Lakewood the Thinking City

COMMUNITY SERVICE BY HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS: SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

This topic was discussed by two groups, each meeting five times in January and February, 1998. One group, composed of Friends of Far West Center, met on Wednesday afternoons in Rocky River. The other group met on Monday evenings at the Lakewood Library. Not much interchange occurred between the two groups, partly because each group spent all their time on their own agenda. However, the groups covered some of the same points, as we will see.

Terminology and distinctions

The subject as originally proposed was “Should voluntary public service be required of high school students?” This occasioned many outcries over the oxymoronic use of “voluntary” with “required.” (The rationale for the term “voluntary” is that the purpose of requiring public service is to promote a tendency in students to perform voluntary service – volunteerism – in the future.) “Community service” was the term most used in the discussions. Other possible terms included “public service” and “service learning,” the latter used to denote a combination of community service and academic work.

Although required service was the topic, discussions soon widened to include optional service, either in the form of extracurricular activities or in the form of elective subjects. These possibilities yield two distinctions:

Required vs. optional: Must the student perform the service in order to graduate from high school, or not? (But there may be an in-between alternative, below.)

Curricular vs. extracurricular: Is the community service part of the curriculum (including service integrated with academic work) or not? (The term “out-of-school” instead of “extracurricular” was suggested for required service on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms to speak of work that is “extracurricular” and yet required. However, there is no contradiction here, for “extracurricular” simply means not part of the curriculum, and work that is not part of the curriculum may still be required. In addition, “out-of-school” is ambiguous itself.)

Discussion focused on public high schools, but private schools – parochial schools in particular – were considered for the ways they might contrast with public schools.

Background Research

At the time of the discussions, a bill was in the Ohio House to mandate that students give 75 hours of community service in order to graduate from high school (H.B. 136, proposed by Rep. E.J. Thomas of Columbus).

Research also turned up a number of community-service programs in the Cleveland area. Apparently the only required programs are in parochial high schools as part of theology courses. In public schools, there are programs that encourage community service by offering it as an optional extracurricular activity – sometimes with substantial support from the school – or as part of an elective.

A List of Models

From the programs discovered in the background research, along with suggestions of various characteristics brought out in the discussion, the following list of models of community-service programs was devised. This list was discussed only briefly, not long enough to show any leaning toward one model or another; but one can see a connection between some of the models and some of the arguments put forth in the discussion, as described below.

SERVICE LEARNING 1: Community service is mandatory. It is integrated into the school curriculum as a learning experience. The student is graded on the service plus the academic exercises connected with it.

SERVICE LEARNING 2: Community service is optional, integrated into a course which the student may elect. The student is graded on the service plus the academic exercises connected with it.

SERVICE LEARNING 3: Community service may be performed as an alternative to some other substantial task (one possibility being a course of study about volunteerism), and is integrated into the regular curriculum as a learning experience to be graded.

EXTRACURRICULAR 1: Community service is optional, to be performed as an extracurricular activity with extensive guidance from staff associated with the school and/or community.

EXTRACURRICULAR 2: Community service is required as an extracurricular activity, with extensive guidance from staff associated with the school and/or community.

SERVICE LEARNING/EXTRACURRICULAR COMBINATION: Academic learning on volunteerism and associated subjects is required, and community service as an extracurricular activity is optional.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH 1: Students are required to take a class in which they research the community-service opportunities within the community, with the possibility of more intensive research on one particular agency or field.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH 2: Students may elect a class in which they research the community-service opportunities within the community, with the possibility of more intensive research on one particular agency or field.

MINIMALIST: A certain amount of community service is required for graduation, to be performed at an agency on an approved list, with no further guidance or attempts to integrate service with the curriculum.

NULL: There is no requirement and no school program.

NULL PLUS: The Null model, but the school posts a list of community organizations for which the students may perform service.

THE DISCUSSION IN BRIEF OUTLINE

The discussion addressed both the ends (purposes) and the means of community service. It asked: 1) Whether the purpose to be served by a community-service program is proper. 2) Whether required community service is an effective means to that end. The unfolding of these and lesser issues made for a complex logical structure.

