SSL Requirement - Forced Volunteerism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your MOTHER had you do it: fine, great. I support that 100%! The issue here is the government forcing children to volunteer as a requirement of graduation. People, please think about this: the STATE/GOV'T is forcing this on your children. Whether the work is good or not is IRRELEVANT. The STATE (through MCPS) should not be able to FORCE children to do this. Again, it isn't volunteering if you are forced to do it.

It worries me that so many parents on here seem to not be able to distinguish the notion of state coercion. Frightening in a free society.

The STATE is also FORCING children to be instructed in English, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, health, and physical education. State coercion. Frightening.

Do you really not get how that is different? I could understand having a different opinion about these things, but do you really not understand this distinction. I guess I just assume that there are so many well educated people on these boards - and so many lawyers in particular - that some things are just obvious.

If you genuinely don't understand the difference then I completely understand how these issues of fundamental freedoms and the necessary checks on public institutions (the state, public school systems and public officials) would go over your head.

Yes, I really do not understand this distinction. It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me. Please explain. I am listening.

Me, either. Kids are forced to get an education because, as a matter of historical public policy, we think it's best for the nation that children are at least minimally educated. Educated enough to provide for a robust workforce and to have a clue about good citizenship. Service learning is seen as part of learning to be a good citizen, a good community member.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't sure about the community service requirement when my oldest DD first became old enough to do it. I had a lot of the same problems with it that have been stated on this board. Now I fully support it. My DD has participated in so many incredibile activities. She has learned very valuable lessons about showing up on time, showing "professional" behavior, and being responsible. She also learned, the hard way, to turn in the paperwork to document that she did the activities (losing the paperwork for 24 hours the first semester of 6th grade). What motivated her to get out there was the requirement. She is in 8th grade and has finished well more than her required 75 hours but continues to do ssl approved activities. I would have tried to get her involved in community service anyway but would not have been able to ingrain in her the really important messages about work starting at 11 without there being an outside motivation and requirement. So yes, I see both sides but I think the benefit for kids greatly outweighs my philosophical view on government regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something very dangerous/frightening about so many parents accepting this and defending this practice. Talk about a slippery slope to state control!

What happens when, for example, the list one day only includes groups with a particular religious or political affiliation. Sometimes you need to look at the principal at stake. I can't be the only liberal on this board, can I?

Wait, liberals love government regulations and government programs. I think you are actually a closet tea partier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is something very dangerous/frightening about so many parents accepting this and defending this practice. Talk about a slippery slope to state control!

What happens when, for example, the list one day only includes groups with a particular religious or political affiliation. Sometimes you need to look at the principal at stake. I can't be the only liberal on this board, can I?

Wait, liberals love government regulations and government programs. I think you are actually a closet tea partier.

Wrong you are. Classic, real liberals value the ideals of liberty and freedom. Yes, reasonable and even pro-active government programs for the greater good, but no not government coercion and intrusion. To see this as some type of tea party thing is way off base. Please brush up on your understanding of liberalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it legal to require SSL hours in order to graduate from a public school?? I genuinely do not understand how this has not been challenged legally. I disagree so strongly with this program. Don't get me wrong - I think genuine volunteerism is admirable. Forced volunteerism, however, is crass b/c is it not genuine. In addition, what about lower income kids who might need to use out-of-school-time to work, babysit a sibling while mom works, etc.

This program really rubs me the wrong way. It is "state" (in this case the public school system) coercing underage and unpaid work at organizations it deems "worthy." Yuck.

Just homeschool your kid.

problem solved, dumb ass

[Anonymous]

I'm with you OP. Forcing volunteers defeats the purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is something very dangerous/frightening about so many parents accepting this and defending this practice. Talk about a slippery slope to state control!

What happens when, for example, the list one day only includes groups with a particular religious or political affiliation. Sometimes you need to look at the principal at stake. I can't be the only liberal on this board, can I?

Wait, liberals love government regulations and government programs. I think you are actually a closet tea partier.

Wrong you are. Classic, real liberals value the ideals of liberty and freedom. Yes, reasonable and even pro-active government programs for the greater good, but no not government coercion and intrusion. To see this as some type of tea party thing is way off base. Please brush up on your understanding of liberalism.

