Forced Work for Welfare and Forced Work for Diploma

Is there any difference? If some Democrats believe it is okay to force highschool students to do community service in order to get a diploma why don't they also support forcing welfare recipients to do something in order to receive welfare benefits? If one takes on the attitude that making kids do community service is great for their self esteem and "good for them" then can't the same thing be said for welfare recipients?

I see absolutely no difference between the two except that welfare recipients at least have the option of voting to either support or oppose anyone who favors doing this...teenagers don't have that luxury.

welfare recipients also don't have to take classes or do homework...so quitcher bitchin' and do the work. otherwise- you always have the option of dropping out of high school and going on welfare, since recipients have it so easy...

I object to the forced Community Service as a parent with three teenagers who sees how much pressure kids are already under. I think it's wrong to put even more pressure on them.

and who's putting it on them?(not including the community service stuff, which I think is a GREAT idea).

You are forced to read the books, (or at least know what's in them), write the papers, take the tests, go to classes in most cases.

Community service work is not, at its essence, different from biology lab or having to make a bookshelf for carpentry class.

In fact, a very good argument can be made that "practicums" are in many ways superior to classroom instruction in terms of preparing students for both continued education and the workplace.

That being said, like anything else, it is vulnerable to abuse, and care should be taken that communities do not take advantage of high school kids doing their community service by using it as a convenient free labor dish to fill with unpleasant tasks no one else wants to do.

The hospital, park, etc. that is allotted however many students to do community service has a responsibility to treat those students fairly - the students are part of the community too, and they are there to learn as well as work.

astounds me.

Kanary

I was stuck in the welfare trap myself until Dean's great welfare reform that actually supported and helped people get out of that trap. I'm happy to say that I am completely financially independent as a direct result of Vermont's welfare reform. Rather than just kick people off, Vermont helps people overcome their personal barriers on an individual basis and provides real support on a one by one basis. Every person's program is unique to their specific needs.

Don't even imply that I'm "hostile" towards people on assistance because I've been one of those people myself and many of my friends have been as well.

For every "success", there are many who are now on the street, and some are dead.

Kanary

Dean's idea of welfare reform is a far cry different than that of the GOP.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that welfare recipients be forced to work for help. I was simply pointing out that I see no difference between forced work for welfare and forced community service for minors. Anytime a vulnerable population of the country is targetted in this way it's WRONG.

They force people to do charity when there should not be the need for charity and forcing welfare recipients to work keeps them down on the social scale instead of educating them for jobs that have a livable wage.

Both keep the masses down. Charity should be individual, not corporate. It helps feed the privatization of services that should be done by goverment.

"charity" and "community service?"

Government should indeed provide a host of services which it does not, and it fails to do so at a tremendous cost to you, much more than the dollar cost of providing the services would be.

I failed to make this distinction clearly enough in my original post - community service work should not be used as a substitute for what should be the responsibility of the state, for example, cleaning the streets is not appropriate community service work.

Helping an elderly person tend their garden is. So is teaching hospitalized kids how to make balloon animals.

Furthermore, community service work should be analagous to a biology lab - you don't just send kids into the lab, throw them a bunch of pickled frogs and leave them to it.

Community service work should be part of a class in civics, social studies, life skills, etc. and integrated into the overall curriculum of that particular class, with its particular teaching goals.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging community service or offering incentives to do it. The problem is in making it mandatory in order to receive a diploma. That is what is wrong...making it forced. I think all schools should OFFER such a program but NONE of them should make it a requirement for receiving a diploma.

If you take the carpentry class, you are forced to make a bookshelf.

If you take an English class, you are forced to write an essay.

So why shouldn't kids in a civics class be forced to plant flowers in front of city hall?

it's not the same thing and if a child refuses to make the bookshelf they aren't denied a high school diploma as a result. The worst they will get is an F in a non academic class that isn't required for graduation anyhow. Those kinds of classes are electives (shop).

Writing an essay is an academic activity. And again, the refusal to write an essay would not be grounds for witholding a diploma.

Let's use the essay as an example, to avoid getting bogged down in course requirements blah blah. Most schools require you to pass English to graduate, and writing an essay is a practical application of English as planting flowers in front of city hall is a practical application of Civics.

If you refuse to write the essay, you fail English, and you can't graduate. Therefore, students are forced to write an essay in order to obtain a diploma.

They are also, as I mentioned before, forced to score a certain grade on their classwork, which will not happen if they refuse to do it.

I wonder if you are referring to "standalone" community service requirements that are NOT an integrated part of a class on a particular subject. If so, I don't think that we really disagree, I have already said that I do not think just throwing a community service requirement for high school students in order to obtain some free labor for the community and/or take up the slack for the failure of government to meet its responsibilities to the people, is appropriate, and I am opposed to such programs.

What I do not oppose is a hands-on or practicum element as a teaching tool and required aspect of the coursework of a particular subject.

