Principal Perceptions of the Effectiveness of JROTC Programs and the Reasons for

Supporting Them


Patty Blake





Research Proposal submitted for
LS 703 Research Design
at Marshall University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of



Doctorate of Education
in
Curriculum and Instruction






Michael Cunningham, Ed.D. Professor
Graduate School of Education and Professional Development
South Charleston, West Virginia
2011




Copyright, 2011, Patty Blake

2

RESEARCH PROPOSAL: PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
JROTC PROGRAMS AND THE REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THEM


Perhaps no other program in education has stirred more controversy over an extended
period of time as the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp (JROTC). As a voluntary curricular
program, JROTC has been in existence for almost a century. Today, data available from each of
the sponsoring military branches shows 3,346 schools across the United States have a JROTC
program (See Table 1). In 2008, there were an estimated 700 schools on waiting lists for the
program (Arnoldy and Lubold, 2008). Although opponents argue it is merely a recruitment tool
for the military which targets minority and disadvantaged youth, JROTC, open to all students
over the age of 14, continues to grow. Some of the growth can be attributed to funding for the
program which is shared by the U.S. Department of Defense (Coumbe, Hartford, and Kotakis,
1996).
Background
On November 14, 2006, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to eliminate the
Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp (JROTC) from the citys public high schools eliciting
uproar from parents, cadets, and school staff members (Coumbe, Kotakis, and Gammell, 2008).
In 2009, the Board reversed the decision and reinstated the program. During the interim, Rachel
Norton, a public school parent and member of the Board of Education, talked with the instructors
and cadets. She heard cadets tell about the physical conditioning and leadership skills they had
learned in the JROTC program and she heard cadets share their plans to go to college.
Conversations with instructors lead her to a reasonable assurance that participation in JROTC did
not lead to military recruitment and that the program did not, as opponents argued, discriminate
against gay, bisexual, or transgendered students. She came to believe that the program offered a
3

sense of belonging and structure for many students in San Francisco. She also explored data and
concluded that JROTC had demonstrated positive outcomes in increasing graduation rates,
keeping at-risk students in school, and encouraging students to enroll in college. She discovered
over half of the 230 graduates from the 2008 class of Balboa High had taken at least one
semester of JROTC and of those there were no enlistments. Instead, the graduates indicated
plans of enrolling in vocational training or colleges. In the end, despite growing up in Berkley
with the prevailing anti-war and anti-military atmosphere, she opted to vote in support of
reinstating JROTC (Norton, 2008).
The debate in San Francisco is an example of the controversy that has surrounded JROTC
since its inception. It seems as if the program is accepted and embraced unconditionally or
completely and vehemently rejected. One side sings the praises of JROTC. Farmer (2000), a
cadet from Pleasantville, New Jersey expresses pride in the program, Each JROTC Cadet is
committed to upholding the values in which made this nation great. We understand that good
citizenship is our goal and responsibility, and these are our watchwords. We are not only
represent our nation's past and present, but its future (p. 46). On the other side, opponents voice
outrage at a military presence in the nations high schools and find no support to the claims of
efficacy for the program. Ayers (2006), contends the discipline provided by JROTC fails to
produce critical thinking skills. He likens it to obedience training which may have a place in
instructing dogs, but not in educating citizens (p. 597).
The purpose for this study will be to explore the perceptions of high school principals in
schools with JROTC programs. Schools with JROTC programs from the Seventh

Brigade
encompassing, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia will serve as the sample
population. This will be a two part study. The first part of the study proposes to survey
4

principals perceptions of JROTC as aligned to the programs purpose statement. The second
part of the study will attempt to compare the perceptions of high school principals regarding
JROTC across demographic variables of rurality, socioeconomic levels, school size, number of
JROTC participants, the length of JROTC program, and the branch of service represented by the
program.
History

There is a dearth of knowledge from research regarding the effect of JROTC in American
high schools and much of the research is dated. Numerous studies come from those affiliated
with the military, often as retired active duty officers (Flowers, 1999; Hicks, 2000; Logan, 2000;
Marks, 2004; Schmidt, 2001, Schmidt, 2003, Walls, 2003). Bias toward the military in general
and JROTC in particular, is difficult to contain. Other studies focus specifically on one branch
of military service and the subsequent JROTC program connected with that branch.
Long (2003) provides a comprehensive and qualitative examination of the origins,
growth, and present day influence of the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC)
based on two basic social constructs; preparedness and expansionism. He explains the role
played by these two constructs on the program and how the constructs have lead to recruitment
efforts targeting working class and minority students.
The 1916 National Defense Act, which Long (2003) interprets as a merger between the
concepts of imperialism and expansionism served two purposes. First, it assisted in the
fulfillment of the Morrill Act of 1862 which required military training and instruction in all state
colleges and universities. More importantly, however, it laid the groundwork for the
establishment of the JROTC. The National Defense Act of 1916 established the Reserve
Officers Training Corps (ROTC) and the junior program, JROTC to maintain and fill the ranks
5

