Should Students be required to perform "Community Service"?

[declansdad]

Thanks Bicker, I knew you wouldn't actually answer any questions.

 

[hambirg]

That's an implementation detail. This community service idea can be fulfilled in compliance with your stated desire.

Ok, I don't have a problem with them working on projects during class hours.

Uh: You do realize that teaching is teaching. I think you meant to ask why don't schools "stick" to teaching the things that you personally want the schools to teach? The schools currently teach home economics - I could wonder why they bother teaching that sort of thing.

That sentence was to precede the one that followed. I think they should "teach" civics in a civics class. I don't think it's the schools responsibility to coordinate, place and monitor students in some after hours volunteer activity.

Home ec. is a "class" taught at school. They don't require all the students to volunteer in various restaurants to learn cooking. That's my point. There is a curriculum that is followed. All students are receiving the same information and learning.

The schools used to teach civic responsibility, and should do so again, imho.

So far, I haven't seen anyone post a cogent objection to having to the students able to choose between those two options for fulfilling the same requirement.

I do think they should require a civics "class" I just don't think they should be requiring service hours outside of the school day. I think it's an equity issue. All students should have equal opportunity to the learning. The only way to do that equitably is to have a class with a set curriculum.

The schools are the only aspect of our society that all children go through. It's the only logical touchstone for that to occur.

If you are talking about civics. . .voting, jury duty. . .fine. But I was under the impression we were talking about social responsibility. To me that's a gray area. It's defined differently by different families, religions, and various sub-cultures.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It certainly doesn't generate a love of doing chores.

But having to do chores generates an understanding that they need to be done, how to do them, and about contributing to and participating in one's family. Why wouldn't Community Service be similar for, well, society? Look at all the people saying they didn't or their kids don't have time.

 

[bicker]

Thanks Bicker, I knew you wouldn't actually answer any questions.

Actually, I did. What I didn't do is discard my own views and replaced them with yours.

Ok, I don't have a problem with them working on projects during class hours.

And that really points out an important issue: Our society needs to stop reacting to things other people want that we don't, and instead we need to be working with each other to find common ground, to find a place where none of us get what we want, but a situation we all are willing to live with.

I think they should "teach" civics in a civics class.

By your logic, field trips should be banned.

It is very clear that the best way of learning something is by doing. Experiential learning is both more highly effective, and more efficient use of time. The only significant metric by which learning-by-doing often fails is the financial cost.

I don't think it's the schools responsibility to coordinate, place and monitor students in some after hours volunteer activity.

I would like to make it so.

Home ec. is a "class" taught at school.

That doesn't make it a worthwhile use of education time, by comparison. I feel that it fails, in contrast to community service, in that regard.

 

[Art 1]

Total BS. I've seen it debated elsewhere. And my sister teaches in a district with this requirement and it is extremely controversial.

I have never once heard a parent complain about this. My experience is having three children spend four years at a HS that required it for each of the four years. Each child went at different years than the others. So in my 12 separate years of having children in this school never once did I hear a complaint.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

In terms of the effects of this required community service on the students, I don't have big concerns. My concern is that it is a problem for the organizations who end up having to deal with those students who don't really want to be volunteering but have to. I think if you are going to make this a requirement, there should then also be some additional funding to the charitable and non-profit groups who have to spend time training these reluctant "volunteers," supervising them, redoing the work they didn't do, and doing the paperwork to send back to the schools. Yes, there are also students who volunteer with enthusiasm and make a real contribution - but most of those would do it anyway. The reluctant ones, however, create a lot more work for organizations who have to deal with them.

In response to one earlier comment - yes, students could do volunteer work without going through an organization, such as cutting grass for seniors, etc. But the reluctant ones are less likely to do that, because it takes more effort to find and organize the work, and they actually have to do something. They tend to go to organizations where there is already a volunteer program in place, sign up, and then put out the least amount of effort possible.

Teresa

 

[Pigeon]

All schoolwork is "not voluntary". What's next? Banning the requirement to create dioramas?


Or forced to take gym?



