If it is a private school and it is a requirement for graduation, then fine. If public, then I think there is a real problem. You can't really choose to reject "the kings coin" in the case of public school since it is mandatory that everybody attend (unless you can afford a private/religious school). Therefore without free will it is not really an "acceptance." So I disagree with forced "volunteerism" in public schools as a requirement to graduate.

Indeed - but the problem is with the state getting involved in paying for children's education. America's approach to educational funding makes no sense either from a liberal perspective (we should federalize education!) or a conservative perspective (you breed them you pay for them). Instead what we have is state and lcoal taxes paying for schools whose educational charters are set by federal guidelines and incentives.

The point being is that there is a lot of tax money sloshing around and thus everyone wants to have a say in how schools are run. If I ever have kids I'll find a good private school whose curricula is based on a modern information economy and not something designed when kids needed 'vacation time' to take in the annual harvest.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

If I ever have kids I'll find a good private school whose curricula is based on a modern information economy and not something designed when kids needed 'vacation time' to take in the annual harvest.

Bingo.

Spread it on!

Eh, maybe it's not what you're ultimately getting at but I'm really not a fan of round the year school. Time away is amazingly important to growth.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

There is a bill pending in NJ about the issue, and a few high schools require as much as 50 hours. In NC a high school had a law suit dropped on it for the same reason.

An interesting postscript, it appears Kerry wanted the same thing in his 2004 run for President. Perhaps Edwards' plank is just borrowed from his former running mate?

Spread it on!

    Yeah, that's about what I thought-- a few more aggressive districts are requiring it, and the idea looks like a trend, but it's nowhere near a national norm. It was the degree of implementation, not necessarily the fact, that was what got me wondering.
    Somehow I suspect these requirements, if implemented (and that's a big if), will die quietly after a year or two, as parents realize that it's yet another extracurricular burden on their time. A district here or there, sure-- but a whole state? That's a lot of grief for school administrators to deal with.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

You're required to attend school why shouldn't you be required to have some activity that makes at least a vague stab at exposing you to the real world outside of academia? There's a broad jump between service learning as part of an academic course of study and compulsory military service.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

    I don't think I really weighed in on whether this was a good idea or not, or the relation to mandatory national service-- just that, like unfunded mandates passed by Congress, those tasked with carrying them out usually fight the process. And the law of unintended consequences can be a bitch.
     So let me think on my keyboard for a minute. If something is to be compulsory in a (fairly) free society such as the US, it should meet a pretty high standard of necessity. Reading, writing, math and history are clearly good for everyone: reading warning/traffic signs, or instructions in a very technological world; writing competently enables the flow of vital information; simple math allows me and my neighbors to balance a checkbook, and (in theory) to plan finances so that the government shouldn't have to step in; and as for history, well a society with no past has no future, right? So far, only the goofiest libertarians will likely disagree. If schools then have a little mission creep- say, into sports, drama, debate teams, all the old and new extracurricular stuff- well, most of these things have been done for centuries, sponsored by clubs, churches, schools (public and private), and sometimes businesses. In the case of sports, combining athletics with education goes back to the Classical Greeks and Romans. A long history at least makes something familiar, if not always sensible.
    Does mandatory community service deserve to become a new tradition? I don't see a pressing need. Kids in poorer districts will get plenty of "real life" experience just walking out the door, and kids in richer districts will have the resources to get it if they want. (All this on average, of course. There are always exceptions.) Does community service make for a better citizen? That's a highly debatable point, and to go back to my starting argument, that's enough to warrant suspicion, and perhaps outright rejection. If you want to have your kid attend a district with these requirements, fine-- parents already relocate for their kids athletic choices (and have for decades), I don't see this as out of the pale. But statewide, even national? I can't see the benefit for the costs/burdens on parents.
    As for mandatory national service, to repeat what I said before, it makes sense in countries that promise a lot of services to their citizens. For the US? Eh, not so much, especially if (to reference the comment title) the funding is less than adequate. Done poorly, it would only breed more cynicism about the country, and even done well it's less than clear there would be an increase in national pride-- I agree with many of Urkel's points about making the country lovable, even if (as usual) he leaves out half the story.
    Sorry for the long post, but I had a couple hours to kill before work, and we don't always get a chance to tease out our thinking here (or at Plastic.) As always, thank you for your patience.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

"I agree with...Urkel's points...as usual." - Uncarved Block.