of officers in the event of a war and to provide educated and well-trained military personnel for
the Officer Reserve Personnel during times of peace (Long, 2003). Two World Wars, a national
depression, and other factors significantly shaped and influenced JROTC. Large waves of
immigrants, increasing industrialization, a growing working class, and population shifts toward
urban areas were key factors. By the end of the 1920s, units began to reflect the changing
society and showed trends toward large public school systems, large urban areas with high
immigrant and working class populations and southern cities noted for military academies as
well as pockets of poverty (Long, 2003; Bartlett & Lutz, 1998). In a comparison of two Navy
JROTC programs, Dohle (2001) attributed the success of one school to their ability to match the
composition of recruits toward greater minority and female students. World War I and World
War II necessitated a channeling of funds toward war efforts and away from JROTC; therefore,
program growth was slow. Following World War II, however, the nation keenly recognized the
need for future preparedness and attention was slowly refocused on JROTC (Long, 2003). While
the ROTC has always held a military orientation, Harrill (1984) noted that the JROTC has
maintained and supported social and educational goals and objectives.
Two periods of revitalization are significant. The first came in the early 1960s. Robert
McNamara, Secretary of Defense argued that JROTC produced no officers and made no direct
contribution to the military. His stance was to eliminate funding to the program and to transfer
existing units to the National Defense Cadet Corp (NDCC), a competing program which was
fully funded by participating schools. With the exception of limited funds to be used in the
conversion, the 1964 budget set aside no money to fund the JROTC. McNamara, however, did
not expect the public outcry in support of the program. After an extensive survey of school
officials, parents, and community members, an eleven member Department of Defense
6

commission determined that JROTC was an irreplaceable national asset (p.18) worth the cost.
The commission recommended the elimination of the NDCC due to lack of support and
resources and argued for the continuation and expansion of JROTC (Logan, 2000). The Reserve
Officers Training Corp Vitalization Act of 1964 required all branches of the military to
participate in JROTC, set a goal of 1,200 units to be operational by 1966, required the
sponsoring school to supply adequate facilities and a course of military instruction not less than
three academic years in duration, and required the military to provide texts, equipment, and
materials (Reserve Officers Training Corps Vitalization Act, 1964). An amendment to the act
was made in 1973 allowing females to join as cadets (Bogden, 1984; Hawkins, 1988; Logan,
2000; Roberts, 1991).
In 1992, the Department of Defense joined with the Department of Education to establish
military career academies modeled on the concept of high-school career academies. Most of the
academies were in large urban areas with a demonstrated need for the more aggressive approach.
The academies provided additional military personnel to deliver instruction in other school
subjects. Features of the academies included integrated vocational and academic curricula, team-
teaching, block scheduling, and small classes. Although the results reported from the academies
are often remarkable, substantial resources are required from all partners involved (Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 1999).
Under President George H. W. Bush, a second wave of expansion was ushered in with
the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993. The goal of the Act sought to double the size
of JROTC from 1,500 units to 2,900 units (National Defense Authorization Act, 1992). Coumbe
et al (2001) attributed the impetus in part, to General Colin Powells reaction toward the Los
Angeles Riots. The expansion focused on disadvantaged rural areas, inner city youth and youth
7

at-risk for dropping out of high school, using drugs, or engaging in criminal activities (Corbett &
Coumbe, 2001; Coumbe et al, 2008; Walls, 2003). Increased interests in military action
following the attack of 9/11 lead to an increase in enrollment in JROTC programs although many
students who joined had already expressed an interest in a military career (Gehring, 2001;
Morris, 2003). According to the individual web sites for each JROTC branch, the total number
of units in operation in all 50 states and the District of Columbia now total 3,346. Projected
funding for the Presidential Budget proposed for 2012 sets aside the following amounts in
thousands of dollars for the operation of each JROTC unit: Air Force, $75,252; Army, 170,889;
Marine, 19671; and Navy, 52,689 ( "Fiscal year 2012," 2011 ). Determining the cost involved in
operating a JROTC program is one consideration to be taken when deciding whether or not to
add a program in a school or a school district.
Operating Costs

There are conflicting numbers in terms of operating costs and expenditures per student.
Data from the 1999 Presidents fiscal year budget gives the following average investments per
cadet for each branch: Army, $440; Air Force, $358; Marine, $539; and Navy, $518 (CSIS,
1999). Marks (2004) claims the average annual JROTC program cost amounted to $731 per
student. The Army JROTC noted an investment of $372 per cadet (Coumbe et al, 2008).
According to Kozaryn (2001), the Pentagon claims a $500 investment per cadet.
Host school districts pay JROTC instructors. The military then reimburses the district for
the instructors retirement pay plus half the difference between the instructors retirement pay
and active duty pay and allowances (CSIS, 1999; Morris, 2003). According to Bodgen (1984),
JROTC is a sound financial option for many schools and school districts. He explains the
average cost for the a JROTC unit with two instructors equals about 20% of what it would cost to
8

operate a band, football team, or alternative school program. Opponents of JROTC claim that
the program in fact is a drain on school systems (Diener and Munro, 2005). In fact, the operating
cost for JROTC was factor in San Franciscos 2006 decision to discontinue JROTC. The school
board voted to discontinue allowing physical education credit in lieu of JROTC thus creating the
need to hire 11 additional teachers. To offset the costs for the additional teachers, the board
opted to eliminate JROTC staff for which the district paid a million dollars in salary (Arnoldy &
Lubold, 2008). For the 1998-99 school year, the estimated personnel cost for a host school for
the salaries of a typical two -instructor team was $76,000. This estimate was double the
military's estimate and the discrepancy was blamed on hidden costs including costs for field
trips, buses, and facilities maintenance (American Friends Service Committee, 2004). The costs
associated with adding a JROTC program varies from school district to school district. While
economically disadvantaged schools might add JROTC as an attempt to bolster resources, Lutz
and Bartlett (1995b) argue JROTC can drain resources from other educational programs. The
Department of Defense Instruction Directive 1205.13 provides policy as well as examples for
computing instructor pay and estimating subsequent costs to schools (Department of Defense
Instruction, 2006). Budgetary considerations are one factor in the decision of whether or not to
initiate and or maintain a JROTC program. Another factor is a consideration of the program
goals and objectives.
JROTC Goals and Objectives
Prior to 1964, only the Army operated JROTC units (Peinhardt, 1998). That changed on
October 13, 1964 when Congress enacted Public Law 88-647, also known as the Reserve
Officers Training Corps Vitalization Act. The Act added Chapter 102 to Title 10, section 2031
of United States Code and allowed for the establishment of JROTC in secondary schools which
9