Overall: I'm really disappointed with how many people object so strongly to instilling social responsibility into children.

I'd be entirely behind a movement to ban dioramas. I think they are a gigantic waste of time and money, but that's another debate. I would also be perfectly happy to see a ban on involuntary gym class, but again, another debate,.

Instilling social responsibility is a good thing. No one has said that it isn't. Parents and familes should be doing it. Schools should be teaching academics.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

I think they should. It would be great to do as a project instead of more diaramas (sp?), book reports, posters. I think it could really mean something instead of being something you have to get thru.

 

[bicker]

I'd be entirely behind a movement to ban dioramas. I think they are a gigantic waste of time and money, but that's another debate.

It isn't though - that's the point. The earlier message asserted a problem stemming from forcing students to do specific work. Building a diorama is such work.

I would also be perfectly happy to see a ban on involuntary gym class, but again, another debate.

And, it isn't different. It is the same thing.

Instilling social responsibility is a good thing. No one has said that it isn't. Parents and familes should be doing it.

Parent and families should be instilling family responsibility, and teaching children spiritual values. That's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking, specifically, about social responsibility - literally "responsibility to society". Surely society should be teaching that.

 

[hambirg]

And that really points out an important issue: Our society needs to stop reacting to things other people want that we don't, and instead we need to be working with each other to find common ground, to find a place where none of us get what we want, but a situation we all are willing to live with.

Of course people react to things they don't want that other people do. Very little social change has ever happened without social conflict. It's part of the process.

By your logic, field trips should be banned.

No, because they happen during school hours and are part of a curriculum. All students get to experience the same field trip in a given class curriculum.

It is very clear that the best way of learning something is by doing. Experiential learning is both more highly effective, and more efficient use of time. The only significant metric by which learning-by-doing often fails is the financial cost.

Experiential learning is not the most efficient use of time. . .that would be direct instruction.

But none the less, you have to ensure that ALL students are receiving the SAME instruction, no matter how it is presented. You can't do that with service hours. Imagine little Susie, who's Dad is on the school board, gets to volunteer as a legislative page for her service hours. Now little Jimmy, who's single mom works two jobs, can't volunteer outside of school hours because he has to babysit his younger siblings. He gets his service hours by picking up trash at school during the school day. How is that equitable? How are they being provided the same opportunity for learning? If it's a requirement, it absolutely has to be an equal opportunity for learning. And if it's not about the learning, then it is simply just a task to be checked off, a hoop to jump through. It must be about learning. So how could that be assessed? How can we show that the students are receiving equal learning here? equal opportunity? You can't. There isn't even a curriculum, objectives or assessment. It's simply a task.

I would like to make it so.

Great. Write up a curriculum for it and then see how you are going to ensure that ALL students have an equal opportunity to meet the objectives and how you are going to assess that they have been met. And then after that, have a nice long talk with the district lawyers about possible liability issues.

That doesn't make it a worthwhile use of education time, by comparison. I feel that it fails, in contrast to community service, in that regard.

And what "worthwhile" objectives do you think community service will provide? And how are you going to ensure that they are met? If learning objectives are not clearly provided, if the method of meeting those objectives is not equal for all, and there is no means to assess the learning. . .then it's just a task. . .and that's not a good use of educational time.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Bicker: field trips are optional. A parent must provide permission, but they have the opportunity to say "no" and the child cannot be penalized for it.

While I love field trips and went on most that were offered, I also understood that they cost money that my parents had to pay and sometimes may not have been able to pay it.

Field trips compliment the curriculum, but a child has the right to be educated without it.

Also, I missed the part where anyone suggested children never be exposed to any community service. You (and others) are assuming that just because some of us don't want it mandated, we must be against the concept of community service. I have not seen anyone post that they are anti-volunteering.

 

[bicker]

No, because they happen during school hours and are part of a curriculum. All students get to experience the same field trip in a given class curriculum.

And so therefore so should community service - just so.

Experiential learning is not the most efficient use of time. . .that would be direct instruction.

No, sorry; that's simply untrue.

But none the less, you have to ensure that ALL students are receiving the SAME instruction, no matter how it is presented.