In considering the purpose, discussants weren’t primarily concerned with direct benefits for the community. Rather, they were concerned with the effect on student participants. This point led to the question, is volunteerism itself a good thing? From there, the logic of the discussion unfolded as follows:

Concerning the purpose of community-service programs:

Is volunteerism a good thing?

If so, is promotion of volunteerism a proper purpose of the public schools?

What is the proper purpose of the public schools?

What is it to teach citizenship?

Should the public schools teach (inculcate) values?

Other considerations on inculcating volunteerism in the public

schools.

Direct benefit to the community as a purpose of community-service

programs.

Concerning community-service programs as a means:

On the effectiveness of required vs. optional programs

Other considerations concerning community-service programs as a means.

CONCERNING THE PURPOSE OF A COMMUNITY-SERVICE PROGRAM

As indicated above, the promotion of volunteerism, i.e. a favorable attitude toward volunteer work in the minds of student participants, was seen as the primary purpose of community service programs. Direct benefits to the community through the work performed (e.g., feeding the hungry) was of secondary importance and will be discussed briefly later on.

In deciding if promotion of volunteerism is a worthwhile purpose, we first have to decide if volunteerism itself is worthwhile or not.

Is Volunteerism a Good Thing?

This was not much examined, because throughout much of the discussion it was assumed that volunteerism is a good. The main issue here is whether volunteerism fills needs that the free market and the government do not. Some thought volunteerism does so; others thought that the government and free market do better than volunteers do.

Other criticisms were: Volunteers are exploited. (They should get paid.) Volunteerism is not democratic, being limited to one’s own religious or socioeconomic group or sexual orientation.

These criticisms, like some others, seem to be of the sort that must be considered on a case-by-case basis. From a practical viewpoint, a program should be designed to escape these criticisms.

ISSUES:

Does volunteerism benefit society?

Does voluntarism fulfil needs that government and the

free-market economic system do not?

Is volunteerism limited to the volunteer’s own groups?

Are volunteers exploited?

Is Promotion of Volunteerism a Proper Purpose for the Public Schools?

This issue was discussed at length, and the discussion was complicated.

Volunteerism is a value. As such, it might serve broader values, for example “sharing, reaching out, being less self-centered and more aware of others’ needs” (a phrase that appeared during a Monday night discussion). Such values are termed “relevant” to volunteerism. (The example isn’t meant to imply that altruistic values are the only ones relevant to volunteerism. Appreciation of teamwork, for example, is another possibility.)

Whether the schools should promote volunteerism depends on whether or not the schools should promote the broader values relevant to volunteerism and, beyond that, whether or not they should promote any values at all, as opposed to merely imparting information. This issue, involving schools and values, was approached from two directions: from the direction of the schools and from the direction of values.

The first approach was prompted by an implicit argument on behalf of community service, to the effect that promoting volunteerism would only serve values that schools are teaching anyway. So there was an inquiry into the proper purposes of the public schools, to find whether or not some of these purposes are relevant to volunteerism. This culminated in an examination of the teaching of citizenship. The second approach was to determine whether the schools might teach (inculcate) values, if so what specific values might be taught, and whether they include any that are relevant to volunteerism. These two approaches are discussed in order.

What Are the Proper Purposes of the Schools?

The Wednesday group attacked the question by considering extracurricular activities, primarily sports, aiming thereby to find the purpose(s) such activities fulfill. Proponents of value-teaching hoped to find a set of purposes wider than the obvious academic learning. Opponents questioned the legitimacy of extracurricular activities except as they contributed to academic learning.

The result was a long list of results that the public schools might properly aim for: Socialization; Self-esteem; Well-rounded students; Preparation for work life; Sampling of various vocations; Teamwork, caring; College admissions; Quality of life; Preparation for better relationships; Ability to continue to learn; Citizenship. Of these possible results, three seemed relevant to volunteerism, namely socialization, teamwork and citizenship. Socialization was not discussed to any significant extent.

Teamwork was discussed briefly by both groups. This is a value not needed for classroom order, and one that is accepted without complaint, so it might provide an analogy for the teaching of volunteerism.

Both groups saw the teaching of citizenship as a proper purpose of public schools, and discussed it at length, asking what the teaching of citizenship consists of. If it includes the teaching of values, then teaching values is a proper purpose of the schools.