met eligibility criteria. The Reserve Officers Training Corps Vitalization Act of 1964 gave each
military department control over the implementation of the provisions of the act as well as
authority for providing standards to measure performance and achievement (Reserve Officers
Training Corps Vitalization Act, 1964). Each branch of the military determines its own
curricular programs and goals. Therefore, each branch assumes direct operational control over
the JROTC program. Although JROTC as a whole, shares many basic fundamentals, programs
vary according to the focus and mission of the sponsoring military department (Bogden, 1984;
Perusse, 1997; Walls, 2003).
Department of Defense Directive 1205.13 issued in 1968, listed common objectives for
all JROTC programs (Johnson, 1999; Perusse, 1997). Those objectives included:
1. To develop informed and responsible citizens.
2. To strengthen character.
3. To promote an understanding of the basic elements and requirements for national
security.
4. To help form habits of self-discipline.
5. To develop respect for an understanding of the need for constituted authority in a
democratic society.
6. To develop an interest in the military services as a possible career.

The National Defense Reauthorization Act of 1993 brought into being a new purpose
statement for JROTC: It is a purpose of the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp to instill in
students in the United States secondary educational institutions the value of citizenship, service
to the United States, personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment (National Defense
Reauthorization Act, 1992; Peinhardt, 1998). The general purpose statement remained
unchanged in the 2006 reissuance of the Directive (Department of Defense, 2006).
10

Individual mission statements, however, vary depending on the sponsoring military
branch. Official government websites for each military branch provide information regarding
the individual mission statements, goals, and objectives.
The mission of the Air Force JROTC is to develop citizens of character dedicated to
serving their nation and community. Stated goals for the program echo the common goals set
forth in Directive 1205.13 (Department of Defense, 2006) which include instilling values of
citizenship, service to the United States, personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment
(U.S. Air Force, 2010).
The mission of the Army JROTC is to motivate young people to be better citizens. The
vision for this branch is to provide quality programs which teach citizenship, character, and
leadership development. Goals for the program include the development of citizenship and
leadership. In addition, the program seeks lead students to an appreciation of communication
skills, physical fitness, mental management abilities, military history, teamwork, and the
importance of high school graduation for future success in advanced education and employment
opportunities (United States Army Junior ROCT, n. d.).
The Marine JROTC mission is to develop informed and responsible citizens. Goals for
the program include strengthening character, promoting and understanding of the basic
requirements for national security, developing a respect and understanding of authority in a
democracy, and to promote curriculum focused on leadership development (U.S. Marine Corps,
2007).
The Navy JROTC mission statement is Helping todays youth meet lifes challenges.
Like the Air Force, the program focuses on the common goals established for all JROTC
11

programs and attempts to instill in students the values of citizenship, service to the United States,
personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011).
In summary, the Army and Marine branches focus on the citizenship and leadership
components of the JROTC mission while the Air Force contains instruction in aerospace science
and the Navy program includes instruction in naval science (Peinhardt, 1998; Walls, 2003). The
JROTC programs share aspects of career academies due to the integrated curriculum and
dedicated facilities and instructors (Pema and Mehay, 2009). It should be noted too that
flexibility is built into the curriculum of JROTC programs to allow the final program to be
influence by instructors, schools, and communities (Bodgen, 1984).
Opposition and Support
The curriculum is only one area of contention for those who contest JROTC. Opposition
to the program has existed since the beginning of the program (Long, 2003; Peinhardt, 1998),
and lists of organizations who argue against JROTC are available (CSIS, 1999; Peinhardt, 1998;
Morris, 2003). Code Pink, developed in 2002 as grass roots female initiated organization
committed to peace and social justice, is one of the newest organizations to join in the criticism
of JROTC. The website list four common arguments against JROTC including lack of trained
instructors, military propaganda in texts, insufficient oversight of curriculum, and use of military
solutions which counter safe schools peace efforts (Code Pink, 2011).
One of the major arguments in opposition to JROTC is the lack of quality curriculum and
instruction. Each unit is required to have at least two military officers, one a retired officer and
the other a retired non-commissioned officer. Opponents argue that instructors receive military
certification and some can do so with as little as a high school diploma. In addition, JROTC
instruction is not interactive and relies on non-challenging lesson plans and there is often no
12

oversight of the curriculum by school districts (Bartlett and Lutz, 1998). Arguments arose that
the program modeled martial solution that countered school and district stances on non-violence
and safety. These criticisms spurred the military, in the 1990s, to revise curriculums and to
reduce the focus on weaponry by making weapons training an optional component of the
program (Logan, 2003). The revision to curriculum also included a shift in focus away from
military training to a stronger emphasis on leadership, self-esteem, values, citizenship,
communication, physical fitness, career exploration, and substance abuse prevention (Coumbe &
Hartford, 1996). To respond to the issue of instructor training, the Department of Defense states
that the military branch sponsoring a JROTC program will approve and certify instructor
qualifications and that the senior instructor will possess a baccalaureate degree (Department of
Defense Instruction, 2006).
Perhaps the strongest argument against JROTC is the view that its main purpose is to
serve as a recruitment tool. Code Pink (2011) directs attention to a partnership initiative
memorandum. Although the memorandum is aimed mainly at ROTC, it also encourages JROTC
leaders to assist in recruiter access to JROTC cadets, to encourage all college-bound students to
consider ROTC, and to encourage guidance counselors to display military information (Policy
Memorandum 50, 1999). Revisions to the JROTC program in the 1990s attempted to counter
this argument and assure the public and public school districts that enlistment in the military was
not the purpose of the program. Still, many opposed to JROTC seethe program as a highly
effective recruitment tool which targets minority and disadvantaged youth (Ayers, 2006; Bartlett
and Lutz, 1998; Long; 2003). At the inception of the program, the government provided federal
allocations to schools that incorporated vocational education in the curriculum. In order to
receive the funding however, military training was a required component of vocational
13

