Later this year, a bill - backed by Tory MP Philip Hollobone - will go to Parliament calling for the return of National Service. Whilst it may have thrived at the time of the First and Second World Wars, I believe that the education system today means that the rejuvenation of National Service would be irrational, unpopular and unproductive.
When I hear the words National Service, I cannot help but tie them to Conscription. And I can be forgiven for doing so - after all, throughout the 30's, 40's and 1950's that's essentially what it was. Males between the ages of 18 and 26 could be told to report to a military base and then shipped away within a week, where they would be expected to carry out military training exercises in far away locations. Whether building bridges on a Royal Engineer course in Cyprus, or providing nursing support to troops in Korea, participants could expect to have their lives brought to a stop - without notice - at any time.
However, if National Service was to return in 2014, it's not difficult to see why it would take a rather different shape. Considering the huge loss of life among young soldiers during the 20th century, a replication of the original national service would be scandalous, and this is something that Hollobone of course is aware of.
As a result, he has instead drawn up plans of service to enhance the 'self respect, personal reliance, discipline and behavior' of 18-26 year-olds.
He claims that the program will run with the NHS, yet admits that military service will still be involved.
This itself will spark some morale controversy, yet it is another issue which I am concerned about. If this plan was to go ahead, it would mean that education would be greatly affected. Having worked hard for exams for the past 3 years, for my education to suddenly be prolonged would be devastating. Having to take two years out of studying or learning, at a time when I would be preparing for further exams, would mean that years of work would need to be re learnt.
Whilst the original National Service aimed to supply men with jobs by teaching trades, with more teenagers going to university than taking jobs, this would now be aimless. Those training to be doctors, physicians and lawyers could be whisked away to fix tanks on an engineers course, rather than complete their studies. It's then clear that National Service is irrelevant for the 21st century, and as a system built for the development of physical skills and trade, it couldn't possibly provide the same level of effectiveness in the modern day.
As a result of its downfalls, it's extremely unlikely that this bill will be passed at all - yet there certainly is room for Hollobone's intentions. I absolutely agree that young people should be taught respect and cooking skills, and I believe that we live in an intolerant society, but there is no need for National Service. Granted, these type of schemes were effective 80 years ago, but this was 80 years ago. There is no question that we could benefit from money management advise and the other courses offered in the Bill, yet offering it in this manner just isn't the way forward.
Any plan would need to stripped of any military connotations and added to curriculum at secondary education, where it could be effective, rather than simply disruptive. If Hollobone is so keen on teaching teenagers manners and life skills, then this would surely be a more appropriate course of action. Not unfamiliar with controversy, however, a more appropriate course of action probably isn't what Holobone wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment