This is topic Obama administration to [potentially] require community service in schools in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Initially I was very uncomfortable with this plan since the service would be mandatory but now that I think about it my feelings are more mixed. Many school districts already require community service and I don't have any problems with that (the difference here being that the service is required on a national level). As was noted on another website, workers effectively spend much more time each year working for the government as a result of taxes so the time requirements aren't super strict. However, I do find the notion of having to fit in 100 hours of service into my school schedule rather daunting. Though at the moment I don't do any which isn't good either. Since the current lack of community service is probably a result of general disinterest (I only have personal experience to back this up) making it mandatory may be the most effective way to increase service.
EDIT: The wording has changed (see post on page 2) but I'm going to keep the initial wording here so the the discussion on this page makes sense.
[ November 10, 2008, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
100 hours? OK, I no longer like Obama.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
My high school started requiring 100 hrs of service my senior year. It seemed like a lot for most people, The policy started with the incoming freshmen, so I was exempt, but I had done that easily by volunteering for the town council for four years.
At the college level it seems more difficult depending on their definitions. I'd be annoyed if I couldn't stay in a campus political organization because I had to spend that time volunteering. I'm definitely not a fan of nationally mandating things like that, especially at a college level. That should really be the individual institution's choice.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If the goal is to increase the amount of public service performed by kids and college students then what are some good alternatives? I think a tuition credit for college students could work nicely though that would require federal funding.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
100 hours. That's nothing. In my high school we were required to do 40 hours in the four years we were there. It was because of that jump start that I am so involved in the community now. According to my records, I am looking at 700 hours this year alone, all done while attending 15-16 credit hours at a university, doing a part-time internship, and holding office at a campus organization. I do believe kids should do mandatory community service, and if I had a say, I would require 200 hours prior to graduation. Fifty hours a year is very doable.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yep, we had to do 40 hours to graduate, including 10 the first year (the other 30 could be done any time after that.) If you did 100 or more (and documented them properly) you got a special medal at graduation. I think about 1/3 of the kids got it every year. Especially if you were in Key Club it was really easy to get that many, in less than 2 years even.
I am amazed, looking back, at how much free time I had in school...
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
We had to do 50 hours to graduate and it was no biggy. The 50 hour requirement per year would have been absolutely no problem for me in middle school or high school. I'm a little uneasy about the 100 hour requirement in college but I'm sure I could fit it in. It could prove to be a stressful requirement at certain times though.
EDIT: Obviously right now I'm posting on hatrack late at night so I can't claim to handle my time as effectively as I should anyways Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
100 hours/year at the college level works out to 4hrs/week if you only do service during two semesters (that's assuming a semester is 14 weeks, of course). If you do service the whole year, it's only 2hrs/week.
My opinion: That really isn't a lot, and it will probably help you more than you think. Just having something else to do where you help others instead of stressing out about your own workload helps to put things in perspective. And I imagine the definition of "service" will be pretty broad... (campus clubs, church actives, etc.)
Plus it creates new college jobs! Someone has to track all the student's hours, authorize service plans, etc.
If you really want America to change, this kind of thing is how it'll start. It forces you to switch your thinking from "What about me?! My Time!" to "What about them? How can I help?". It might be a drag at first, but 99.9% of people will quickly come to enjoy it, I bet. (And those 0.1% left over will be upset no matter what you do.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
100 a year might not be so bad. A 100 a semester I wouldn't have time for.
I'll be honest though, part of me wants to know what I get out of it. While on the one hand I'd actually be okay with this just being a requirement, on the other, I know that if it was any other age group but youth, they'd be throwing a hissy fit unless there was a tax credit or something involved. I think they should raise Pell Grant limits. Don't pay us outright, but help us with our education. Send the money directly to the schools. I doubt many or any would complain.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pell grants are scheduled to go up (assuming Congress doesn't reduce the base amount) for the next several years.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'll be honest though, part of me wants to know what I get out of it.
What? You're not willing to help your fellow man out of the goodness of your heart? Come on man! You voted for this!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I said I'd do it. I'd even do it willingly. And this is exactly the sort of thing I thought he would do. I just think it's strange that the youth age group are the one group that everyone feels okay about pushing around and asking for something from without giving anything back. If this is the new way we do things, I'm totally and entirely okay with it, just so long as this is how everyone is treated, and not just the group without any political power.
I don't really want a tax break in that sense, or a tax credit. I DO want help with school, either by bringing the cost down or more grants or what not, but I'm fine paying my fair share, and I'm fine helping out in the community. In other words, I don't want someone putting spending money in my hand in return for service.
riv -
Thanks, I didn't know that. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Interest rates on subsidized Stafford (for undergrads only, and not unsub) are going down, too. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
We were required to do 40. I ended up with over 400.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I thought he said in one of his campaign speeches that one of his goals was a free (or reduced?) college education to anyone who served their country, either in the military or in a non-military way. Are we sure that this doesn't fall into line with that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Is there any point in asking why the federal government would be requiring this, instead of states? Or is that just a meaningless question at this point in our country's federalism?
My other problem with this kind of thing is that I've seen some incidents of bias by those who determine what acceptable "community service" is. In one particularly egregious case, time spent helping at a pro-life home for single moms was determined to not be acceptable, until outside pressure was brought. Eventually the rule was changed to count service to any 501(c)(3), which then disqualified some ad hoc forms of community service until students learned how to find groups to sponsor things like road cleanups.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Is there any point in asking why the federal government would be requiring this, instead of states? Or is that just a meaningless question at this point in our country's federalism?
Frankly I'm not sure where they'd really get the authority. Isn't the organization that gives accreditation colleges and universities an independent group? The government has absolutely zero power to control the curriculum of schools above the high school level. Even states I would imagine wouldn't have that power unless they are state funded schools.
However, I would imagine that tying federal aid, which they have complete control over, to service requirements, would be totally fair and under their control. So long as the states, or for that matter, local groups, are the ones actually overseeing it, I'm more okay with it. The community needs of Detroit and Gary, IN are going to be different than the community needs of Providence and Syracuse.
quote:Originally Posted by Katarain: I thought he said in one of his campaign speeches that one of his goals was a free (or reduced?) college education to anyone who served their country, either in the military or in a non-military way. Are we sure that this doesn't fall into line with that?
The 100 hours? I doubt it, and I don't think it should be. 100 hours is a month and a half of working 20 hours on the weekend. You do that for four years and you get free college? I think what he meant was, if you sign up for service similar to what you do in the military, like the Peace Corps or an expanded version of Americorps, then you get free or reduced college costs.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I believe I was required to do 70 hours to graduate high school, and I had both middle school and high school to do said hours. I don't know how other states handle community service, but in MD, for me, 60 hours were completed in class as part of social studies classes. They called it 'service learning' and gave credit for things like writing a letter to your congress person, taking the citizenship test, or taking a field trip to a court room. I have heard that now all community service hours are done in class.
I think if you're going to be required to do community service to graduate, the school should help facilitate that, at least for some of the hours. And I don't think 'service learning' is a bad thing, in that it could help people be better volunteers. But I also believe that students should only get credit for the hours where they actually serve.
Anyway, I'm all for this, and just hope it doesn't turn into something silly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly I'm not sure where they'd really get the authority.
Same way NCLB got authority - by offering money to schools on condition of implementing the program (or, from another perspective, threatening to withhold money if schools don't).
quote:However, I would imagine that tying federal aid, which they have complete control over, to service requirements, would be totally fair and under their control.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it "totally fair." Certainly it is within their control, though.
quote:The community needs of Detroit and Gary, IN are going to be different than the community needs of Providence and Syracuse.
Schools setting the agenda in the types of projects that count toward the requirement is the main worry I have toward this program.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In that you want them to have the leading role or a backseat role? Leading role I'd hope.
I would hope that they could somehow come up with new programs that would tie people's Majors into what it is that they do. Accounting majors could go help low income families and the elderly with their taxes so they don't have to waste money on a CPA when they really don't need it anyway. Music majors could maybe give lessons in low income schools. Every major could offering tutoring at schools. This in addition to the regular stuff like urban clean up and Habitat. Doing it that way I think gives some real world experience to students, and at the same time maybe gives them a taste of what teaching might be like. More qualified teachers wouldn't hurt at all.
It would be a huge corp of young people that sure, could do a lot of actual labor with their time, but off the top of my head I think the best thing they could do would be education related, and by way of that, would be to just stand out as good role models in a lot of areas where access to college educated successful people isn't all that great.
Having schools run the programs, in conjunction with the state and local community leaders is the absolute best way to do it, in my mind. The sheer number of well educated students will allow them to start and sustain programs they've probably never considered a doable reality in the past.
It's an exciting prospect, so long as the Federal Government doesn't muck it all up.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Is that 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school yearly, or commulative? In high school, I don't think I had 50 spare hours during the school year. I can tell you my students don't, either. Involved in too many activities, sports, and homework.
College, yeah, I had time. 100 hours in a 12 month period is reasonable, especially if doing it gives you a tuition credit of some sort.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think that 50 hours a year in middle school is completely unrealistic and will place a huge burden on parents, particularly on working parents. It's certainly an admirable idea, but I think it's unworkable. For example, how do they get to these community service programs? It could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for parents to get their kids there. I don't think that taxpayers can afford to have them bussed there. Also, who supervises them? You can't just leave middle schoolers alone - you have to have adult supervision.
I'm generally uncomfortable with the idea of forcing people to serve their communities. Aerin and I do quite a bit with the March of Dimes (she's lobbied at the VA General Assembly twice already) and it's a labor of love. I feel that it's my job as a parent to instill the idea of service (to G-d and family, as well as the community) in my children. It's not the job of the government to force this on my children.
I also think that there are many schools that have such severe problems already that this is the last thing they need to deal with. For example, a friend of mine taught 7th-grade science at a middle school in Bushwick, Brooklyn. She had no textbooks and no teaching materials (basics, like chalk). The veteran teachers told her to be happy each student has his own desk that year. She spent hundreds of her own dollars on classroom supplies and materials. How can we expect those kids to do 50 hours of community service? How can we ask that school to implement such a program?
I'm also wary of more money and effort being put into Head Start, unless it's to overhaul it. There are a number of reliable studies that show that it gives the participants little to no benefit over the course of their educations. There's actually a phenomenon known as "Head Start Fade."
I'd love to see Obama cut expensive and ineffective programs like DARE* and to reduce the number of administrators with high salaries and few duties. I'd also like to see him put more money into Special Education programs.
*Actually, I'd just like to see him support those schools who choose to forego DARE, since it's something schools choose and pay for themselves. But I'd like him to cut federally-mandated programs that aren't working.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Is it really "community service" if it is mandated and forced?
(I'm not opposed to doing it -- I have already serve my community in many ways)
I wonder how those who home-school their kids will feel about having to do community service in a public school on top of that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In that you want them to have the leading role or a backseat role? Leading role I'd hope.
I want the students to have a leading role in deciding where to focus their volunteer efforts. What I don't want is for faculty/administration to use this as a workforce for their pet causes. I've seen this fairly often.
I think much of the benefit of service is lost if the students are simply labor in someone else's program. Students need to learn to manage, too, and that includes identifying worthwhile goals, coming up with a plan to achieve them, identify and marshal the resources needed, and then getting it done.
I think limiting this to schools taking the lead is a big mistake. Schools will have to coordinate, for sure. But I think there's a lot of room for people outside the school to provide resources and necessary oversight for a lot of worthwhile programs. And the real benefit for students could be a lot more if they* take the real lead.
*"They" really means a sufficient number of self-selected students - not all students have to be the leaders in this type of program. But it's the ones who want to be and learn how to do it well that will be the greatest benefit of this program.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh.
Americans really seem to be getting into the spirit of this socialism thing. We haven't really implemented a system of forced labour in socialist Canada for education, but it seems like an interesting idea. We'll copy you guys if it works out.
PS: Don't send the kids out to the countryside. In retrospect, they don't seem to appreciate it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Is it really "community service" if it is mandated and forced?
I'd say so. It can't be called volunteering, really, since people are compelled to do it, but it's still unpaid work that serves the community. By definition, that would be community service, wouldn't it?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm completely against it. If you want to inspire America's youth to volunteer it is one thing. If you want to give them lots of incentives to do so? That's fine too.
Compelling them to, particularly if it is tied into graduation requirements? Absolutely not. Are they going to waive the requirement for people who might have learning disabilities who require that time to study so they can pass their classes? What about the profs who don't think students should have a life and assign projects so they can't? What if someone wants to do a double major? What if you are barely making ends meet and need to work to pay the bills for that amount of time, and then are denied financial aid because you haven't "volunteered"?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
So this would just be for students wishing to get credit/funding?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Dag, do you think there are any good ways to encourage service at a national level?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Is there any point in asking why the federal government would be requiring this, instead of states? Or is that just a meaningless question at this point in our country's federalism?
Frankly I'm not sure where they'd really get the authority. Isn't the organization that gives accreditation colleges and universities an independent group? The government has absolutely zero power to control the curriculum of schools above the high school level. Even states I would imagine wouldn't have that power unless they are state funded schools.
There are six regional accrediting agencies, and they are each independent of the government -- state or federal. However, some states also require schools to be licensed by the state. (I know that New York does and California does not; I don't know the relative percentages, etc.)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: However, I would imagine that tying federal aid, which they have complete control over, to service requirements, would be totally fair and under their control.
Yeah, let's add another requirement to Title IV funding. I especially like the ones that fall onto schools (often onto FAAs), rather than just onto aid recipients. This one would be TONS of fun to oversee! And I bet the government will pay for the extra staff needed to oversee it, right?
I think required community service is a relatively good idea in theory. I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with any way for it to be federally mandated that works well in practice, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Compelling them to, particularly if it is tied into graduation requirements? Absolutely not. Are they going to waive the requirement for people who might have learning disabilities who require that time to study so they can pass their classes? What about the profs who don't think students should have a life and assign projects so they can't? What if someone wants to do a double major? What if you are barely making ends meet and need to work to pay the bills for that amount of time, and then are denied financial aid because you haven't "volunteered"?
That was pretty much my response to having to take fine art or foreign language credits.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Compelling them to, particularly if it is tied into graduation requirements? Absolutely not. Are they going to waive the requirement for people who might have learning disabilities who require that time to study so they can pass their classes? What about the profs who don't think students should have a life and assign projects so they can't? What if someone wants to do a double major? What if you are barely making ends meet and need to work to pay the bills for that amount of time, and then are denied financial aid because you haven't "volunteered"?
These same problems apply to individual school districts that require community service.
Farmgirl, that's what I originally thought the plan was and I like it a lot more. This new plan surprised me when I first read about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: * Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
Better than what it sounded like before, but I still have a feeling it's going to end up being the college that has to monitor the community service hours and such . . .
quote: * Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Obama and Biden will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.
Sounds great, no?
But what about assets? (currently taken into account by the financial aid formula) What about state aid, much of which uses results/data from the FAFSA as part of its application? What about when there are two or more tax returns involved? (Like a parent's and a student's?) What if you decided to go to college (or apply for financial aid) after you filed your taxes? What about determining dependent/independent status (requires information not on taxes), year in school, TEACH/ACG/SMART eligibility (ditto), etc.? Oh, and how would you determine which schools got your info?
Making the FAFSA shorter is an admirable goal. But every politician who has promised to do so has failed to talk to anyone who knows how the process actually works. Which means a 1-page FAFSA . . . and a 200-question verification form later! Much better. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, do you think there are any good ways to encourage service at a national level?
I'm not really sure that's the federal government's job.If it is, there are effective ways it can be done nationally by providing opportunity (Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.) and incentives.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I thought you had to have a trial before you could be sentenced to Community Service.
Why is this the government's business at all?
How does the government have the right to require this?
On a side note, taking money from the people and returning it to them with strings attached is a horribly immoral way of circumventing the constitution. If judges had any integrity at all they'd strike this down... Yet the government's been doing this for as long as I can remember.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I want to go on the record as saying that I think this is a horrible idea. My university had merit scholarships linked to major community service requirements that I thought were excellent - and I'd be all for an expansion of such programs. My high school had community service requirements for graduation, and I thought that was acceptable at the local level, given that the administrators were actually in touch with the local community AND you could always vote with your feet if you felt that that requirement was wrong.
I'm with Pixiest - I really don't see how this is the government's business at all. And they haven't made the case why community service should be tied to educational degrees. If you're going to regulate something, you need to make a case as to why the regulation is necessary. "It seems like a good idea" or "I'd like everyone to do community service" doesn't count.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: This Link seems to say a bit more in depth.
From the bottom of the page:
quote:Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
So this would just be for students wishing to get credit/funding?
I sent a question through their contact form asking if the page that I linked to was mistaken or if the page you linked to meant that those wishing to receive tuition credit would have to perform 100 hours in addition to the already mandated 100 hours. It will be interesting to see if I receive a reply.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
So wait a second....Obama is kicking around the idea of making people do community service?
While I am all for serving my community, I do not like the idea of the government telling me how I have to manage my time. I already pay enough taxes with my money, now it sounds like he wants to tax my time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I thought you had to have a trial before you could be sentenced to Community Service.
Why is this the government's business at all?
How does the government have the right to require this?
On a side note, taking money from the people and returning it to them with strings attached is a horribly immoral way of circumventing the constitution. If judges had any integrity at all they'd strike this down... Yet the government's been doing this for as long as I can remember.
Maybe its written in the Preamble?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Compelling them to, particularly if it is tied into graduation requirements? Absolutely not.
We lost over fifty students from my HS graduating class two days before graduation because they hadn't finished their "Service Learning" (which was an absurdly easy 24 hours). I don't know if these people ever got their degrees (and I really hope they did), but it would have certainly put them at a disadvantage.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Compelling them to, particularly if it is tied into graduation requirements? Absolutely not. Are they going to waive the requirement for people who might have learning disabilities who require that time to study so they can pass their classes? What about the profs who don't think students should have a life and assign projects so they can't? What if someone wants to do a double major? What if you are barely making ends meet and need to work to pay the bills for that amount of time, and then are denied financial aid because you haven't "volunteered"?
That was pretty much my response to having to take fine art or foreign language credits.
Dag, the difference is that the university has the right and responsibility to define what sort of education it wants to require students to have before it gives out a degree with its name on the top. You chose that school, and you have plenty of other educational choices.
The federal government, on the other hand, hasn't given any reason why it thinks community service should be tied to education, and, anyways it's not the U.S. Government on the top of your diploma.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jhai: he might have been referring to (and probably was, given the mention of art) high school education. My high school organized things in terms of credits, for instance.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
We had a fine arts requirement in college.
Anyways, high school graduation requirements are still more localized than the federal level, and students do have options regarding high school degrees. A good friend of mine dropped out, got his GED, took community college classes, and graduated from UCLA two years earlier than he would have if he'd followed the normal path.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I think it's great to encourage young people to do community service. I think it's terrible for the federal government to force people to do it. Seems there's an amendment against involuntary servitude somewhere in the Constitution... #13, I think it is...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, the difference is that the university has the right and responsibility to define what sort of education it wants to require students to have before it gives out a degree with its name on the top. You chose that school, and you have plenty of other educational choices.
The federal government, on the other hand, hasn't given any reason why it thinks community service should be tied to education, and, anyways it's not the U.S. Government on the top of your diploma.
I am not in favor of the federal government doing this. I'm pretty sure I said that.
My response to AJ has nothing to do with the federal government. It deals specifically with the time issue, which is independent of the federal government.
I was referring to college.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You did say that - I was just making it clear why I thought the two cases were different enough that one is a legitimate requirement, and one was not. Playing off your comment, rather than disagreeing with anything in particular that you said.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Terrible idea if it is mandatory. I can almost see tying it to this 4000 dollars for college - okay, maybe. You would have a choice whether or not to take it. Four thousand dollars doesn't come close to paying for a college education anyway. But, people would have a choice, and if they accepted the money with those strings attached - that's on them.
But in high school? You've got to be kidding me. Everything Mrs. M said is correct. There are many kids for whom simply making it to class is an accomplishment. One of my 10th graders explained to me she didn't have her book because it was at her mom's - and mom lives more than an hour away, but the child has to spend at least two or three nights a week there because her parents have joint custody, yet live more than an hour apart. This kid spends most of her time in cars getting shuttled back and forth between parents. She is doing the best she can to hold on and (barely) keep up with her assignments.
As I understand it, Obama never went to a public school a day in his life. I have no idea if his kids attend public schools - but even so, they don't have to deal with the same type of issues that many of the kids I'm teaching face. They don't need 100 hours of service piled on top of them. They have enough to deal with.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This seems like an idea that might work - but it is something the states should decide upon separately, not something the federal government should try to mandate.
It's also important that schools recognize that in addition to placing the service requirement on students, they'd also have to work hard to guide students to finding service opportunities that work well for them. You can't just hand students a math textbook and then automatically assume they'll be able to pass a math exam at the end of the year. Similarly, you can't just say "Serve your community for 50 hours" and expect students to all figure out how to do that on their own. Schools would need to decide if it is worth setting aside the resources to teach how to serve.
Having said that, I think service learning if done correctly could be more of a help to students than a burden. It can be something that helps students understand the reason they are going to school.
[ November 07, 2008, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Frankly I'm not sure where they'd really get the authority.
Same way NCLB got authority - by offering money to schools on condition of implementing the program (or, from another perspective, threatening to withhold money if schools don't).
But, whereas NCLB is a racist, backwards, meaningless attempt at a bandaid fix on the entire education system, this "requirement," if it were tied to federal money, would not be an attempt at fixing anything. I'm ok with the government offering money if schools can promote community service- I am entirely against schools being pressured into using a system that seriously harms their ability to teach, with the promise of federal money. One puts a strain on the system, the other completely unhinges it. I've been in classrooms and talked to teachers about NCLB, and I frustrated just to see them in those kinds of positions.
On the other hand, I'm just not a big fan of the government buying local cooperation this way either. I guess you can't have everything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But, whereas NCLB is a racist, backwards, meaningless attempt at a bandaid fix on the entire education system
Yeah! Damn that Ted Kennedy!
How the hell is NCLB racist?
quote:I've been in classrooms and talked to teachers about NCLB, and I frustrated just to see them in those kinds of positions.
And I've seen numerous schools and classrooms that have been immensely helped by NCLB.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Perhaps it would be better if Obama talked about serving your community as a patriotic duty -- for everyone, not just young people. No requirements, no oversight, no need to define just what counts as community service. Maybe he could set up some national days of community service, where people would be encouraged to volunteer together as a family.
Posted by naledge (Member # 392) on :
Dag, where specifically?
-nal
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I thought that the community service was in exchange for a tax credit. 100 hours of community service for $4,000 seems like a heck of a deal! Where else can you make $40 an hour in college?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Does fully refundable mean you would get a check in the mail for the amount over your taxes?
If not, this isn't going to help at lot of us at all.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
According to Wikipedia, yes. Might not be the best source but they're good for a quick lookup.
