Yes, and that's why I'm not sure how this idea is going to be executed. Perhaps it will include some training; I don't know.

There are many civilians that work in the military, today, but I couldn't tell you what kind of orientation or training they have to go through to do that, if any. My only dealing with military procedure was actually being in the military.

But, for instance, if I needed blood work done, it was usually civilians that did it. Sometimes, briefings would include civilian contractors to give insight on a specific bit they were involved with. Things like that.

Support for Civilian Reserve Funding
• Maintaining a reserve corps of about 3,000 people (including funding necessary standby capacity within specific U.S. government agencies and offices) and sustaining it over time would have a recurrent cost of about $125 million.
A Civilian Reserve of personnel suitable for S&R operations is needed because the complex needs of peacebuilding efforts in post-conflict societies require a U.S. government response that goes beyond any one single department or agency. Developing a roster of people who can deploy to S&R operations is not difficult; the problem is their availability. The U.S. military essentially provides a standby capacity, in the sense that it trains and plans for particular missions and has the troops available to deploy quickly in the event of an emergency. In contrast, civilians who have critical knowledge and skills for S&R activities often have jobs they cannot easily leave.
If U.S. government civilian agencies are to quickly deploy people to S&R operations, the agencies must not have to make a choice between losing essential staff for normal operating functions and providing critical staff for a U.S. government S&R operation. Funding is needed to create spare personnel capacities in specific and relevant U.S. government civilian agencies to allow for whole of government participation in planning and implementing a holistic national strategy for S&R.
Another reason for developing a proper civilian reserve capacity is to avoid the use of contractors. For example, the U.S. government needs to be able to deploy police, police trainers, and rule of law experts to S&R operations. However, most of these capabilities are now deployed through contractual mechanisms. As a result, there is no common doctrine and no joint training in advance, leaving people deployed into situations essentially blind.

Currently, this is what the "good schools" do. That test is called the SATs. And for my AP classes, that test was called the AP exam.

The test that schools have to be geared towards these days, is so pathetically easy, that if people aren't passing them, there are some real problems.

I'd like a source on your first claim, please. I haven't been able to locate one that states that a school's Federal funding is based on how their students perform on the SAT or Advanced Placement classes, and I was under the impression that both tests are more for the student's academic career than the schools that teach them.

Thanks!

Personally, I don't really like blurring the line between military and civilian, at all.

And is America planning to attack, invade and occupy more countries it doesn't like? Police trainers?

That is how private schools are compared. I'm saying before NCLB, teaching towards a specific test was what the prestigious schools did. A school got a good reputation based on how well the students did on the SATs and APs.

Note that we are talking about the No Child Left Behind act, and the funding provided (or denied!) to public schools.

(And private schools using testing to compare themselves to one another doesn't exactly make it "right"... basing everything off of a test just encourages teachers to cater directly to that test when teaching-- that, or ordered to cater to the test by the school administration.)

*sigh*

Teaching towards a test is probably the best thing you can do. It makes sure that people actually know things, instead of just feeling good that they might know things. The better the test the better people will learn. Even just learning for the SAT's which is all about learning how to take that particular test, and less about the content of the test is better for people in the long run. It teaches many skills that currently I am happy that I learned.

And... misses out on other things, as you yourself just said. Knowing how to take the test is fine... but you still need the other things as well.

I say we need a balance between being able to pass standardized, comprehensive tests, and being able to perform life skills. With a well rounded education that focuses both on knowledge and skills, you get someone who is better able to adapt to the situations of the real world.

The only things that they miss out on, as far as I know are things like P.E. and Shop, which have been removed from schools almost completely these days anyways.

If they are able to pass, then I would suggest maybe not spending so much time on it.

And my point is... is that what's actually happening? If your funding is based entirely upon that test... would you risk doing ANYTHING else that has the POSSIBILITY of jeopardizing your future in your career (either teacher or school administration)? For some, yes. For others..?

Is there ever going to be a system that will keep everyone straight? Or even the majority?