education. Urban areas with high concentrations of working class and minority populations were
ideal schools for the new program. The southern section of the United States, with a high
number of military academies and military bases became another region to amass a large number
of JROTC programs (Long, 2003; Peinhardt, 1998). JROTC legislation of 1993 authorized
increased financial assistance to schools in economically or academically disadvantaged areas
allowing for full instructor funding for two years, followed by a three year period of 75%
instructional funding. Although Corbett and Coumbe (2001) argued that the Armys Cadet
Command does not view JROTC as a tool for reforming hard-core delinquents (p.40), critics
viewed the increased funding as a military enlistment ploy to target disadvantaged youth
(Peinhardt, 1998).
Corbett and Coumbe (2001) argue that the program design lends itself to students seeking
direction and a sense of belonging---the students who could go on to become productive citizens.
Some (CSIS, 1999; Flowers, 1999; Walls, 2003) perceive JROTC as a program that helps
students from dropping out, joining gangs, engaging in disruptive behaviors or using drugs.
Others however, argue that the claimed benefits to at-risk students are questionable at best, due
to the problematic nature of the term at-risk. The term is not only ill-defined but is also used
to label and track students. In addition, opponents argue that JROTC refuses to accept some of
the at-risk students due to behavioral problems or low academic achievement (Lutz & Bartlett,
1995a; Lutz & Bartlett, 1995b). To counter, the Department of Defense of Defense Instructional
Directive 1205.13 (2006), states that the principal and senior instructor can agree upon the
maximum number and suitability of any student ineligible for the program. They may enroll an
ineligible student if so stipulated by the students Individual Education Plan or 504 with the
14

school assuming responsibility for the provisions of any special equipment or additional
instructors.
Despite claims that JROTC is not intended as a recruitment program, surveys and studies
indicate that participants in JROTC are more likely to enlist in military service (Biggs, 2010;
Corbett and Coumbe, 2001). However, some professors of military science as well as other
military experts view JROTC as a distraction. They argue that the program offers no recruiting
advantage since the junior program enrolls many cadets who are ineligible for military
enlistment, not to mention eligibility to a commissioning program (Bodgen, 1984; Coumbe et al,
2008). In addition, Pema and Mehay (2009) note that contrary to public opinion, the vast
number of JROTC participants do not join the military.
The government took steps to address the issues related to curriculum. Criticisms of the
curriculum and mandates of No Child Left Behind legislation spurred the military to seek
program accreditation for JROTC. The belief was without accreditation, the program would not
be able to maintain enrollment, especially in areas where the academic credibility of the program
was already under scrutiny. The Commission on International and Trans-Regional
Accreditation (CITA) which extends to more than one hundred countries and encompasses more
than one million teachers and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)
performed accreditation. Because of its extensive reach JROTC officials believed that CITA
would be the appropriate accrediting agency for JROTC which also has a wide outreach. The
Marines were the first to receive accreditation for curriculum, followed by the Army on June 1,
2005, and the Air Force on September 10, 2005. The Navy was in the process of accreditation as
of 2008 (Coumbe et al., 2008).

15

Perceptions of the JROTC Program

Research regarding JROTC programs is scarce. Most research centers around three
themes: academic or learning outcomes, personal attributes, and perceptions of the program.
Several research studies have attempted to compare JROTC participants to non JROTC
participants across a number of variables (Bachman, 1994; Biggs, 2010; Bulach, 2002; Flowers,
1999; Hawkins, 1988; Hicks, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Roberts, 1991, Schmidt, 2001; Schmidt,
2003). Variables studied and measured include topics such as leadership, citizenship, self-
reliance, personal development, and indicators of academic success
Two studies, however, should be noted. Rivas (1995) studied differences between
beginning JROTC cadets and senior cadets. He found significance for senior cadets in both
learning differences and self-esteem measures. High School and Beyond (HS&B) a longitudinal
survey of the two cohort groups of high school sophomore and senior students from 1980 (High
School and Beyond, n.d.), provided data for other research studies. Pema and Mehay (2010)
used HS&B data and found results comparable to those from the Rivas study of 1995. Pema and
Mehay (2010) found that Cadets who enrolled early showed improved graduation rates. Those
who enrolled early and were continuous participants showed positive academic outcomes as well
as an increased likelihood of enlistment in the military. Walls (2003) compared JROTC
programs to other youth development programs. The results showed that in terms of promoting
youth development, a number programs perform equally as well as JROTC, but that no other
program can match JROTC in terms of size, funding, scope, and accomplishments; the most
noteworthy of which are the programs focus on self-esteem and self discipline (Walls, 2003).
Another study by Pema and Mehay (2009) attempted to compare differences between
JROTC cadets and non-cadets in terms of grades, standardized test scores, and graduation rates.
16