Well that's something I'd certainly be interested then. Between that, Pell Grants and state scholarships, I might be able to get out of school with a very small amount of loans. Assuming he passes it sooner rather than later.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Perhaps it would be better if Obama talked about serving your community as a patriotic duty -- for everyone, not just young people. No requirements, no oversight, no need to define just what counts as community service. Maybe he could set up some national days of community service, where people would be encouraged to volunteer together as a family.
That sounds like a better plan to me. Otherwise it's going to alienate a lot of people, and create a huge bureaucracy at precisely the time when we're needing to curb new government spending as much as possible.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
In High School I had no service required to graduate. I figure I still did 400 to 500 hours of Community service a year between scouts and church. I never liked being forced to do somthing I already did.
If I had been forced to do it I most likely would have treated it like I treated reading logs....while I did far more then the required reading I never tracked it. I never wanted people to be able to say I only did it for the grade. If reading wasn't already the love of my life, forcing me to read and keep reading logs might have turned me off to reading. Some of my teachers realized this and instead of keeping a reading log asked me to make book reviews for the books I read, so that other students could use the reviews to find books they might like. This choice let me do two things I loved, read, and help people.
Now back to service, if they decided the service I did in church and scouts didn't qualify does that mean I'd have to increase the total amount of service beyond the 400 to 500 I did a year? I know I would never stop giving service that I wanted to do in order to find time to give service I was being forced to do.
For some people this might be great and helpful, for others this will turn them off to community service. Everyone is defferent, they learn and develop different. Are the number of people that learn to love Community service through this worth the number of people that will be forever turned off to community service through this? My parents knew me and my brother well enough that they needed to make my brother serve and let me decide for my own. The result is both my brother and I love Community service now. If they had treated both my brother and I exactly the same one of us would've ended up hating it. I think weather or not to force community service on people should be left up to the courts (as punishment for crimes) and to people who know the kids best, their guardian and prehaps their teacher.
At the least make some different options that work for different personality types.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: *Actually, I'd just like to see him support those schools who choose to forego DARE, since it's something schools choose and pay for themselves.
For what it's worth, DARE is one of the many experiences that led me away from drugs and drug culture. Granted, I may have taken it too far. I look down on a great many people on Ritalin or anti-depressants.
___
As to the community service, it's a silly requirement and an obtrusive law until we talk about what constitutes community service and why we should require it. The conversation should come first, then maybe the law.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
*snort* Try crying uncontrollably for a week, then come back and tell me how you feel about anti-depressants.
I couldn't deal with the problems in my life until I got my seratonin up high enough that I could think again. And once I had, I didn't need the drugs anymore. That's why it's not an addiction.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: How the hell is NCLB racist?
I get the feeling that "racist" is Orinoco's Word of the Week.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
This is essentially a $40/hour job. If you're at college, better to work 100 hours than 600 hours or so at minimum wage.
As for high and middle school, 50 hours/year is essentially an hour a week. I got my required 30 hours community service to graduate from my Ontario high school by volunteering for a year with a Brownie unit once a week. It wasn't a terrible burden for the one year I did it. There's nothing required about this service. The language is vague- a "goal".
That said, I think a lot of high schoolers look at their crazy schedules and wonder where it will fit in (even though it's an hour a week, basically). Even in the last few years, homework and expectations have skyrocketed. Students will feel compelled to add this one, instead of making space. High schoolers these days, especially high-achieving students in high-achieving schools, are far busier than the days when Barack Obama went to school. I think Obama should talk to the people whom this will affect- many of whom do not vote yet- to work on what this idea will mean to them.
However, it's an excellent way of making a community run smoother. It's a way of introducing older kids to children (who they may someday have to raise), especially in a society that often alienates adults from its children. It's a way of providing services in needy areas that couldn't otherwise exist because there simply isn't any money for them.
Another qualm about hugely expanding volunteer programs is that the more people there are doing unpaid work, the fewer opportunities there are for paid work in the same fields. Why hire somebody new if you can get somebody almost as good doing it for free? One thing that I find in the job market at the moment is the lack of employers willing to train employees. So many people have free or paid-for experience that it makes no economic sense to hire people before they're trained. This actually encourages specialization. When employers and colleges see these hours on resumes, what will their reaction be? How much time is it healthy for young people to put into school and volunteering- especially students as young as 12 or 13?
I think the spirit is a good one. I don't think we should feel entitled to be paid for everything we do.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
At my undergraduate college, one of the requirements for graduation with an Honors Degree was forty hours (cumulative) of community service. This amounted to ten hours per year, and there were still people just barely making the requirement during the last few weeks of the last semester. But if you put a monetary incentive behind it, I imagine many more students would have met this requirement earlier, and probably maxed out what they could get in rebate/credit.
I can definitely see this working at undergraduate college. I think that every student, no matter how busy they are with classes, could spare one or two hours a week if it meant saving $40 per hour. I have trouble seeing it working at the Middle or High School level.
But also, does the whole idea of community service come from doing work with no monetary benefit to the volunteer? Does it not somewhat sully the virtue of community service if the volunteer essentially makes money off of it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Perhaps it would be better if Obama talked about serving your community as a patriotic duty -- for everyone, not just young people. No requirements, no oversight, no need to define just what counts as community service. Maybe he could set up some national days of community service, where people would be encouraged to volunteer together as a family.
That sounds like a better plan to me. Otherwise it's going to alienate a lot of people, and create a huge bureaucracy at precisely the time when we're needing to curb new government spending as much as possible.
If it was managed at the local level, why would it create a huge new bureaucracy? Despite the fact that I think there needs to be drastic spending cuts, I also think there are plenty of things that require spending increases, like funding for college. If it's voluntary and those funds are paid as a result of the work, then I don't necessarily have a problem at all with the idea, so long as it's executed well. But really, at the Federal level I don't see why this would create more than a couple of guys to deal with the paper work. Most of the details would be worked out at the local level I'd imagine.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:How the hell is NCLB racist?
Racist isn't the word I would have used, but NCLB is based on the premise that all students should perform at the same level in a few highly valued subjects. It expects all children to be cut from the same mold, with no expectation of individualism. It is based on a self-centric perspective that values only academic performance, specifically in math and literacy.
NCLB changes the focus of education from offering educational opportunity to demanding academic performance. It's a punitive system, that encourages the kind of pressure that poor students equate with frustration and humiliation for their lack of natural ability.
quote:And I've seen numerous schools and classrooms that have been immensely helped by NCLB.
As far as I can tell, the main improvement in performance due to NCLB is due to accounting practices. I don't doubt that it has had some benefits, but the improvement in the Texas school district it was modeled on turned out to be because the district cooked the books. Elsewhere it might be more legitimate, but it's still mostly a matter of finding the right loophole, rather than improving the educational experience.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: But also, does the whole idea of community service come from doing work with no monetary benefit to the volunteer? Does it not somewhat sully the virtue of community service if the volunteer essentially makes money off of it?
I imagine that whoever you are doing the service for doesn't really care if you are getting paid. they are just happy the job is getting done.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
They changed the wording on that pretty fast. I'm glad they did.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: This Link seems to say a bit more in depth.
From the bottom of the page:
quote:Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama and Biden will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.
So this would just be for students wishing to get credit/funding?
See this is how I understood it and Obama has mentioned it more than once. I was under the impression that students who can't afford tuition will have this service program available so that their schooling is covered. If this is what it is I think it's a grand idea. If it isn't, I'm not sure how this is much different than places like Singapore and Taiwan where you are required to enlist in the army or the service corp for 1.5 years after high school.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
NCLB has performance expectations based on ethnicity. So, for example, in Sacramento where there is a very large Russian population, there are Caucasian children who do not speak English at home, or who's parents don't speak much English. Those children are expected to perform better than Asian and Hispanic children on standardized tests because they are white, and when they don't for very obvious reasons, the school risks losing funding.