Teaching citizenship

The Monday group saw three possible elements of citizenship:

a) simply knowing about government.

b) respecting property, people and the laws (assuming no overriding reason to do otherwise). Also personal responsibility – being accountable, accepting the consequences of one’s actions. This is a sort of minimal, negative sense of citizenship, consisting of a person’s refraining from doing the wrong things.

c) sharing, reaching out to others, being less self-centered and more aware of others needs.

Of these elements, the second is not relevant to volunteerism. The third element is relevant to volunteerism, but it is controversial – there was no agreement that it should be included in the teaching of citizenship.

The Wednesday group saw citizenship as consisting of learning what one’s responsibility to the community is; being informed; respecting property; and tolerance. But cutting across these categories was the debate as to whether citizenship consists only of knowing certain things, or consists also of acting in certain ways, that is in having certain values. On the former view, the teaching of citizenship includes letting students know what community standards are, so that they can make their own decisions, as opposed to influencing their decisions. Against this, it was objected that if a teacher – presumably an authority figure -- tells students what the community standards are, he or she necessarily influences the students to act in accordance with those standards. Besides, it was asked, what are community standards? Who decides what they are? How far does the community extend?

In both groups, then, there was disagreement about what the teaching of citizenship comprises, and specifically about whether it includes teaching (inculcating) values relevant to volunteerism. A discussant’s view on this point depended directly on whether or not that person already believed that the schools should teach such values.

Thus the examination of the teaching of citizenship so as to decide whether the schools should promote values relevant to volunteerism results in circularity -- in order to know whether the schools should promote volunteerism, we must know what citizenship comprises; but in order to know what citizenship comprises, we must know whether the schools should promote volunteerism.

This last question, then, must be decided more directly.

Are There Values Relevant to Volunteerism the Schools Might Teach?

A number of arguments directly addressed this question.

Two arguments in favor of teaching such values were: “Of course the schools have to teach values – in many cases, schools are the only places the students will learn values.” And “The schools have to teach values, to keep order in the classroom.”

In criticism of these arguments, opponents claimed that family and church are the places where students can learn values – and the places where they ought to learn values.

As for the argument that moral values are necessary for order in the classroom, opponents acknowledged that this is true but challenged the relevance of such values. For the sake of classroom order, students must be taught not to steal, cheat, etc. These are negative, minimalist values, while the values that lie behind volunteerism seem to be more positive, e.g. sharing. Furthermore, does the teaching of values for the classroom actually transfer to the wider world? Given these considerations, the need for classroom order does not by itself seem to be an important reason for the public schools to teach values relevant to volunteerism.

Conflicting counterexamples: Two counterexamples were offered on the subject of teaching values. Each was forceful and, by itself, might have been decisive; but they were on different sides of the question, so they canceled each other out and helped bring about stalemate. On the side of teaching values in the schools, the counterexample was:

“What about influencing students not to take drugs? Surely that is a proper purpose of the public schools.”

On the side of not teaching values in the schools, the counterexample was:

“What if a school system demanded that a student register to vote or register for the draft before getting a diploma? (assuming the law requires a young man or woman to register for the draft). That is in accord with consensus values, yet it surely is not proper policy on the part of the schools.”

Of course, one can simply reject one or both counterexamples. Indeed, one of the discussants who opposed inculcation of values did just that, holding that it is wrong for the public school system to influence students to refrain from drugs. But answers of that kind don’t seem to be very compelling, and if we don’t find them compelling we are faced with opposing counterexamples, both persuasive. This is perplexing. The only possible answer that appeared was in reply to the counterexample about registering to vote and for the draft, namely:

We have to distinguish between (a) inculcating a general way of acting (e.g. serving the community) and (b) enforcing the performance of one particular kind of act as expressing it. For it may be controversial whether any particular kind of act carries out the purposes intended by the general way of acting. So no matter how worthy a particular kind of act may be, we must not require students to perform it, and that includes registering to vote or registering for the draft.

This reply may or may not be persuasive; in any case the opposing counterexamples remain perplexing.