"I agree with...Urkel's points...as usual." - Uncarved Block.

Gordon...never fear there will always be a place in the "Permanent Republican Majority tm" for a Machiavellian like you.

I salute you sir!  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Does community service make for a better citizen? That's a highly debatable point, and to go back to my starting argument, that's enough to warrant suspicion, and perhaps outright rejection.  

Exactly. SOMETHING always makes kids better citizens, be it "character education," a non-family member male adult role-model, a stint in boot camp, or whatever pop psych trend is exciting and in the vogue. Like you said, many elements of public school are useful enough to make them mandatory. This is not of them.

Spread it on!

Well, yes but no. Our program in my high school was fairly liberal in what it allowed and most that I've seen were as well but requiring "community service" would be dubious. School theoretically prepares young people for their future in society. Otherwise, we'd be required to attend school our entire lives, no? To quote an episode of Little Britain I watched yesterday -- "Children in Britain are notoriously stupid and are therefore required to attend school." Anything that prepares children for their future role in society is therefore part of the mission and not creep at all.

I took the opportunity during my required "service learning" to work in an office (of a non-profit so it fit the bill) thus preparing me far more for the life I later followed than any of the history, math or reading I took.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

    Anything that prepares children for their future role in society is therefore part of the mission and not creep at all

    That's a good argument. Is there a difference, though, between academics and the more abstract "life experiences"? It seems pretty clear there is-- you make that contrast in your last paragraph. The question becomes, then, how you define the scope and scale of "future role in society", because presumably that's what parents do every day, both by word and by example. Would these mandatory programs enhance or replace* what parents are doing? At the voluntary level, I'd say it enhances, but I think the case could be made for replacement when it becomes mandatory.
    I want to stress that I believe this kind of service can be very much a good thing, and am happy that your experience was so helpful-- could have used something like that myself at 18, and it might have prevented my downward career arc :(  But, on the converse, many many things that are good in limited doses turn out to be bad at a large scale, and I believe this kind of mandated service would be one of them.
    Always good to have a good discussion without rancor, though, eh?

    *If every parent could teach math, writing, and history to a 12th grade level, we wouldn't need schools, right? Schools, in a most limited sense then, replace parents because that's an exceedingly high expectation.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

I guess I see an internship type experience as already a part of your typical college course work so why not extend it further down the line into high school? Curriculum varies by school -- some at the high school and college level require some form of arts while others don't. I'm certainly not proposing the it be a legal requirement for all schools (an unfunded mandate) but I do think it should be available to schools to include in their curriculum as their administrators see fit to run their district in coordination with parents.

I think in loco parentis is entirely different concept that extends to activities which are specifically beyond the academic or extra curricular realm of the student.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I'm certainly not proposing the it be a legal requirement for all schools (an unfunded mandate) but I do think it should be available to schools to include in their curriculum as their administrators see fit to run their district in coordination with parents.

Perhaps I am just contrary, but I am not sure the college analogy works for me, since college is a choice and public schools are required. During my first week of college I was packed off with the other freshmen to a "service learning experience" where I got to wash firetrucks. Since it was a choice to enroll in that school they could make you go, or fine you if you did not complete orientation activities. Anyway my new classmates and I were at some sketchy rural firehouse while 60 year old firemen stood around and watched young scantily clad co-eds in bathing suits shoot each other with hoses on a hot summer day. I am sure everybody benefited from it.

Sure, I think everybody would like to see this be a choice students in high school could do for credit (if not for the warm fuzzy feeling of volunteering). I think it would be a great idea if a student could choose to do so. However, the mandatory part is what gets me.

Spread it on!

Lots of high schools now require volunteer work. They call it "community service learning".

Like this high school in Washington State:

"All students are required to complete 60 hours of community service in order to graduate. This program officially begins during the sophomore year and is monitored through the 10th grade English class. Students can volunteer their services at schools, community agencies, hospitals, and many other places."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorecrest_High_School#Community_Service

This is far more akin to an internship as a required part of your college curriculum than a compulsory service to your country. I had such a thing in high school and that and a few connections got me a couple different internships in college which went a long way toward my first job in the real world.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Community Service:

In many educational jurisdictions, a certain number of hours of community service is required to graduate from high school. In Washington State, for example, students must complete 60 hours of community service to receive a high school diploma. Some Washington school districts, including Seattle Public Schools, have differentiated between community service and "service learning," requiring students to demonstrate that their work has contributed to their education.[1] If a student in high school is taking an avid course, community service is required. Some students do it for fun, but for others, it is a requirement.