So a school that comes in with a disadvantage, and has white children who have poorer language skills than the test demands, the school is punished for that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: How the hell is NCLB racist?
I get the feeling that "racist" is Orinoco's Word of the Week.
I'd kindly ask you to tell me how many times you think I've used that word on this forum, even in the past few months. It's been a few- but not many. I believe I called two people racist, (may have been the same person twice) and then I've used the word here. I don't know of any others, but I could be wrong.
I'm not a class warrior, nor have I met many racist people in my life, nor do I tend to consider racism to be among our biggest problems today- but I think NCLB's policies are racist- I should be aloud to say that without worrying about PC backlash nonsense.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I've never seen "aloud" substituted for "allowed" before. Is that regional?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
*zing*
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
There is a difference between making someone do something and offering the option to do and and receive a benefit. I like the second choice, and that is what this is looking like at this point.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I've never seen "aloud" substituted for "allowed" before. Is that regional?
You mean they don't sound the same in your region? Where are you from?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I've never seen "aloud" substituted for "allowed" before. Is that regional?
Just late.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it was managed at the local level, why would it create a huge new bureaucracy?
Lovely. So instead of the bureaucracy being federal, another burden will be placed on schools, almost certainly without giving them any additional funding to manage it?
Much better. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if they gave them the funding to manage it, it WOULD be much better. But I wouldn't want schools doing it by themselves anyways, at least, not at the administrative level. I'd imagine it as a partnership between local business, community leaders, the school's administration and in large part to the students themselves.
Doing it at the Federal level would be a mess. Trying to sort out the specific needs of each school and the surrounding communities would either be a huge waste of time, or would end up being hugely ineffective.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Okay, wait a second. He said nothing about requiring anything in his campaign plans. When he was running it was some amount of community service in return for help with tuition in college. That I'd be okay with. I am not okay with mandating community service for anything. That's why it's called 'volunteering'. Encouraging, creating more programs and opportunities, making them more visible and easy to get into, this I am all for. And I've been trying to increase the number of hours I volunteer. But I am not okay with the government, on ANY level, demanding I do something with my time. NO!
PS. That doesn't sound like anything that was in his plans, so I'm not sure where you got your info threads, but I haven't heard anything about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have absolutely zero problem with the idea of public service being mandatory in schools. I mean, the kids are getting all that expensive education (whether they avail themselves of it or not) free, aren't they? Let `em give something back, whether they like it or not.
As for me, I got mine in through the BSA and my own private life, where it was sometimes onerous but far and away good times.
100 hrs is nothing. That boils down to a quarter-hour a week over one's high school career. Or, if one is committed, one summer's efforts. You know, I have to confess more than a little frustration bordering on contempt for people who find 100 hours over four years to be so objectionable.
quote:I'll be honest though, part of me wants to know what I get out of it.
Free public education is what you get out of it. I'm not saying we shouldn't consider it a right of children or anything, I'm just answering that question if asked by a high-schooler.
quote:In high school, I don't think I had 50 spare hours during the school year. I can tell you my students don't, either. Involved in too many activities, sports, and homework.
While I bow to your greater experience with high school kids, Paul, I have to admit: of the dozen or so high school age kids I know well enough to comment, maybe two or three of them don't have at least an hour or two a week to spare...and those that do, speaking for my own experience, are already doing some community service.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I have absolutely zero problem with the idea of public service being mandatory in schools. I mean, the kids are getting all that expensive education (whether they avail themselves of it or not) free, aren't they? Let `em give something back, whether they like it or not.
I have no problem with this being commonplace at college. If a student is attending college, they are already better off than a lot of people, and should be able to recognize this and the value of community service. But I do have a problem with a middle or high school student, who is required to attend, to be forced into additional service/work.
By all means, provide incentives or high praise for students who do community service in middle and high school. I know that in my high school, admittance into the National Honor Society required a minimum amount of community service, and awards and recognition was given to each student upon graduation for their service. But to force a student to perform community service just seems wrong, IMO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But to force a student to perform community service just seems wrong, IMO.
Why? We force them to go to school, to obey their parents, and to not do a whole host of things.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I think it's the same problem I had before. Being forced to do service is not the same as choosing to do service. And I agree that at one end, it doesn't matter why the volunteer does the work. But at the other end, community service is about choosing to give back to the community. It loses something when it becomes a requirement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, if they gave them the funding to manage it, it WOULD be much better.
And they usually do that, right? Like they did with ACG, SMART, TEACH . . . oh, wait . . .
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But I wouldn't want schools doing it by themselves anyways, at least, not at the administrative level. I'd imagine it as a partnership between local business, community leaders, the school's administration and in large part to the students themselves.
Someone would have to certify the hours. The businesses and community leaders are too loose a network to be effective -- too easy for someone to claim to be a non-profit business owner, and sell 100-hour certifications to students trying to weasel out. Schools already have to monitor community service programs as a required part of their work study programs. It actually makes sense for schools to monitor this, and specifically for it to be part of the FA department's job. If I could be sure the additional responsibility were reasonable (in terms of sufficient but not excessive guidelines and rules) and came with funding, I'd be ok with it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I have no problem with this being commonplace at college. If a student is attending college, they are already better off than a lot of people, and should be able to recognize this and the value of community service.
Not all college students are 18-21 and have no outside responsibilities. Plenty have a job or two, families, and barely enough time to fit in 12 credits a semester. And they are often the ones who need extra financial help to pay for college the most.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah, okay. I didn't think about that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
As a high schooler, I wouldn't have asked that. I'd have been hard pressed not to find 25 hours a year, or for that matter during a summer. It was a requirement for NHS students, though the verification of the hours was ridiculously lax.
As a college student, it's most certainly not free. Actually, it's not really free in high school either. Eventually when I buy a house I'll be paying local school taxes. I think of it as a sort of reverse social security tax in a sense. My social security taxes right now pay for today's retirees, whereas when I went to school, it was paid for by people in the work force, then later in life I'll pay for someone else's schooling. Regardless though, it might not be comparing apples and oranges, but it's certainly on a different level to discuss it for college students versus K-12.
quote:from rivka: And they usually do that, right? Like they did with ACG, SMART, TEACH . . . oh, wait . . .
Well if you're going to argue against hypotheticals like that, there isn't much point in trying is there?
quote:Someone would have to certify the hours. The businesses and community leaders are too loose a network to be effective -- too easy for someone to claim to be a non-profit business owner, and sell 100-hour certifications to students trying to weasel out. Schools already have to monitor community service programs as a required part of their work study programs. It actually makes sense for schools to monitor this, and specifically for it to be part of the FA department's job. If I could be sure the additional responsibility were reasonable (in terms of sufficient but not excessive guidelines and rules) and came with funding, I'd be ok with it.
Well, business and community leaders are going to have to play SOME sort of role in verification. If you show up on a Saturday and do 8 hours of work, who's to say you did or didn't do it when you go back to the school and say what you did? I imagine it would have to be a partnership between schools, students, and the local organizations that actually need the help. The school can't spend all their time creating organizations or figuring out what needs to be done; the community would do that. The students would play a role there too, and in organizing their fellow classmates. And schools can work with the community groups to ensure that the students are acutally showing up and working, and they can then funnel that information back to the federal level.
I think the easiest way to organize the student population would be to have them register to volunteer just like they do for classes. That way there is a searchable database for students looking for something that suits them best, and that way there is a manageable number for the organizations to work with so they aren't flooded with a thousand students one day. Organizations can put in requests to the school, or even through a student run group (the students running the group could get volunteer credit hours of their own) that sets up the website, takes requests from organizations, posts links to their websites and puts down the allotment of slots desired. It'd be just like signing up for classes, only students would run that aspect of it instead of the registrar's office. I imagine the school would need to screen the organizations to see which ones are qualified, but once they are pre-approved, they might as well use tech-savvy and well organized student populations to do the rest rather than waste money on administrators.