No significance was found and the authors attributed the results to unobserved factors such as
motivation and ability. The researchers explained, One explanation for the weak academic
outcomes is that we have not adequately controlled for the at-risk status of JROTC students
(p.21). Because of the difficulty in controlling for intervening variables, sometimes hidden, a
more solid approach might include a focus on perceptions regarding the program and program
outcomes.
One thread of research regarding JROTC comes from studies that viewed perceptions and
attitudes about the program. A number of studies have focused on the perceptions of high school
principals (Morris, 2003; Logan, 2000, and Harrill, 1984). Other studies have included the
perceptions of principals along with JROTC instructors or other community members (Marks,
2004; Bodgen, 1984). The attitude of counselors was studied by Perusse in 1997. All studies
pointed in a favorable direction for JROTC participation. Morris (2003) surveyed over 300 high
school principals in North Carolina and Harrill (1984) surveyed principals from the Third Army
JROTC district. Both determined that that high school principals believed the program
benefitted students that those principals who had worked with JROTC programs had the most
significant relationship regarding the benefits of JROTC. Logan (2000) found strong positive
responses from Principals regarding the value and benefits to students in the Marine Corp
JROTC program. Marks (2004) found positive perceptions toward the program from both
principals and instructors but noted that the higher academic achieving student tend not to
participate due to tracking decisions that limit the number of elective courses. Marks (2004)
found interesting differences on four statements. In contrast to the JROTC instructors,
principals agreed that the program was highly rated by students, that uniforms were an effective
recruiting tool, that students liked wearing the uniforms, but disagreed with Instructors that there
17

were proportionately higher rates of special education students participating in JROTC compared
to non-JROTC students.
Bodgen (1984) compared two schools in Massachusetts, Billerica with a Marine JROTC
and Quincy with an Air Force JROTC. Despite the differences in program curriculums and
instructor styles, results indicated that the programs shared nine out of ten of the top ranked
attributes including the development of self-esteem, self-discipline, and leadership skills.
Finally, Persusse (1997) examined the perceptions of guidance counselors in Virginia.
Her study found that 84.5% of the 124 counselors surveyed agreed that students in JROTC were
trained to work as team members. Counselors also believed students in JROTC developed
leadership skills (82.1%) and that participation in JROTC provided extracurricular activities that
build self confidence (78.0%). Counselors disagreed that JROTC motivated students to learn in
all their classes and that JROTC fostered a disciplined and constructive learning environment
throughout the school. Counselors surveyed indicated they would recommend JROTC to most
students with the exception of those who had a physical disability, were not U.S. citizens, had
poor attendance rates, or who had no interest in entering the military.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
There is a scarcity of research available regarding the efficacy of JROTC. CSIS (1999)
notes that the bulk of observations reflect preconceived ideas of the program with little analytical
support, either negative or positive for the preferred stance. The report argues that those who
hold a positive view see the program and the military as a useful tool in building character and
citizenship while those who oppose the program view it as a threat to democracy.
Pema and Mehay (2009) note the size of the JROTC program; the at-risk population it
serves, the controversy over goals and performance, and the lack of prior research make a
18

compelling case for continued program evaluation. They claim that current decisions regarding
the program at both federal and local levels are made in the absence of reliable information on
program effectiveness.
An examination of the practices and strategies of a program provides educational leaders
with a starting point for contemplation of implementing programs like JROTC. The best practice
strategy to recommend JROTC is the holistic approach to student development with high
expectations in place for both student and instructor. Instructors support the curriculum and
foster the development of character traits conducive to the development of citizenship, public
service, responsibility, wellness, a sense of accomplishment, and leadership (Common Ground,
2010). In addition, participation in JROTC strengthens connections, another vital component to
the holistic approach. Corbett and Coumbe (2001) claim that most students participate in
JROTC for the sense of belonging and purpose it provides. Students build connections through
participation in community service projects and school and unit activities which foster team-
building and also diminish the sense of alienation and disconnection. Bodgen (1984) examined
two JROTC programs and noted that the students in both schools maintained the idea that
JROTC instructors demonstrated more concern for them than other teachers and that the program
gave them a sense of belonging. Stodghill (2002) quotes, Jodie Brown a former JROTC cadet
and graduate of Forest Hill High School in Mississippi, "When you're in JROTC, it's almost like
having four or five parents at school with you (p. 50)."
Schools and school districts considering the implementation of a JROTC program must
give careful consideration to both sides of the controversy surrounding the program. Although
supporters claim JROTC is a program designed to build character and improve learning
outcomes, including increased grade point averages, fewer drop outs and higher college
19

enrollment rates, opponents argue that it is an enlistment tool which fosters a militaristic
approach counter to safe school measures. In addition, opponents decry the costs of the program
are unjustified based on the lack of evidence supporting effectiveness. Principals and other
educational leaders would need to consider those purported benefits in lieu of the time, effort,
resources, and likely reaction to the program. No Child Left Behind has mandated standards for
accountability and many schools, to meet acceptable yearly progress, focus on core content areas
at the expense of elective courses. Principals or school officials would need to consider
scheduling and even revise schedules to accommodate a new program. Some schools or districts
might need to create a program of studies that would provide a graduation pathway based on
participation in the program. Schools would need to consider funding and would need to provide
not only adequate facilities but would need to assume responsibility for the maintenance of
facilities. Schools would also need to consider the community. In particular it would be
important for administrators to determine the community response to a military program. Would
the community welcome the program or would the program be met with protests and resistance
based on the belief that JROTC is a non-challenging elective or a recruitment tool that promotes
violence? In a nutshell, administrators need to ask, Is it worth it?
The purpose of this study is to build on prior research and to add to existing data. Results
intend to provide school officials considering the discontinuation, maintenance, or
implementation of a JROTC program with data that compares principal perceptions of the
effectiveness of the program to meeting stated program goals. Demographic data will allow
principals to examine comparable schools with existing JROTC programs. Military personnel
could find the data useful and could consider it when revising and improving the JROTC
program. The most significant factor to consider however is the type of student likely to
20

participate in the program. Bodgen (1984) claims who the program serves has the greatest
influence on how the program is received (p.56). JROTC is not a one-size fits all program but it
could be a program that does indeed fit some.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The mission objectives listed in the purpose statement for JROTC will be the independent
variables for this study. Those variables include citizenship, service to the United States,
personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment. In addition, the study will explore the
effect, if any, of specified demographic variables. The principals perceptions will be the
dependent variable.

