-
The way the cadets used to work - and I can only go on my experience of being in the ATC 25-odd years ago - is that you paid your weekly subs and this covered the basic costs of running such a venture. The people who then oversaw this did so on a voluntary basis.
As for militarisation, that wasn't the vibe at all. It was actually quite a laugh and the people it attracted were fairly geeky. In some respects, it was little different from the Scouts, but was perceived as being way cooler!
The_Kindness_of_Trees-
Who can doubt the value of a 'club' that a child opts into, even with a little parental persuasion. There is a trade-off, the content has to be sufficiently enthralling to ensure repeat attendance.
The CCF will be run in the schools, by the schools.
I remember a previous Gove-ism designed to let surplus armed forces officers directly into 'ejucashun', without any specific teacher training. This could well be the pay-off.
Some borderline ptsd Iraq veteran living out out his fantasy of training a future generation of Jason Bournes.
Tomorrow does not belong to me! -
If you had fun it worked - the goal is to encourage young people into the military.
Any targeting of non-adults by the military is highly ethically dubious.
It was announced as part of a package of military policies, not education policies. The aim is to help the army. The army should stick to targeting adults.
mespilus
Fox
I can buy the more money for the army argument - the reality is that Putin and others are a very real threat who thrive on weakness - but militarization of kids? Nope.