In that sense, the only thing schools would need to do is check to make sure an organization is legit (which they'd only need to do once, and then maybe recertify every couple years), and work out some sort of validation program for the hours. It would be up to local businesses, community organizers and non-profit groups to ask the school for a certain number of students, and then up to the students themselves to take that information and organize it. I think that's a great three way burden sharing arrangement.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm still confused why this proposed community service is tied to getting your school degree. If they want to force young people into community service - then fine, draft them and be honest about it. Don't tie it to educational degrees at the national level without first proving to educational professionals and the American public that community service is an essential educational skill, like math or English.
Edit: Glad to hear that they've changed the wording to make it explicit that the service would be voluntary (at least at the college level), rather than required. Note to self: read through all the previous posts *carefully* since you last checked the thread.
[ November 10, 2008, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:from rivka: And they usually do that, right? Like they did with ACG, SMART, TEACH . . . oh, wait . . .
Well if you're going to argue against hypotheticals like that, there isn't much point in trying is there?
You mean, using actual examples? Those are all the new college grants that have come out of Congress in the past 5 years. Not one included funding for schools to administer the programs (Pell does, for example), and each has a considerable burden of oversight. It does appear to be a trend.
(Personally, I think we'd all be better off if all three programs were repealed and the money rolled into increasing Pell, but don't get me started.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm still confused why this proposed community service is tied to getting your school degree. If they want to force young people into community service - then fine, draft them and be honest about it. Don't tie it to educational degrees at the national level without first proving to educational professionals and the American public that community service is an essential educational skill, like math or English.
I'm pretty sure most things you learn in school aren't proven to be essential educational skills. But understanding the value of service is definitely more essential of an educational skill than, for instance, understanding symbolism in Shakespeare or knowing the capitals of every state.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think community service is a very valuable life skill, but I don't think it's an academic subject. My college would have afternoon/evening seminars that students could attend on things like personal finance & credit scores, how to network, how to write a resume, where you could volunteer in the community, and so forth. All of that is great information that a lot of students were glad to learn, and it was very cool that the university offered it. However, I would have been seriously irritated if we were required to attend those seminars to earn a degree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed, Jhai.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think community service is a very valuable life skill, but I don't think it's an academic subject.
But - unless you're speaking strictly about the college level, I'm not completely clear - since when have our schools been entirely about teaching academic subjects?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I was thinking primarily of college, but actually, I can't think of one class I took after elementary school that wasn't on an academic topic. Of course, there are "life-skill" type courses that are offered at all educational levels - home ec & shop come to mind for high school - but they aren't required for graduation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can think of one: my government class I had to take for graduation, to say nothing of the physical education classes I had to take as well. Hardly academic, either of them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Senior year we had a government class, but I don't see how it's not an academic class - I mean, it basically covered the history of the U.S. political system and how government policy worked. You could substitute the American Government (poli sci 101) at the local community college if you wanted, which is what I did.
I'll give you P.E., but we only had one year required. Anyways, physical education at my school was taught with a focus on learning sport rules, proper techniques, physiology, and the like. Half the grade was participation (edit: as in "did you show up to class or not?"), half the grade was from written tests.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
P.E. (4 years) Health (1 sem.--I suppose you could define that as academic, but I don't see how it's any more "academic" than learning about your community & its needs) Driver's Ed Family Living Home Ec & shop both required in 8th grade
Actually, come to think of it, I don't agree with the designation of community service as a life-skill type course. It would be very easy to make it an integrated part of an academic requirement.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What exactly distinguishes between "life skill" and "academic" requirements? I was always under the impression that the reason English and Math were required in high school or college was because reading, writing, and math were important life skills.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Liz - you had to take all of those courses to graduate? Really? How did you fit in academic subjects? Why in the world would your school require driver's ed?
Maybe I just went to a very academically-motivated school district, but all of the students at my high school were too busy trying to fit in English, Social Science/History, Math, Science, Foreign Language, Fine Art, and then two more academic courses (often a second art, a second science course, or a class on something like philosophy or international law) to take courses like "family living" or shop. In fact, I know we didn't have home ec, driver's ed, or a shop class when I attended.
Tres, English & mathematics courses are required because they're fundamental academic subjects, not just because they're life skills. I truly doubt that you believe that our schools are in the business of teaching life skills, and I hope you don't want them to be. The majority of life skills are not suited to learning in a classroom environment, and are almost certainly best left to the families and communities at large.
Edit: Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not at all against life skill-type courses from being offered at any level of education; however, I think that requiring them to complete an academic degree is not a good thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I had to take French to graduate High School and College. Its not academic either.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I'd kindly ask you to tell me how many times you think I've used that word on this forum, even in the past few months. It's been a few- but not many. I believe I called two people racist, (may have been the same person twice) and then I've used the word here. I don't know of any others, but I could be wrong.
That's why I said "Word of the Week".
I was just a little surprised to see you use it again in this thread, since I was fairly confused by/disagreed with your usage the previous two times. But I have to admit, what you said about NCLB makes more sense. I'm still thinking about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:from rivka: And they usually do that, right? Like they did with ACG, SMART, TEACH . . . oh, wait . . .
Well if you're going to argue against hypotheticals like that, there isn't much point in trying is there?
You mean, using actual examples? Those are all the new college grants that have come out of Congress in the past 5 years. Not one included funding for schools to administer the programs (Pell does, for example), and each has a considerable burden of oversight. It does appear to be a trend.
(Personally, I think we'd all be better off if all three programs were repealed and the money rolled into increasing Pell, but don't get me started.)
I guess my point was that, if reality doesn't end up matching my hypothetical, then I'm unlikely to support it the same way, and thus arguing the unlikelihood of said hypothetical is sort of superflous. That's sort of the magic of hypotheticals.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Liz - you had to take all of those courses to graduate? Really? How did you fit in academic subjects? Why in the world would your school require driver's ed?
Maybe I just went to a very academically-motivated school district, but all of the students at my high school were too busy trying to fit in English, Social Science/History, Math, Science, Foreign Language, Fine Art, and then two more academic courses (often a second art, a second science course, or a class on something like philosophy or international law) to take courses like "family living" or shop. In fact, I know we didn't have home ec, driver's ed, or a shop class when I attended.
You know, I went home & thought about it (and asked my husband), and I think driver's ed was probably an elective. We got a reduction on insurance if we took it, so *my* parents required it. (No reduction for good grades, iirc.) I don't know of anyone who didn't take it, but I don't think it was required.
Yes, you went to a very academically motivated high school. (About 30% of my graduating class went on to 2- or 4-year colleges.) We didn't have "extra" academic electives like you describe. There were only 3 AP courses offered, but a whole host of home/ career/ agriculture classes. Perfectly appropriate, because that's the population the school was serving. (As a side note, it didn't have any kind of negative impact on my getting into colleges--or more importantly, my education. The school and my teachers bent over backwards to help me and other students go as far as we could. For one thing, we could leave school to take courses as the local university.)
If community service becomes a requirement of a district, I think it usually gets folded in with the social studies curriculum, rather than being an extra course.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
We had trimesters in my school, and for two years (I think 7th and 8th grades) we were required to take one tri each of art, home ec, and shop. The shop was wood shop and metal shop one year, and drafting, silk screening, and I think electricity the second year. We didn't have any art required after that, and when you say Fine Art was required for you, Jhai, I'm not sure how that's any more an academic subject than "family living" would be. (We did not have a family living course, but we did learn to balance a checkbook and make a budget in one of the home ec courses.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Woodshop, drafting, and "production" was in 7th grade, metalshop, silkscreening & electricity was in 8th. 7th grade home-ec was cooking and "relationships," 8th grade was sewing and sex.