Question 1: What are principals perceptions of JROTC programs influence on the student
participants sense of citizenship?
Question 2: What are principals perceptions of JROTC programs influence on the student
participants sense of effect of service to the United States?
Question 3: What are principals perceptions of JROTC programs influence on the student
participants sense of personal responsibility?
Question 4: What are principals' perceptions of JROTC program's influence of the student
participant's "sense of accomplishment"?
Question 5: Do principals perceptions of the JROTC program vary according to rurality,
socioeconomics, length of time spent as a principal, length of JROTC program, and branch of
JROTC program?


21

METHODS
Principals perceptions of JROTC will be assessed using a survey developed for this
study. In particular, the study will ask principals to rate the effectiveness of the JROTC
program in terms of stated objectives for the program. A second part of the survey will compare
perceptions according to demographic variables.

Tentative Population and Sample

JROTC instructors are school employees and are responsible to school authorities for the
conduct of the JROTC program. The sponsoring military branch holds the school authorities
responsible for the conduct of the JROTC program (Bodgen, 1984; Department of Defense,
2006). As school leaders, principals not only evaluate teacher performance but are also keenly
aware of programs, student and community concerns, and academic measures related to
accountability. Because of the broad knowledge of the school, including the needs of the
students, and contributing factors to success, this study will consider the perceptions of school
principals to be reputable. A Likert rating scale will measure principals perceptions across a
continuum. Perceptions will be analyzed in terms of means scores. The ratings will also be
compared across the independent variables represented in the research questions.
The population for this study will be high schools with JROTC programs. A sample
group will be comprised of high school principals from the Seventh Brigade with JROTC
programs. These principals will be invited to complete a survey regarding perceptions of
JROTC. The Seventh Brigade includes the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West
Virginia. The Seventh Brigade includes a total of 314 high schools with JROTC programs.



22

Definitions:
Rurality - As defined by the Office of Rural Health Policy as being eligible for
the Rural Health Outreach, Network Development, or Rural AED Grant Programs (Office of
Rural Health Policy, 2009)
In Kentucky, 90 of the 120 counties are considered rural. Those counties include: Adair,
Allen, Anderson, Ballard, Barren, Bath, Bell, Boyle, Breathitt ,Breckinridge, Butler ,Caldwell,
Calloway, Carlisle, Carroll, Carter, Casey, Clay, Clinton, Crittenden ,Cumberland, Elliott ,Estill
,Fleming, Floyd, Franklin, Fulton, Garrard, Graves, Grayson, Green, Harlan, Harrison, Hart,
Hickman, Hopkins ,Jackson, Johnson, Knott ,Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher,
Lewis ,Lincoln, Livingston, Logan, Lyon, McCracken, McCreary, Madison ,Magoffin ,Marion,
Marshall ,Martin ,Mason ,Menifee, Mercer ,Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
Muhlenberg ,Nicholas ,Ohio ,Owen ,Owsley ,Perry, Pike, Powell ,Pulaski, Robertson,
Rockcastle, Rowan ,Russell ,Simpson, Taylor, Todd, Union, Washington ,Wayne, Whitley,
and Wolfe. Hancock, Nelson, Scott, Trigg and Webster counties are eligible for grants even
though they are designated as metropolitan counties. All census tracts in the county qualify as
rural.
In Ohio, 48 of the 88 counties are considered rural. Those counties include: Adams,
Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Auglaize, Champaign, Clinton ,Columbiana, Coshocton ,Crawford,
Darke, Defiance, Fayette, Gallia, Guernsey, Hancock ,Hardin, Harrison, Henry, Highland
,Hocking, Holmes ,Huron ,Jackson, Knox ,Logan, Marion ,Meigs, Mercer, Monroe, Morgan,
Muskingum, Noble, Paulding ,Perry, Pike, Putnam, Ross ,Sandusky, Scioto ,Seneca, Shelby,
Tuscarawas, Van Wert ,Vinton Wayne, Williams, and Wyandot.
In Tennessee, 58 of the 95 counties are considered rural. Those counties include:
Bedford, Benton, Bledsoe, Campbell ,Carroll ,Claiborne, Clay, Cocke ,Coffee, Crockett,
23

Cumberland ,Decatur, DeKalb ,Dyer ,Fentress, Franklin ,Gibson, Giles, Greene, Grundy,
Hancock ,Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Houston, Humphreys, Jackson,
Johnson, Lake ,Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, McMinn ,McNairy ,Marshall ,Maury,
Meigs, Monroe ,Moore, Morgan ,Obion, Overton ,Perry, Pickett, Putnam, Rhea ,Roane, Scott
,Sevier, Van Buren Warren ,Wayne ,Weakley , and White. Smith is eligible even though it is
designated as a metropolitan county. All census tracts in the county qualify as rural.
In West Virginia, 35 of the 55 counties are considered rural. Those counties include:
Barbour, Braxton ,Calhoun, Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer ,Grant, Greenbrier, Hardy, Harrison
,Jackson, Lewis, Logan, McDowell, Marion, Mason ,Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas,
Pendleton, Pocahontas ,Raleigh, Randolph ,Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker ,Tyler,
Upshur, Webster, Wetzel, and Wyoming. Mineral County is eligible for grants even though it is
designated as a metropolitan count. All census tracts in the county qualify as rural.
Socioeconomic Level As defined by the percentage of students in the school who
receive free or reduced lunch. Ranges of socioeconomic level will be developed to aid in
categorizing schools.
School Size total population of the student body. Ranges of school populations will be
developed to aid in categorizing schools.