:hug: In fact, I'm off to go do some purchasing for charity, it would seem a parent of a four year old boy can't afford to buy him hat or gloves. That's all they asked for, the request made me cry. Of course, I'll be giving more on a purely VOLUNTARY basis.

:hi:

I bought a lego junior dump truck, Teddy bear, real softy and cuddly good to sleep wwith and 2 sets of hats and gloves because I couldn't decide which ones to buy.

:)

we're getting snow today, it's beautiful, I love the snow but can't stand the thought of a little four year old not having a hat and gloves.

disguised as "character building," and because it puts the people who plant flowers in front of the city hall for a living out of work. Why not have them replace ALL of the City Hall employees, including the mayor?


rocknation

It would be possible for a community to be doing what it needed to do for its citizens and not have any flowers in front of city hall.

So it would not be unreasonable for a Civics class, part of which is to teach kids about doing what they can to make their community a better place to live, to suggest planting flowers in front of a public building as something that citizens could just do, as a civic project, but it would specifically NOT involve using the students as free labor to perform some necessary task that is by rights the responsibility of the government.

Flowers in front of city hall is not necessary, it is just a nice little extra touch like a mint on the pillow. :)

the community service requirement is usually just a few hours once or twice a semester. Is that such a burden? Sometimes it's something as simple as singing songs for the elderly. Again the students are allowed to choose which community service they would like to participate in.

or as part of a field trip. Say visiting a nursing home or something along those lines. But as a stand alone policy it is unpaid labor.

Both are forced by the state. Institutionalized slavery.

In both instances, the would-be "slaves" have an option NOT to participate. The students can forego their diplomas, and the welfare recipients can forego their welfare check...actual "slaves" didn't have those kind of options when they arrived here on ships from Africa. to compare what "burdens" today's students and welfare recipients go thru to what the blacks went thru is an insult.

But there is a very large difference between community service practicums as a part of a related class and forcing adults to work for welfare checks.

They are, as sistersofmercy says, completely separate issues.

The purpose of having a community service element in a class on civics is to enhance the students' learning experience and give them a chance to see first hand, and participate in the life of the community.

The purpose of requiring welfare recipients to work is to feed a twisted desire on the part of the haves to see the have nots suffer more, and to prevent the havenots from becoming self-sufficient and becoming haves.

The welfare recipient is a living breathing example of the failure of society. Bear in mind that 90 odd % of those receiving welfare benefits are mothers and their children in situations where the father has elected not to share the financial responsibility for the family.

There are almost no benefits available to childless, able-bodied adults, although the meme is so often repeated that people can hardly be blamed for being unaware of this.

I am a single mother who was on welfare for a few years before and the excessive pity and excuses are pretty offensive to me. Please don't treat people down on their luck like they're pathetic losers. That's not the case. I know this population of people very well, and they don't want to be viewed like that. Have some respect.

Most welfare recipients are far from helpless and are most certainly able to do something. The biggest problem is that without welfare reform or with BAD welfare reform it's virtually impossible to get out of the trap once you're in it.

Here's what works...GOOD, well-thought out welfare reform. Vermont did this and led the nation on the issue. Our program here is great. It isn't run as a "one size fits all" program. Each person sits down with their worker and develops a plan based on their goals, skills, strengths, weaknesses, barriers and outside influences. For me, the barriers were transportation and childcare. My worker and I came up with a plan that worked wonderfully for me. They got my car fixed, registered, inspected and insured so that I had legal and reliable transportation. They paid for childcare and transportation expenses for me until I didn't need it anymore. Under the old system these issues were not addressed and everytime I tried to get off the system I lacked the resources to deal with those barriers that kept coming up, and I'd fall back into the dependence by having to give up my job from lack of transportation or child care.

Not all welfare reforms are equal. Some are bad, true...but others are VERY, VERY good and actually help the people you are trying to defend. So, if you hear the words "welfare reform", take a look at the actual proposals before deciding you're against it. You'll be doing a huge favor to those down on their luck if you do.

or as lucky :)

George Washington Carver overcame virtually insurmountable odds, and has traditionally been held up in an example by those who are opposed to everything from racially integrated schools to social programs.

I am very glad for you that your experience was simply a result of being down on your luck, and I am glad that your luck took such an abrubt turnaround that you are now able to enjoy some benefits from your exceptional talents and abilities.

Sadly, the nation is not Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average, let alone geniuses on the level of Dr. Carver, and if we are to live out our creed, then we have a responsibility to the non-gifted majority, and sooner or later we also have to confront the fact that for most welfare recipients, it is not a question of being down on one's luck, but a systemic institutionalized and enabled perpetuation of an underclass, laced with a generous dose of mean-spiritedness and misogyny served on a bed of plain old greed.

While duly noting your most exceptional and fortunate experience with welfare reform, the program overall did little more than "remove people from the rolls" and leave them removed.