Argument from multiplicity of values: The basic argument against teaching values held that teaching values in the abstract is all well and good, but the values that must be taught are specific values, and this raises the questions as to whose values they are. With different values held by different groups in the public schools, any set of values taught in the schools would probably favor one group over another. (This argument presumes that schools are the agents of the families whose children are or might be enrolled in them, and therefore sees a distinction between public and private schools. The former are the agents of all families who happen to live in the district and thus may not favor one over the other. The latter, by contrast, are agents only of the families who have agreed to enroll their children and may disenroll them. These families have presumably agreed to whatever teaching is done.) Furthermore, the teaching of values would allow – perhaps even necessitate – that individual teachers pursue their personal agendas.

(Interestingly, the chief proponents of this critical view were a conservative in the Wednesday group and a liberally-inclined person in the Monday group.)

Solid values? In response to this argument from multiplicity of values, the Monday group searched for a set of values, called “solid” values, which the public schools would be justified in inculcating and which would also justify volunteerism. Four possible types of values were suggested.

a) Values necessary for classroom order. As pointed out above, there is no question that schools are justified in teaching these, but their relevance to volunteerism is suspect.

b) Obedience to the law. No one denied that obedience to the law is a value – at least a prima facie value (i.e. one that holds in the absence of any value or obligation to the contrary). However, it prescribes a minimal obligation and has no relevance to volunteerism.

c) Values that the community (presumably the school district) wants to have taught. This possibility was defeated when the group considered some examples of values the community might want to have taught.

d) Values that are held by everyone or almost everyone (99%) of the society as a whole. Such values, it seemed, could justifiably be taught in the schools. But are there any such values? This was the subject of lively debate (which may have gone too far afield in looking for any consensus values, rather than being restricted to those that are relevant to volunteerism). These examples were offered:

Prohibition against murder: Clearly there is a consensus against murder, and no disagreement about what constitutes murder in most cases. But in some cases, there is disagreement about what constitutes murder. For example, some people think that capital punishment is murder. In any case, the prohibition against murder doesn’t seem relevant to volunteerism.

Whatever values are in the Constitution. Insofar as this refers to obeying the Constitution for its own sake, it is a form of obeying the law, discussed above. Insofar as it means agreeing to values expressed in the Constitution, these are not necessarily consensus values. E.g., a majority of people in the U.S. reportedly disagree with the Bill of Rights.

Loyalty to parents: In some cases, children are taught to inform on their parents, e.g. in the case of drug use.

The discussion was not conclusive, either for or against the existence of consensus values. But it seems difficult to find any consensus values that are relevant to volunteerism. In any case, there seems to be no consensus in the country on the desirability of volunteerism itself.

Finally, it was claimed that the teaching of citizenship isn’t worthy enough to justify the sacrifice of time for academics.

Other Considerations Concerning the Purpose of Promoting Volunteerism

Since some community service projects would be church-sponsored, there was a question as to whether separation of church and state might be violated. (See the interview with Celia Dorsch, below.)

It was suggested that community service is a way of acquiring information – a sort of field research. Thus it would fit into the purpose of imparting information, which is a purpose that everyone agrees on.

On the other hand, it was suggested that students would learn more about social problems and would be better educated in citizenship by classroom study than by community service.

It was claimed that performing community service takes time away from studying. The reply was that there is plenty of time for service during the summer, on weekends, etc.

It was claimed that a community service program is a strain on school resources.

It was claimed that community service might give participants a false sense of self-esteem, in that their real accomplishment is not what it seems or what they are praised for.

ISSUES:

Should the public schools promote volunteerism?

What is/are the proper purpose(s) of the public schools?

What does the teaching of citizenship consist of?

How important is the teaching of citizenship as sharing, compared to the

academics it would replace?

Can a teacher inform students as to what community standards are,

without thereby influencing the students’ values?

Does community service detract from learning the academics, and to

what degree? (Or does it help?)

Is teamwork a value that schools may justifiably teach? If so, what analogy may drawn about the teaching of volunteerism?

Should the public schools teach (inculcate) values?

If so, do the values to be taught include those relevant to volunteerism?

Are there any values held by consensus in the society and relevant to volunteerism?

What values are necessary for classroom order, and how far do these extend to life outside school, especially where community service is concerned?