24

Table 1

A Comparison of the Number of JROTC Units across the United States by Sponsoring Branch

State Air Force Army Marine Navy
TOTALS
Alabama 16 75 4 9 104
Alaska 5 7 0 2 14
Arizona 23 26 6 9 64
Arkansas 12 24 2 8 46
California 65 87 21 57 230
Colorado 8 22 1 4 35
Connecticut 4 5 1 3 13
Delaware 7 5 2 3 17
District of
Columbia
2 11 2 15
Florida 73 157 14 73 317
Georgia 59 115 14 47 235
Hawaii 4 17 1 4 26
Idaho 0 1 1 0 2
Illinois 16 45 13 16 90
Indiana 8 21 6 6 41
Iowa 2 4 2 0 8
Kansas 6 10 2 3 21
Kentucky 16 61 6 13 96
Louisiana 31 63 7 16 117
Maine 2 5 0 1 8
Maryland 22 24 8 24 78
Massachusetts 13 12 7 6 38
Michigan 8 41 2 5 56
Minnesota 4 6 1 2 13
Mississippi 18 2 3 12 35
Missouri 18 31 5 4 58
Montana 0 1 0 0 1
Nebraska 5 8 0 1 14
Nevada 8 15 2 8 33
New Hampshire 4 2 1 2 9
New Jersey 17 23 5 15 60
New Mexico 7 17 9 9 42
New York 17 23 7 15 62
25

North Carolina 75 129 9 34 247
North Dakota 2 3 0 0 5
Ohio 21 23 4 14 62
Oklahoma 14 18 3 5 40
Oregon 1 5 1 3 10
Pennsylvania 20 28 7 6 61
Rhode Island 2 3 0 0 5
South Carolina 42 86 8 33 169
South Dakota 1 5 2 0 8
Tennessee 25 76 4 19 124
Texas 96 199 26 66 387
Utah 4 5 0 1 10
Vermont 1 3 0 0 4
Virginia 36 60 10 32 138
Washington 12 9 3 14 38
West Virginia 9 20 2 1 32
Wisconsin 1 4 0 0 5
Wyoming 1 2 0 0 3
TOTALS 863 1644 232 607 3346
Note. Data derived from official websites: U.S. Air Force, 2010; U.S. Army, n.d.; U.S. Marine
Corp JROTC, 2007; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011.



















26

REFERENCES


Arnoldy, B., & Lubold, G. (2008, October 16). Leadership course or recruiting tool? A battle
over JROTC. Christian Science Monitor, 100(226). Retrieved from Academic Premier.
American Friends Service Committee (2004, October) Trading books for soldiers: The true cost
of JROTC [Electronic version]. Peace Work Magazine. Retrieved September 27, 2011,
from http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0410/041021.htm
Ayers, W. (2006). Hearts and minds: Military recruitment and the high school battlefield. Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(8), 594-599. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Bachman, J. E. (1994). The effect of participation or non-participation in a Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Program (JROTC) on leadership behavior and self-esteem
among JROTC and non-JROTC high school juniors (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (9427215).
Bartlett, L., & Lutz, C. (1998). Disciplining social difference: Some cultural politics of military
training in public high schools. Urban Review, 30(2), 119-136. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Biggs, C. L. (2010). Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps: A comparison of achievement, high
school graduation, college enrollment, and military enlistment rates of high school
students in Missouri (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses (3407350).
Bogden, C. A. (1984). The perceived value of JROTC (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (8421175).
Bulach, C. R. (2002). Comparisons of character traits for JROTC students versus non-JROTC
students. Education, 122(3), 559. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
27

Center for Strategic and International Studies. (1999). Final report of the of the CSIS political-
military studies project on the JROTC. In Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps:
Contributing to America's communities. Washington, D.C.: CSIS. Retrieved
September 22, 2011, from http://www.mcjrotc.org/Documents/csisreport.pdf
Code Pink. (n.d.). Military recruiting FAQ: What's wrong with JROTC? In Code Pink: Women
for Peace. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=3911#crq2
Corbett, J. W., & Coumbe, A. T. (2001). JROTC Recent Trends and Developments. Military
Review, 81(1), 40. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Coumbe, A. T., Hartford, L. S., & Kotakis, P. N. (2010). U.S. Army Cadet Command: The Ten
Year History. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Coumbe, A. T., Kotakis, P. N., & Gammell, W. A. (2008). History of the U.S. Army Cadet
Command: Second Ten Years, 1996-2006. Fort Monroe, VA: Cadet Command, U.S.
Army.
Diener, S., & Munro, J. (2005, June-July). Air Force plans to invade: 48 high schools set to start
AF JROTC [Electronic version]. Peace Work Magazine. Retrieved September 27, 2011,
from http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0506/050605.htm
Dohle, J. P. (2001). JROTC: A study of two Saint Louis schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved, from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3014244).
Farmer, R. T. (2000). Pleasantville High School JROTC the building blocks of success:
Citizenship, leadership, community service, and academics. Education, 121(1), 46.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

