I just spent some time actually reading this bill, and I don’t think the OP characterizes the bill correctly:
My first reply in this thread came after I read the same summary. But sometimes the devil really is in the details. There are several references to mandatory service in the text of the bill itself:
If you read the text in detail, ‘service-learning’ just means ‘service’, although with perhaps some extra classroom time to reinforce the idea of ‘service’. Local enterprises will be able to form ‘partnerships’ with the schools, and the school will provide the kids for the organization to use to carry out community improvement activities.
Also, other text in the section says that individual school can NOT opt out. If a school district goes for the funds in the program, every child in every school in the district must engage in ‘service-learning’.
In addition, Section 6104 describes the duties of the commission established to evaluate and monitor the project:
So, there ARE in fact two references to mandatory service in the bill - one which actually demands mandatory service for all children in school districts taking part in the Youth Engagement Zone program (unless they can convince 90% of the kids to do it voluntarily), and one which directs the commission to investigate ways to make public service mandatory for every youth in America.
I haven’t been to high school in about thirty-five years, but it’s my understanding that a service requirement for graduation is more the rule than the exception these days. Anybody know if I’m on the wrong track, here?
Sam Stone, why did you feel it more necessary to bold mandatory service requirement for all able young people, but “workable, fair, and reasonable” didn’t seem to be worthy of calling to anyone’s attention?
I’m going to speculate that IYHO, “mandatory” makes it automatically unworkable, unfair and unreasonable. If that is, in fact, the case, then the answer to “whether” it can be developed will be “no”, and nothing will come of it.
In the meantime, since this is entirely about a purely domestic public policy matter, with no global economic ramifications, and no impact on foreign policy, do you suppose you could mind your own business and concentrate your energies on solving the dreadful injustice of Ontario kids being enslaved for forty hours of their lives?
We’re adults down here in USALand, and I’m confident that we can face the dangers of having our social fabric strengthened, and our civic challenges overcome without your assistance. We’ll be happy to call you if we find out that we need you.
I consider “Workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service” to be somewhat akin to a 'workable, fair and reasonable military draft". Of a kind, if not in degree. The word ‘mandatory’ sort of spoils all the fun.
Except that the people writing this act don’t feel that mandatory service is inherently unworkable, unfair and unreasonable, otherwise they wouldn’t feel that mandatory service-learning is workable and reasonable for students whose schools are involved in the program, and they wouldn’t see mandatory service for all able young people as something to be sought.
So why create a commission and give them the power to determine if it is reasonable or not? If they are so certain that mandatory = reasonable, they would just hard code it into the law. Clearly, there is uncertainty here.
I wonder how much it costs to mothball a fleet of black helicopters for eight years. After all, we all know that only evil liberal/socialist administrations use them…
The question is who gets to decide what is “workable, fair, and reasonable.” A 17 year old who is about to get drafted into this program might have a different idea of what is fair or reasonable than a 50 year old beaurocrat.
It seems to me that in a heterogeneous country like the United States, when it comes to mandatory service, each citizen should be able to decide for himself or herself what is fair or reasonable. With the possible exception of jury duty.
That 17 year old probably also has different ideas about how many math credits he should have to take to graduate. The school district I graduated from and the school district where I live now both make community service mandatory for graduation from high school (and have for nearly 20 years). If I’m understanding correctly, the idea here is to add community service to the curricula of schools, just like kids are now required to take a certain amount of English and science. If that’s the case, then the community service is not mandatory unless you want the degree, just like taking those math classes is.
You’re definitely on the right track. While I can’t say it’s a requirement at a majority of schools, requiring community service to graduate is not some crazy unheard of rule.
I had to do 40 hours when I graduated in 99 and the requirement had been in place for at least a decade before that.
That ain’t it. kd was discussing the value and credibility of the opinions being expressed, not the opinionholder’s right to express them.
Everybody has a right to state an opinion, yes. Nobody has a right to have theirs taken seriously. See the difference?
Just to confirm: Yes, a community service requirement is now pretty typical among US high schools. Perhaps its mandatoriness being established by local boards rather than state or federal ones is what keeps our kids from turned into “brownshirts” as a result.
I don’t see how this is any different than saying that math is an important and required part of graduating, or history, or gym class.
If we value community service and participation enough and feel it benefits us as a society, surely arguments can be made for and against including it in a school curriculum. But, I don’t really see how this is a different situation than any other graduation requirement.
Pure bullshit. *since this is entirely about a purely domestic public policy matter, with no global economic ramifications, and no impact on foreign policy, do you suppose you could mind your own business * has nothing to do with the credibility of the arguments expressed, and everything to do with mind yer own ken, Cletus, while we be mindin ours.