That's not the case: Already schools offer different students different ways of satisfying the same graduation requirements. Taking one high school at random:

SOCIAL STUDIES
World History, four US History terms
concentrated units of study, and an
economics course
-or-
World History, Advanced Placement
US History, an elective social studies
credit, and an economics course

Also:

SCIENCE
Biology and one physical studies is
required

Meaning that one student could satisfy the requirement with Chemistry and another with Earth Science.
And:

HEALTH CREDIT
Health Class or Family Living &
Parentin

And:

PERSONAL FINANCE
Personal Finance Class, On Your Own
Class, or Consumer Economics Class

And what "worthwhile" objectives do you think community service will provide?

Here's a well-written explanation, put together with more care and time than I plan to devote to the DIS today: http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/essays/in-favor-of-service#fbid=kCzyiw78QGC

I apologize in advance for the author's erroneous use of the word "volunteer". There is no need to spiral the thread into another ten pages of nonsense about the word... that has already been discussed. Clearly the author didn't anticipate their explanation to be nit-picked on the specific word they so casually used. So please, read what the author wrote in the context of the term "community service" replaced wherever the author mistakenly wrote "volunteer".

And how are you going to ensure that they are met?

Do you evaluate PE by expecting each student to run the 100 meter dash in 20 seconds?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It isn't though - that's the point. The earlier message asserted a problem stemming from forcing students to do specific work. Building a diorama is such work.

And, it isn't different. It is the same thing.

Parent and families should be instilling family responsibility, and teaching children spiritual values. That's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking, specifically, about social responsibility - literally "responsibility to society". Surely society should be teaching that.

But parts of society already are teaching this.

We have opted to join a group that will help me teach this to my kids. Service opportunities will be abundant and a key component of the membership.

What you and others would like is for the government to mandate it. Some posters even responded that in their area, where it is mandated, specific opportunities are excluded due to their religious affiliation.

Why must that be so?

But back to the point--you and others are not asking society to do anything that is already being done. You want a government mandate. This is the issue. Society has already been teaching this for years.

 

[bicker]

But parts of society already are teaching this.

This is important enough that it shouldn't be hit-and-miss. Indeed, those students who aren't covered by the net you refer to are those in most need of that education.

What you and others would like is for the government to mandate it.

The government mandates many many other things that of far less value afaic.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Getting to pick a class where all students who are academically eligible to take is not the same as the example you quoted.

Due to logistics and parental limitations, the volunteer opportunities won't be like picking Chemistry, 5th period, room 204 or physics at the same time, but in a different room in the building.

It will be a case of the haves and have nots. Children whose parents have connections and means, will have access to better opportunities. A child who is poor but with limited means and connections--gets trash duty.

Academically--a wealthy child and a poor child in the same school have the same opportunity to access academics.

It is apples and oranges given the legislative page/trash detail example.

And so therefore so should community service - just so.

No, sorry; that's simply untrue.

That's not the case: Already schools offer different students different ways of satisfying the same graduation requirements. Taking one high school at random:
Also:Meaning that one student could satisfy the requirement with Chemistry and another with Earth Science.
And:And:

Here's a well-written explanation, put together with more care and time than I plan to devote to the DIS today: http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/essays/in-favor-of-service#fbid=kCzyiw78QGC

I apologize in advance for the author's erroneous use of the word "volunteer". There is no need to spiral the thread into another ten pages of nonsense about the word... that has already been discussed. Clearly the author didn't anticipate their explanation to be nit-picked on the specific word they so casually used. So please, read what the author wrote in the context of the term "community service" replaced wherever the author mistakenly wrote "volunteer".

Do you evaluate PE by expecting each student to run the 100 meter dash in 20 seconds?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is important enough that it shouldn't be hit-and-miss. Indeed, those students who aren't covered by the net you refer to are those in most need of that education.

The government mandates many many other things that of far less value afaic.

Then you make the opportunity available. Those who wish to take advantage of it, will.

What Is mandated in schools that is of less value? You have me stumped with that one.