Assuming they didn't change it in the two years between when I was in Jr. High and when ElJay was.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
They did. Drafting was definitely with silkscreening and electricity, because I had the somewhat rotund old guy for all of those and the lanky old guy for the others.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
My health (e.g. sex ed) teacher in 7th grade wore a variety of turbo-dorky outfits, including red plaid golf pants.
Certainly added something to the discussion of various parts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, English & mathematics courses are required because they're fundamental academic subjects, not just because they're life skills. I truly doubt that you believe that our schools are in the business of teaching life skills, and I hope you don't want them to be. The majority of life skills are not suited to learning in a classroom environment, and are almost certainly best left to the families and communities at large.
Why then is learning "fundamental academic skills" important - if not for their usefulness in life?
Or, to put it differently, if we were to tell students that they are learning things that are fundamentally important for academics but will not serve them in any way in real life, why should they care about learning them? The vast majority of kids will not grow up and have a career in academia.
-----
I think schools ARE in the business of teaching important life skills, and are partners with parents and families in that endeavor. I do think there are many life skills that aren't best taught in classrooms, which is why schools need to go beyond the classroom in many cases, with programs such as community service or extracurriculars. But I also think that among the most important life skills are reading, writing, math, and more generally, learning how and why to learn.
[ November 11, 2008, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Liz, I think it's great that your high school offered courses that would best suit the students' needs, while also giving them a good education. My high school had a bunch of internship-like classes where you spent part of the week learning things like computer programming, and part of the week working for free at a local tech start-up or lab (yes, this was Silicon Valley) applying those skills. A lot of the students used this opportunity as a chance to get a head start on figuring out a major or as a way to secure a summer job in a field they were interested in. However, like I said to begin with, I don't think that these sorts of classes should be requirements for graduation.
ElJay, by "fine arts" I meant things like pottery, painting, band, chorus, orchestra, and the like. I think of these things as more academic than "life skill" type courses because I believe that, along with things like philosophy or history, they're very important things to study, but they don't give any concrete skills that one might use in day-to-day life. "Life skill" subjects, on the other hand, can also be quite important to learn, but they are quite specific skills that one uses to perform a particular task. Driver's ed teaches you to drive a car, home ec (I think) teaches you how to do things like cook & sew & budget. Great things to know; not necessarily things that you must study in order to be considered "educated" at either a high school or college level.
This is all IMO, of course. I wouldn't think someone improperly formally educated if they can't sew on a button, but I will think their formal education lacking if they don't have a decent grasp on world history or on how science studies things. If a person turns 18 and can't take care of themselves in day-to-day living, then I blame the parents and family, not the schools. If they don't know much about literature or math, then the schools are in for their fair share of the blame.
Tres, I'll reply to you when I get a breather at work.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I agree with your second to last paragraph, but I don't agree that what you list as fine arts are more academic than home ec or shop. I wouldn't think someone improperly formally educated if they've never touched clay, paint, or an instrument. But I think those classes are valuable and help people grow into a well-rounded individual. Just like home ec and shop do.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:What exactly distinguishes between "life skill" and "academic" requirements? I was always under the impression that the reason English and Math were required in high school or college was because reading, writing, and math were important life skills.
My impression is that "life skills" is sort of a euphemism for a less abstract curriculum, intended for students with lower academic capabilities. Which is a euphemism for a dumbed down curriculum. In any case, a life skills curriculum would include english and math, just not the abstract stuff that we expect of an average student.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Senior year we had a government class, but I don't see how it's not an academic class - I mean, it basically covered the history of the U.S. political system and how government policy worked.
In my school, the requirement was that you had to take a government class one semester and an economics class the next semester, at some point in your high school career. Likewise for...geeze, what was it...'Life Management' and something else. Anyway. Why do we insist our children know something about our political system?
quote: This is all IMO, of course. I wouldn't think someone improperly formally educated if they can't sew on a button, but I will think their formal education lacking if they don't have a decent grasp on world history or on how science studies things. If a person turns 18 and can't take care of themselves in day-to-day living, then I blame the parents and family, not the schools. If they don't know much about literature or math, then the schools are in for their fair share of the blame.
My question for you is, "Why do we insist schools teach these things to our children?" For what purpose? Why do we spend such vast amounts of time and money on this matter, exactly? While certainly an education is a good thing in and of itself, that's definitely not the only reason. Why is it important for our children to grow up and know how to count, read, and to have some basic knowledge of their own history?
My opinion is that at least one of the reasons we do this is that so they will be better citizens in our society when they're older. Would you agree or disagree with that statement, Jhai?
And if you agree, why shouldn't the idea of serving one's community also be something we teach? And if you disagree, why do you disagree?
(Note that 'we shouldn't force kids to serve their communities' isn't really a very valid answer - in my opinion, at least - because as I've said before, we force `em to do lots of things.)
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Fine arts, etc. classes would certainly be considered "academic" classes if what we mean by "academic" is "college prep."
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why then is learning "fundamental academic skills" important - if not for their usefulness in life?
Or, to put it differently, if we were to tell students that they are learning things that are fundamentally important for academics but will not serve them in any way in real life, why should they care about learning them? The vast majority of kids will not grow up and have a career in academia.
-----
I think schools ARE in the business of teaching important life skills, and are partners with parents and families in that endeavor. I do think there are many life skills that aren't best taught in classrooms, which is why schools need to go beyond the classroom in many cases, with programs such as community service or extracurriculars. But I also think that among the most important life skills are reading, writing, math, and more generally, learning how and why to learn.
In my mind, the subjects that are academic are those that make us better people. The things we learn in academic classes are often extremely useful in our future lives, but that sort of utility is secondary. Sometimes schools teach things, such as spelling, which is not, in & of itself, a thing that makes us better people - but it is a necessary step to learning how to communicate through writing & literature, which is the actual goal. There may be students who aren't as capable, academically, to progress beyond those intermediate skills to the more advanced ones, which are really the goal - but we should give every kid a chance.
The vast majority of things studied in philosophy, for instance, are not at all useful in day-to-day life. But I think it would be an extremely good thing if students studied at least some philosophy. Or, to take a more concrete example from your list, math. At least at my high school, you were required to take three years of "high-school level" math if you were an academically average student - which essentially amounts to Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. Now, I don't know how long it's been since you were near an Algebra II text, but at least half the stuff in the typical course are things that no one outside of a quantitative job will ever need to know or use in day-to-day life, and few with those sorts of jobs will either. Learning it for these students has no practical value, especially since by 11th grade there are at least some students who know that they won't be going into quantitative jobs. Nonetheless, learning it is a good thing, because mathematics forces the mind to stretch in a way the fine arts or literature or even science don't.
I think the question of how to motivate students to learn any particular material is beyond this discussion, and likely beyond my particular knowledge set.
quote:I agree with your second to last paragraph, but I don't agree that what you list as fine arts are more academic than home ec or shop. I wouldn't think someone improperly formally educated if they've never touched clay, paint, or an instrument. But I think those classes are valuable and help people grow into a well-rounded individual. Just like home ec and shop do.
I guess we'll have to disagree with what it means to be formally educated, then. And, for the record, I have never said that "life skills" courses are not valuable, or that they don't help people grow into well-rounded individuals. Just that they shouldn't be required courses for an academic degree.
quote:My impression is that "life skills" is sort of a euphemism for a less abstract curriculum, intended for students with lower academic capabilities. Which is a euphemism for a dumbed down curriculum. In any case, a life skills curriculum would include english and math, just not the abstract stuff that we expect of an average student.
I do agree that "life skills" courses are less abstract than other courses, but that's not the distinction I'm trying to make. And I certainly don't believe that they're "dumbed-down" or intended only for students with lower academic capabilities - one of my smartest high school friends took all of the electronic & computer related courses my high school offered, then dropped ot, got his GED, and started his own tech company. I'm not sure what became of it, as I've lost touch with him since high school, but I have no doubt he landed on his feet one way or another. I've never heard of a life skills curriculum, so I'm not sure what that would or would not include.
