2013) continued their criticism of JROTC, claiming that the JROTC program instills the wrong values into cadets and specifically targets minority students for recruitment, versus citizen development. In addition, Days and Ang (2004) found evidence suggesting a positive relationship regarding the propensity of JROTC cadets to enlist in the military upon graduation from high school. However, chiefs of staff testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2000 indicated that only 30-50% of graduating JROTC cadets go on to join the military. An enlistment rate of such would bring into question both Bartlet and Lutz s (1988) and Days and Ang s (2004) claim that the purpose of JROTC is to recruit economically disadvantaged youth for military service, given 50-70% of JROTC cadets do not join the military upon graduation, but rather join the ranks of the public. Funk (2002) found promise in JROTC s ability to improve citizenship, as

38 26 evidenced by his findings that: Many of our nation s children and the schools they inhabit suffer from modern problems that require a new frame of definition and demand solutions that are more effective than current approaches. JROTC provides an environment where many children without cohesive families can experience some stability and order in their lives, where clear rules, discipline, consequences, and authority figures exists. The leadership training development and education they experience are designed to make them better students, and eventually more productive and better citizens. (p. 55) Ameen (2009) concurred with Funk and other proponents that JROTC is designed to develop leadership skills along with helping students become better citizens, more so than improving academic achievement and increasing graduation rates. Participation in student government and citizenship courses are additional actions that improve citizenship. As such, they serve as indicators of citizenship that are measured in this study. The right to vote has also been identified as a basic right associated with citizenship; however, literature is silent with respect to the effect of JROTC on voting behavior. Therefore, this study examines the effect of JROTC on voting behavior to contribute to such literature. Although the review of literature on educational outcomes associated with JROTC participation was found to have mixed results, the results themselves identified voids in literature and opportunities for further research to supplement previous findings.