 

[declansdad]

Please explain how forcing people to help community organizations in a manner that causes more work for that organization is good for soceity overall?

Bicker, you have not answered this question. Being away from a thread and then trying to use your typical misdirection when you return doesn't mean you have answered the question.

 

[Christopher Robin]

Some people are intentionally obtuse.

 

[hambirg]

And so therefore so should community service - just so.

I must have missed the "service hours" curriculum and accompanying materials.

No, sorry; that's simply untrue.

You must have never heard of Project Follow Through. I'll help you out. . .

Project Follow Through, completed in the 1970s. This was the largest educational study ever done, costing over $600 million, and covering 79,000 children in 180 communities. This project examined a variety of programs and educational philosophies to learn how to improve education of disadvantaged children in grades K-3. (It was launched in response to the observation that Head Start children were losing the advantages from Head Start by third grade.) Desired positive outcomes included basic skills, cognitive skills ("higher order thinking") and affective gains (self-esteem). Multiple programs were implemented over a 5-year period and the results were analyzed by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Abt Associates (Cambridge, MA). The various programs studied could be grouped into the three classes described above (Basic Skills, Cognitive-Conceptual, Affective-Cognitive).

The program that gave the best results in general was true Direct Instruction, a subset of Basic Skills. The other program types, which closely resemble today's educational strategies (having labels like "holistic," "student-centered learning," "learning-to-learn," "active learning," "cooperative education," and "whole language") were inferior. Students receiving Direct Instruction did better than those in all other programs when tested in reading, arithmetic, spelling, and language. But what about "higher-order thinking" and self-esteem? Contrary to common assumptions, Direct Instruction improved cognitive skills dramatically relative to the control groups and also showed the highest improvement in self-esteem scores compared to control groups. Students in the Open Education Center program, where self-esteem was the primary goal, scored LOWER than control groups in that area.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml

That's not the case: Already schools offer different students different ways of satisfying the same graduation requirements. Taking one high school at random:
Also:Meaning that one student could satisfy the requirement with Chemistry and another with Earth Science.
And:And:

But everyone within any of those classes is receiving the same instruction of that required class curriculum. Those "choices" are just that. Choices within a given field to meet a general requirement.

The same can't be said for "service hours".

Here's a well-written explanation, put together with more care and time than I plan to devote to the DIS today: http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/essays/in-favor-of-service#fbid=kCzyiw78QGC

I apologize in advance for the author's erroneous use of the word "volunteer". There is no need to spiral the thread into another ten pages of nonsense about the word... that has already been discussed. Clearly the author didn't anticipate their explanation to be nit-picked on the specific word they so casually used. So please, read what the author wrote in the context of the term "community service" replaced wherever the author mistakenly wrote "volunteer".

Her opinion is that it teaches them how to contribute to the larger community and why doing so is important. But I'm still not sure how having them, say, pick up trash ensures that learning. I still think that objective is better met within the guidelines and curriculum of an actual "class" on civics.

Do you evaluate PE by expecting each student to run the 100 meter dash in 20 seconds?

Yes. . .not that specific standard per se, but their are clear objectives and assessments based on standards.

 

[bicker]

Getting to pick a class where all students who are academically eligible to take is not the same as the example you quoted.

Yes, I believe it is a good analogy I posted. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Due to logistics and parental limitations, the volunteer opportunities won't be like picking Chemistry, 5th period, room 204 or physics at the same time, but in a different room in the building.

But it will be like picking the AP Chemistry class, given that the AP exam costs $85 out-of-pocket. And it will be like choosing between Health Class or Family Living & Parenting, given that one of the two choices requires parental approval for explicit sexual information to be gone-over. And it will be like choosing marching band to satisfy the FINE ARTS AND/OR PRACTICAL ARTS requirement, given that to pass band you have to participate in performances during the Friday night football games, or orchestra, which requires participating in the two evening recitals to receive a passing grade.

It will be a case of the haves and have nots.

If you think that's not already the case, then you really need to read-up on it.

What Is mandated in schools that is of less value? You have me stumped with that one.

I already mentioned one: Home Ec.