28

Flowers, C. L. (1999). Leadership, self- esteem, average daily attendance, school suspension: A
comparative study of Army Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC)
sophomores and non JROTC participating sophomores (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (9931090).
Gehring, J. (2001). Among JROTC cadets, A rising sense of pride. Education Week, 21(7), 1.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Harrill, J. B. (1984). Attitudes held by host principals toward Army JROTC in the third region
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (8501957).
Hawkins, C. A. (1988). An analysis of selected desired learning outcomes involving Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) cadets and non-JROTC students (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (8913933).
Hicks, H. W. (2000). The influence of Army JROTC in developing citizenship skills for Alabama
public high school students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses (9996477).
Johnson, J. L. (1999). The effects of high school Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(JROTC) programs on students' academic achievement and related school outcomes
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (9953914).
Kozaryn, L. D. (2001, April 26). Help wanted: DoD seeks JROTC instructors [Electronic
version]. U.S. Department of Defense News. Retrieved September 27, 2011 from
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44939
Logan, R. J. (2000). Perceptions held by host secondary school principals toward the Marine
Corps Junior Reserve Officers' Corps (JROTC) program (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (304669047).
29


Long, N. A. (2003). The origins, early developments, and present-day impact of the Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps on the American public schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3109711).
Lutz, C., & Bartlett, L. (1995a). Making soldiers in the public schools: An analysis of the JROTC
curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: American Friends Service Committee. Retrieved October
2, 2011, from
http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/focus/co/cows/afsc/youthmill/jrotc/msitps.pdf
Lutz, C., & Bartlett, L. (1995b, November). Making soldiers in the public schools. Education
Digest, 61(3). Retrieved September 25, 2011, from Ebscohost (0013127X).
Marks, L. N. (2004). Perceptions of high school principals and senior Army instructors
concerning the impact of JROTC on rates of dropout and transition to college (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3120325).
Morris, D. S. (2003). North Carolina high school principals' perceptions of Junior Reserve
Officer Training Corps (JROTC) programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3085656).
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2010, October). Common ground: The
report of the NASBE study group on education and the military. In US Army JROTC.
Retrieved September 11, 2011, from
https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotcRes/downloads/8_Libary/DTICReports/
ArmyStudyGroupreport-CommonGround.pdf.
Norton, R. (2008, October 8). Why I support the JROTC. In Rachel Norton: SF Board of
Education. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://rachelnorton.com/issues/jrotc/

30

Peinhardt, K. K. (1988, July 6). Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps: Contributions to
Americas communities? (Strategy Research Project Report). Retrieved September 20,
2011 from Department of Defense website: http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada353782.pdf
Pema, E, & Mehay, S. (2009, October 1). The effect of high school JROTC on student
achievement, educational attainment, and enlistment. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The effect of high school JROTC on student achievement,
educational...-a0211173859
Pema, E., & Mehay, S. (2010). The impact of the high school Junior ROTC program: Does
treatment, timing, and intensity matter? Defence and Peace Economics, 21(3), 229-247.
Doi: 10.1080/10242690903105554
Perusse, R. (1997). Perceptions of school counselors towards Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (JROTC) in Virginia public schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (9922166).
Reserve Officers Training Corps Vitalization Act of 1964, 10 U.S.C. 2301 (1964). Retrieved
November 1, 2011 from http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/national/vitalization1.pdf
Rivas, R. O. (1995). Development of self esteem and learning skills in students participating in
the Army Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (9529657).
Roberts, W. E. (1991). Leadership, citizenship, and self-reliance: A comparison of Army Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) high school senior cadets and non -JROTC
high school seniors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses (9210689).

31

Schmidt, M. (2001). JROTC cadets in leadership training display significantly higher personal
development than typical students. Education, 122(2), 302. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Schmidt, R. (2003). 122 JROTC students from 30 different high schools out-do 766 typical high
school students on personal development. Education, 123(4), 665. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Stodghill, R. (2002). CLASS WARFARE. Time, 159(9), 50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

U.S. Air Force. (2010, November 3). AFJROTC. In Jeanne N. Holm Center for Officer
Accessions and Citizen Development. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from
http://www.au.af.mil/au/holmcenter/AFJROTC/index.asp
U.S. Army. (n.d.). In United States Army Junior ROTC. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from
http://www.mcjrotc.org/Documents/csisreport.pdf
U.S. Department of the Army (1999, March). Policy Memorandum 50: Memorandum of
understanding between U.S. Army recruiting command and U.S. Army Cadet Command.
Fort Monroe, Virginia. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from
http://www.projectyano.org/pdf/JROTC_military_recruiting_memo.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. (1992). National Defense Authorization Act for1993, Section 533,
Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Program. 10 U.S. C. 2301. Retrieved
October 24, 2011 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c102:./temp/~c102cjiY3G
U.S. Department of Defense. (2006, February 6). Department of Defense Instruction (DodI),
Number 1205.13. Junior Officers Reserve Training Corps. Retrieved September 14,
2011 from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/120513p.pdf
32

U.S. Department of Defense. (2011, February). Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request. In Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from
http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) High school and beyond. In National Center for
Educational Statistics. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, Office of Rural Health Policy. (2009). List of
rural counties and designated eligible census tracts in metropolitan counties. Retrieved
from ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/Eligibility2005.pdf
U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011, May 6). In Navy Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps.
Retrieved September 5, 2011, from https://www.njrotc.navy.mil/
U.S. Marine Corps. (2007). In Marine Corps JROTC. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from
http://www.mcjrotc.org/
Walls, T. (2003). Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps: A comparison with other successful
youth development programs and an analysis of military recruits who participate in
JROTC (Master's thesis). Retrieved September 27, 2011 from
https://www.usarmyjrotc.com/jrotcRes/downloads/8_Library/DTICReports/walls.pdf