Anyways, I've been thinking about it overnight, and I think the major difference between life skills courses and other courses is that life skill courses are teaching, essentially, about a trade. And, while I have nothing against learning about or practicing trades, they aren't things that are permanently helpful in the way that what you learn from academic courses is.
Shop class is today's blacksmith class. Typing is only useful as long as we use keyboards. If I had been required to take a class in balancing a checkbook, that would have been wasted time because I've never needed to balance a checkbook - I rarely write checks, and when I do, I have software that can balance anything I want balanced. I suspect in 10 or 20 years I'll never need to write another check in my life. In 5th grade we had a class that taught us how to use some basic computer programs - some word processor and a database software, I think. Those hours in the computer lab were completely wasted, since those programs no longer exist.
I don't think we should be requiring students to put their precious educational hours towards things that are trades which might fade as our society changes. Better to stick with the things that give long-term value.
quote:Why do we insist our children know something about our political system?
For the same reason we require them to learn about history and the social sciences - after all political science is one of the social sciences. And, for the record, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have a government class - the things studied there could easily be wrapped into another course.
quote:My question for you is, "Why do we insist schools teach these things to our children?" For what purpose? Why do we spend such vast amounts of time and money on this matter, exactly? While certainly an education is a good thing in and of itself, that's definitely not the only reason. Why is it important for our children to grow up and know how to count, read, and to have some basic knowledge of their own history?
My opinion is that at least one of the reasons we do this is that so they will be better citizens in our society when they're older. Would you agree or disagree with that statement, Jhai?
And if you agree, why shouldn't the idea of serving one's community also be something we teach? And if you disagree, why do you disagree?
(Note that 'we shouldn't force kids to serve their communities' isn't really a very valid answer - in my opinion, at least - because as I've said before, we force `em to do lots of things.)
I believe I've answered the first four questions already. I disagree with the idea that we teach our children so that they will be better citizens in our society when they're older - that's certainly a nice benefit of what we teach, but if that were our true goal, then the educational system should be restructured tremendously. It could be a secondary goal, but, if so, it doesn't trump the first goal of education so that that the students know more & are better people for it.
I think the idea of serving one's community is something that could be taught as a worthwhile thing, dependent on many conditions. I don't think that students should be forced to serve the community by the federal government, for the reasons I've previously stated in this thread. At the very minimum, I think it interferes with the primary goal of schools, which is to learn academics. There's a limited number of things any school can do, and that one doesn't rank all that high on my list of "things I'd like schools to be teaching."
Liz, fine arts are academic because they expand the mind, and that expansion - along with the learning - is always something a person can have with them during his life. While there can be an art to the trades - woodworking & shop & sewing - they aren't typically taught in that manner, and they aren't typically taught for that reason.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In my mind, the subjects that are academic are those that make us better people. The things we learn in academic classes are often extremely useful in our future lives, but that sort of utility is secondary. Sometimes schools teach things, such as spelling, which is not, in & of itself, a thing that makes us better people - but it is a necessary step to learning how to communicate through writing & literature, which is the actual goal.
Understanding the value of community service makes us better people. Being educated in physical fitness makes us better people. Learning about how to be healthy makes us better people. If those are life skills subjects, then I don't think "making us better people" can be the criteria that separates academic from life skills education.
quote:Now, I don't know how long it's been since you were near an Algebra II text, but at least half the stuff in the typical course are things that no one outside of a quantitative job will ever need to know or use in day-to-day life, and few with those sorts of jobs will either. Learning it for these students has no practical value, especially since by 11th grade there are at least some students who know that they won't be going into quantitative jobs. Nonetheless, learning it is a good thing, because mathematics forces the mind to stretch in a way the fine arts or literature or even science don't.
I think possibly where we differ is on what we mean by "useful" or "practical". A lot of people seem to equate "practical" with "allowing one to reach material or career goals", which I consider to be a very mistaken understanding of utility. I consider something "practical" insofar as it enhances one's life or the world around us. Getting a job is practical, but stretching your mind is also practical. Making money is practical, but making a friend is also practical. In contrast, "impractical" might be something like getting a job you don't like that isn't very productive for the world to purchase things that don't bring you or anyone else much happiness. This is how I understand practicality and usefulness.
So, with that in mind, I think that algebra II is practical insofar as it does stretch the mind. And because it is practical in that way, we ask kids to learn it. Similarly, I think community service learning is practical insofar as it helps students understand the value and significance of service. And because it is practical in that way, it would also make sense to ask kids to learn about it. Both of these are useful - precisely because they make kids better, more capable people, which in turn will improve their lives and the world in the future.
quote:The vast majority of things studied in philosophy, for instance, are not at all useful in day-to-day life.
I use stuff I learned from my philosophy classes almost daily. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I use stuff I learned from my philosophy classes almost daily. [Wink]
Which is consistent with what Jhai said, of course.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
"For the same reason we require them to learn about history and the social sciences - after all political science is one of the social sciences. And, for the record, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have a government class - the things studied there could easily be wrapped into another course."
I don't agree with that. If you want to have a basic understanding of how government works, it needs to be its own course. As it stands now, most high school history classes don't even get passed the 1930s. It is pretty awful, I think, that most young Americans don't know hardly anything about events after the Great Depression. It isn't surprising people don't appreciate their country when they don't know anything about its government, geography, or history.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Tres, I think half our disagreement lies in definitions. I completely agree with you that stretching one's mind can be considered practical - in that it is of great use, and a good thing to do. However, I don't think that's the immediate association people get with the word "practical", and thus, I tend to not use it that way in order to better communicate with others. I'm using the word practical in the same manner that my husband's mother did when she told him to major in something practical, like pre-med or economics, rather than in English lit & religious studies like he did.
I've also, you might have noticed, been putting "life skills" in quotation marks (altho I stopped halfway through my last post because I didn't want to look pretentious) to signify that this was a special kind of life skill - namely the ones used in day-to-day life. And, by "day-to-day life" I mean the "fill up the car with gas, curse at the commute while listening to NPR, work, get home, try to figure out what's for dinner, walk the dogs, throw some clothes in the laundry, catch up with the news, talk to the family about the day" part of life. Not the part where you ponder the meaning of justice and try to figure out which life goal you want to tackle next.
I didn't think that these things needed to be spelled out, but, clearly, I was wrong.
To answer your point about "making us better people", again, I thought I was clear that it was in a mental/mind-stretching kind of way. I don't think that schools should try to impart other sorts of things to their students, frankly. Learning about forgiveness, love, devotion, belief, teamwork, and so forth all make us better people, but I sure as hell don't want the schools teaching those subjects.
Edit: Mercury, I didn't say anything about rolling a government class into a U.S. History class, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. I'd be more in favor of going with a senior-year capstone-type course that focused on connecting lessons learned in other classes to modern discourse, with a large emphasis on rhetoric, politics, economics, and evaluating arguments and statistics.
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
Most people suggest rolling into history when they make that argument. I apologize for assuming that was where you were going. I still think it requires a class of its own. Understanding the workings of our system of government is barely even possible in a single class as it is, at least in my limited experience.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I do agree that "life skills" courses are less abstract than other courses, but that's not the distinction I'm trying to make. And I certainly don't believe that they're "dumbed-down" or intended only for students with lower academic capabilities - one of my smartest high school friends took all of the electronic & computer related courses my high school offered, then dropped ot, got his GED, and started his own tech company.
Of course, words have different meanings depending on use, but I'd refer to electronic & computer related courses as vocational, not life skills. Home Ec would be a life skills course, I guess, but for special ed kids I've heard the term "life skills" when what they are doing is teaching kids to tie their shoes or how to purchase something at a store.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)