Direct Benefit to Community as a Purpose

In addition to promoting volunteerism in student participants, a community-service program might directly serve the community; indeed, that is its ostensible purpose. This was not much discussed, the assumption apparently being that the students’ service would benefit the community but not to a significant degree.

However, there were some criticisms: The need for student volunteers was questioned, especially since the elderly can volunteer. It was claimed that students performing required service are unlikely to put forth their best efforts, and in fact may be a burden rather than a help. And there was a question as to whether teachers are qualified to lead student volunteers.

ISSUES:

How effective is community service by high school students?

How effective is it if community service is required?

To what extent can the elderly perform needed voluntary service?

CONCERNING REQUIRED COMMUNITY SERVICE AS MEANS

The second of the two major issues asks whether required community service is the most effective means of inculcating the spirit of volunteerism. Two elements were at issue: participants’ exposure to community service in general, and the desirability of required community service as opposed to optional service.

Most members of the groups seemed to assume that participation in community service, considered by itself, would create the spirit of volunteerism in participants. Some, however, expressed doubt, saying the students would not be emotionally ready, and might not have a good experience. The answer was that the same would apply to any school class or school enterprise – they can’t promise complete success, so why should complete success be expected from a community service project? But there was little debate on this issue.

On the other issue – the relative value of required vs. optional community service – there was spirited debate in the Monday group.

Those in favor of required service and against optional programs argued that:

-- There are many students who would never serve unless required, but once they do serve, they become inclined to volunteerism.

-- Those students who would volunteer for community service are inclined to volunteerism already, so they don’t need a school program to motivate them.

On the other hand, those opposed to required service and in favor of optional programs argued that:

-- Many students will volunteer if a program is available, though they are initially indifferent to community service.

-- Requiring community service of a student will create a negative attitude.

Hence the two sides differed on the effect of a required program on the attitudes of participants, and on the number of students not already in community service who would be drawn into it by an optional program.

Information on the impact of community service was provided through an interview with Celia Dorsch of Lakewood’s H2O (Help to Others) program. Among the most significant questions she addressed are these:

How many students in H2O were already inclined to voluntarism (as far as can be determined)? -- If this means how many would have been a volunteer at some time in their lives, an estimated 30-40%. But for doing some volunteer activity in high school, 5-10%.

Is there any threat of a problem concerning church-state relation? -- No, though H2O students participate in a church project.

If community service were a requirement for graduation, what would be the attitudes of those students now in H2O? -- If it were a requirement, students would initially be resentful, and there would be civil rights complaints, except for those now in H2O. But after it had been established for 2-3 years, student attitudes would depend on whether the community work is meaningful. There is a need to develop community connections, which would require more staff.

How much staff time is required for H2O? -- Two full-time coordinators, plus college kids in the summer (for camp). The coordinators are employed by the city. The school provide facilities etc.

Would staff time per student be increased if community service were required?-- It depends on how much regular teachers would do. (See below.)

Middle-school camp: four 2-week sessions with about 37 kids. A large majority of the parents make the kids go, because the kids are at loose ends. But by the end of the camp, the kids say they’re there because they want to be. The attendance rate is 95-100%.

Likes the mechanism whereby the student is given community service as an alternative to some other school requirement. (See below.)

Would like to see community service incorporated into regular courses – e.g. cooking (home economics) for Ronald McDonald House.

Agencies recognize the difference in attitude between volunteers and those for whom community service is required.

Other Considerations Regarding Community Service as Means

A third way, between community service as a requirement and service as an option, came out in discussion. This third alternative consists of making community service an alternative to some other kind of assignment, presumably an onerous one. This of course provides incentive while at the same time making the community service seem like a welcome escape rather than a burden.

The role of adults was brought out. It was recommended that adults take part in community service projects along with students, for two reasons. Adults will serve as models, and their presence can dispel the feeling in students that adults are being hypocritical, expecting the students to perform community service while they refrain from doing so themselves.

Programs in which volunteers are paid, such as Americorps, were discussed. On the one hand, the good work done in these programs was acknowledged. On the other hand, it was questioned how much they would instill the spirit of volunteerism, inasmuch as participants are getting paid.

ISSUES:

What kinds of attitude would an optional community-service program produce in the student participants – favorable/unfavorable/indifferent, and in what proportion?