You don't think the SSL program is for the greater good? Have students or the public been harmed by it? In fact most here whose children are old enough to have done SSL seem to indicate that their children have benefitted from it. Perhaps you are a Libertarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you OP. Forcing volunteers defeats the purpose.

That would be true if the purpose of SSL was to have people volunteer. Since it's not, and MCPS clearly states that it's not, and doesn't call it "volunteering" anywhere in their literature, it's a little irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your MOTHER had you do it: fine, great. I support that 100%! The issue here is the government forcing children to volunteer as a requirement of graduation. People, please think about this: the STATE/GOV'T is forcing this on your children. Whether the work is good or not is IRRELEVANT. The STATE (through MCPS) should not be able to FORCE children to do this. Again, it isn't volunteering if you are forced to do it.

It worries me that so many parents on here seem to not be able to distinguish the notion of state coercion. Frightening in a free society.

The STATE is also FORCING children to be instructed in English, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, health, and physical education. State coercion. Frightening.

Do you really not get how that is different? I could understand having a different opinion about these things, but do you really not understand this distinction. I guess I just assume that there are so many well educated people on these boards - and so many lawyers in particular - that some things are just obvious.

If you genuinely don't understand the difference then I completely understand how these issues of fundamental freedoms and the necessary checks on public institutions (the state, public school systems and public officials) would go over your head.

I'm trying to figure out what you see as the difference.

Both SSL and English homework can be completed at school using school equipment, or in the community (you can both do your homework and earn your SSL hours in a public library).

Both SSL and English homework teach important skills that students will need in the workforce down the road, including conducting research, presenting yourself to others, and meeting deadlines.

Neither SSL nor English homework claim to be voluntary or "volunteering".

Both SSL and English essays in particular sometimes ask you to state an opinion. SSL asks you to find something you believe in (note: by this definition my child "believes in" Moon bounces at homecoming, and that teachers should have chairs to sit on at PD, and that it would be cool to have a volcano in the backdrop of the school play. These are not particularly controversial or political beliefs, but are all "causes" he has supported during his SSL hours) and support it with your actions. English Essays ask you to make a thesis statement and support it with evidence from a text.

Some key differences:

You can do English homework at home. Other than very very limited circumstances you can not do SSL in your own home.

SSL is more fun.

You have to do your English homework on a certain night, whereas you have 7 years to find 75 hours for SSL.

Is one of those things what you were thinking of?

[Anonymous]

kids graduate without doing homework

ssl hours are faked by MCPS as in school time in schools where kids don't volunteer

ssl program is not evenly applied to all students

ssl not fun, boring, sit around, sweep floors

[Anonymous]

People like this are soooo tiresome. If the gov't required you to breathe, would you hold your breath just for the prinicple of it?
Get a life!

[Anonymous]

I do not find any moral or statistical justification for SSL hours in on itself, maybe programs or something that may be classified as propaganda may be beneficial towards encouraging volunteerism.

But let's face it, our country is in a state of decadence, what else could we expect from it, I suppose we may as we'll modify the definition of freedom, as everyone may be satisfied with that.

[Anonymous]

i think this is a worthy program but the list of approved organizations is suspicious.

for instance, we saw ssl "volunteers" at a church-based daycare in bethesda that has been known to have had serious code violations. it's technically a non-profit, yes, but the money all goes to pay for the pastor's house, salary which is why he doesn't do anything to correct the problems despite repeated issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it legal to require SSL hours in order to graduate from a public school?? I genuinely do not understand how this has not been challenged legally. I disagree so strongly with this program. Don't get me wrong - I think genuine volunteerism is admirable. Forced volunteerism, however, is crass b/c is it not genuine. In addition, what about lower income kids who might need to use out-of-school-time to work, babysit a sibling while mom works, etc.

This program really rubs me the wrong way. It is "state" (in this case the public school system) coercing underage and unpaid work at organizations it deems "worthy." Yuck.

After the recent court cases on professional internships -- I wonder if courts would look at this the same way the culture has in the past....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is something very dangerous/frightening about so many parents accepting this and defending this practice. Talk about a slippery slope to state control!

What happens when, for example, the list one day only includes groups with a particular religious or political affiliation. Sometimes you need to look at the principal at stake. I can't be the only liberal on this board, can I?

Which principal is at the stake? Is burning involved?

Best DCUM reply EVAR!