Some have complained that students taking AP and honors courses may have trouble completing their school's service requirements, due to the amount of homework assigned in advanced courses.[citation needed]

The State of Maryland requires 75 hours of community service for graduation. At least 60 of those hours must be completed before the student can graduate.

In addition to Maryland, I -think- Virginia, Georgia and DC have similar requirements, but don't flame me if I'm wrong :)

The point being you get a 'free education' courtesy of the state and therefore the graduation requirements are pretty much up to the state.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

but in p0157's link re: the New Jersey debate on the subject, one of the legislators noted that only Maryland of all 50 states requires community service-- though even that source was unsure. And Maryland ain't exactly the most populous state in the union. As to the larger argument, I don't feel the need to repeat what I've already written, though some more feedback on a point or two would be interesting.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Of course you love it, leftists are busybodies who want to control everyones lives.  

I know! Just the other day I was telling my friends how the leftists are responsible for the increased government interference in citizens lives during the past half decade.

Thank heavens the neo-cons are watching out for our liberties and civil rights.

Spread it on!

Leftists are responsible for all sorts of government intrusions in our lives, and are certainly responsible for smoking bans. What regulations do leftists oppose?

What regulations do leftists oppose?

For starters, regulations concerning...

End of life decisions
Reproductive choice
Same sex marriage
Warrantless wire taps and searches
Spying on US citizens
Libraries giving out patron records
Many drug laws
NCLB
"Free speech zones"

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It's true leftists favor unlimited freedom when it comes to sodomy and killing babies and old people. But when it comes to free speech, free association, and property they favor an intrusive state.

You may have missed it, but the Patriot Act and its renewal was overwhelmingly supported by democrats, during 8 years of Bill Clinton no effort was made to legalize drugs, and NCLB was the joint effort of Bush and Kennedy, and is premised on the belief adhered to by leftists that there are no IQ differences between races.

Hey Gord...I didn't find much in your comment to nitpick...except for one major thing.  No biggie, since many folks confuse leftists and liberals with democrats.  Oh sure, there are a few democrats in office that are liberals, but they are few and far between.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Leftists are responsible for all government intrusion in our lives!

Bless the conservatives! Those white knights in the fight for small government and personal liberty! They stopped the USA PATRIOT ACT, halted federal intrusion into personal medical care and liberal attempts to disrespect end of life decisions, warrantless wiretapping and searches, and countless other evil plots the liberals were trying to shove down our throats.

Spread it on!

Complaining about being forced outside is a built in opening, and girls who smoke are easier targets to begin with.

Targets?  So, you're saying that smoking neocons get more tail?  Oh well...so much for morality.

I'm surprised you have any time to discuss the "cute girlies" dates (i.e. pussies) since you seem to have an "America: Love it or Leave it" rant at the ready.  Or do the girlies love a good hot geo-political discussion?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Complaining about being forced outside is a built in opening, and girls who smoke are easier targets to begin with.

Targets? So, you're saying that smoking neocons get more tail? Oh well...so much for morality.

No, he's saying girls (and guys) who smoke give it up more easily. You've got the oral fetish combined with the addictive personality. Add in the fact that they're either trying to be cool or think they are and all you have to do is reinforce their self-image and they love you for it. It's a slam dunk.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

"do the girlies love a good hot geo-political discussion?"

Of course not. Neither do I, with them. It's a mistake to let the important things in life get subsumed to politics.

Pretty quick to distance yourself from the Jews there, Gord...  BTW...Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Karl Rove and Condi Rice aren't Jews either.  Is neo-conservatism only the reserve of the Jewish?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That was what I thought was an obvious joke. Neocons hate conservatives like me, but it's not unfair to lump conservatives in with the neocons, since we thought we could gain by inviting them in and joining forces with them. They were energetic anti-Communists (converts always have an extra degree of zeal) and they had acceptability and connections with the media and academia. But as the brilliant Stephen Tonsor observed:

"It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far."

Neocons hate conservatives like me

I feel your pain, man.  Neocons hate all leftists.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Almost as fast and unsolicited as Larry Craig declaring he wasn't gay during the Congressional Page Scandal!

Spread it on!