What kinds of attitude would a required community-service program produce in the student participants – favorable or unfavorable, and in what proportion?

Would unfavorable attitudes be produced even in those who would otherwise want to do community service?

What proportion of students are not already doing community service and would be drawn into it by an optional program?

“CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS” LISTS

Each discussant was asked at the first meeting to list all the conclusions that might be asserted on all sides of the question, and all the arguments that might be made for each conclusion (whether the discussant agreed with the conclusion or argument or not). Following are the lists.

MONDAY GROUP

For required service:

It helps students understand the real world and common-sense problem solving.

It helps students understand the needs of the community.

It helps with (potential) drop-outs.

It brings parents, teachers and students closer together.

Students should give something back to the community.

High school is meant to provide an education that would not be otherwise experienced by that young person.

Community service teaches the importance of altruism; less self-absorption; more consideration of others.

Community service is a means by which the community gets something in return for providing an education.

Community service makes for better citizenship. (It is a sort of “laboratory hands-on training”)

For-qualified

The purpose of high school is to instruct students and prepare them to contribute to society. Community service, integrated into the curriculum, can do these things.

Qualifications should be: spread over four years, universally required, equitably assigned, integrated with academics, as choice among assignments.

Against:

Community service takes needed time away from learning and extracurricular activities.

There is the problem of church-state relationship.

Community service should be a private decision.

Students can learn of community needs just by studying.

Requiring community service is antithetical to the idea of volunteerism. (Better just to teach the values of volunteerism).

Schools are not responsible for teaching values, and volunteering is a value.

With single-parent families, students must often work at home.

An unequal standard is involved if students are required to do community service but not adults.

WEDNESDAY GROUP:

For required service:

It would ease the financial burden on government; it provides the community a source of free help.

In families where both parents work, students would see community involvement (as occurred in an earlier era).

It would broaden students’ outlook or “horizons.”

It would possibly lead to career goals, or help in career choice.

It would keep students usefully occupied, out of the malls.

Community service satisfies a need to fill some of the emptiness of students’ lives.

Students would be giving back the many gifts they’ve received.

It would make students more aware of and more caring for their fellows (character building); it teaches self-absorbed teens awareness of others’ needs and problems.

It would give practical experience to augment book knowledge.

Students need to be made aware of the great need for volunteerism.

It could keep students out of harm’s way (drugs, gangs, sex, etc.)

Against:

The purpose is to promote a feeling of selflessness, but writing a newsletter for a nursing home doesn’t do that.

Requiring community service sets up an automatic resistance/resentment.

Such a program could lead to public service as punishment.

It would take money from traditional programs (since it has to be approved, funded and

staffed) -- especially in view of the rapid increase in the body of knowledge.

To monitor community service as a graduation requirement would demand a full-time professional. Schools don’t have time or money to monitor community service.

It takes time from what students are presently doing – classroom study, part-time job or current service activities.

There would be too many opportunities to goof off.

There would be resistance from parents on account of the possibility of: no close monitoring; transportation would not be assured; traveling after dark.

Students are under the protection of schools and shouldn’t be where they are not covered by insurance and paid staff.

There might be a loose interpretation of “public service,” so that teens counted paid work.

(for public schools): “Service” requires establishing a value system which might not be universally accepted.

Learning to be compassionate involves instilling values, which should be taught in the home.

Public service should be taught by family or church, in connection with personal morals.

Mandatory service is servitude.

It would hurt that group of students who already need to care for small children and/or work at part-time jobs to help support their families.

Parents would “cheat” by falsely filling out forms on hours worked.

For, with guidelines:

Schools should provide information and encourage community service, without requiring it as part of academic success.

ON THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION: AFTERTHOUGHT FOR THE FUTURE

In retrospect, it seems that a good part of the discussion was needlessly concerned with the issue of whether the schools should teach any values whatsoever, rather than focusing only on those values relevant to volunteerism (and in the process, possibly missing some of the purposes of community service, e.g. experiencing the work-world.) The following line of discussion might have been more effective: What purposes does a community-service program serve? Are those purposes among those the schools may pursue? What are the criteria for deciding what purposes the schools may pursue?

-- G.B.