One of the more horrendous effects involved women who were lucky enough to be in programs that actually allowed them to attend universities or other training with the potential to result in real self-sufficiency - welfare reform took women who were enrolled in programs that lasted more than a year OUT and sent them to McDonald's, effectively ensuring that their dreams of becoming self-supporting met an abrupt end - along with your dreams of not having to supplement their McDonald's wage with food stamps or Medicare.

The unpleasant fact is that if you are born to a poor mother, in a poor urban neighborhood, your chances of upward mobility are not too far from your chances of winning the power ball.

The free market price of a day's labor has now fallen below the free market price of a day's survival. That pretty much does away with the much touted incentive aspects of capitalist theory, and plops us unceremoniously down into the ancient and stony lap of feudalism, and puts your fortuitous circumstances into the same jeopardy as it does anybody else's - unless your lucky breaks happened to make you the CEO of a large corporation :)

You're so right, fatwa. The "Good Examples" are always used against those who lack the very resources, support, and just plain good luck of those who "made it".

It's the Oprah thing.... "If *I* did it, everyone can." Forget the fact that Oprah has the money to hire private cooks, and trainers, etc. She lost weight so everyone can. And, if you don't, then you're a slacker. Just forget about the cook and trainer.

Kanary

Until you accept the fact that not all welfare reform is created equal you are not going to understand the reality. Howard Dean got a waiver so that he could do welfare reform HIS way. What he did hasn't kicked anyone off welfare. That's not how Vermont's system works. Unless you live in a community where virtually all of your neighbors is on welfare, you don't have any idea of what kind of people receive it. First of all, there are people who receive disability benefits which is totally different than welfare. It's two entirely different populations of people. I am referring to people who get a cash benefit from ANFC/AFDC type programs. I'm am not referring to general assistance or disability as that's usually an entirely different population.

The average person who receives welfare (the programs I've mentioned) is a person who is unable to provide for themselves and their family due to circumstances that can be addressed, improved and overcome. This might be a lack of education, job skills, social skills, a drug or alcohol problem, mild mental health issues, having young children to care for, having a disabled child to care for or just being a single mother who doesn't receive child support for her kids. Sometimes the person has more than one of these barriers. ALL of these issues can be addressed and dealt with, if not entirely resolved. The beauty about the Vermont program is that it is tailored to meet the needs and abilities of each person on an individual basis. It's an incredibly supportive program. It is flexible and compassionate. Every person I know who has made an effort to make and follow their personal plan has succeeded.

Here's just some of the things people I know have had provided for them through Vermont's reformed welfare programs.

GED, diploma, Associate Degree, Bachelors Degree, licensing for careers that require it (ie nursing), automobile, drivers license, inspection, car repairs, tires, insurance, clothing, dental work, reimbursement for transportation costs, free child care, books, job training, job placement, counseling, occupational therapy, health coverage, tutoring, job mentoring, tools or items needed for work, drug and alcohol treatment. There are more things that have been done for people as well.

Vermont's welfare program will send a person to college for 4 years, provide transportation and child care during the entire time as well as continue financial assistance druing a transitional period and the support services for at least 6 months after employment starts to make sure things go smoothly.

This program doesn't focus on pushing people off the books, it focuses on providing the skills and resources a person needs to become independent combined with very close and thorough support throughout the entire process and for a period after success to make sure it's a smooth transition.

If every state provided this kind of welfare reform there would be a lot less poor and struggling people.

You do people on welfare no favors by treating them like they aren't capable of being contributing members of society. The biggest injustice for this population of Americans is allowing assistance to become a trap. The best thing you can do to help people like this is provide a way out of that trap. The kind of welfare reform I'm speaking of and that Vermont put in place is the only thing that I've seen actually help.

If your desire is to praise a politician you admire, that is certainly your right. I am not sure where you got the idea about poor people being different from anybody else from, maybe someone else's post? My view is that the only difference is that the poor do not have money. In the US, that does make for substantial differences in lifestyle, future outlook, and day to day reality, as you will no doubt recall from your own experience with "bad luck."

To return to the topic, and again, making all due exceptions for your own remarkable case, the reality of the economic situation in the US includes many of the factors that you mentioned, in most cases a combination in varying degrees of all of them, and all are in their own way, systemic and I will repeat, and indication of a failed STATE, not individual failure.

For most poor people, poverty is not a temporary spell of bad luck, but a condition into which they are born and are almost certain to remain, regardless of how hard they work or what fine people they are. In its own way, it is no different from the class system of Dickens' England nor the caste system of India. The American poor are the nations Dalits.

In the US, about half of all those eligible register, half of the registered vote (roughly). Of those who vote, the vast majority fall into the top 25% income tier. I do not expect any politician to mount an aggressive campaign to extend the voting period to a week, or take the polls to the people, as they do in India, for example. If the poor voted in large numbers, you would have, in essence, a revolution, and neither the interests of politicians nor the corporations who make possible their campaigns and careers would be served.

According to the government's own figures, the gap between rich and poor has widened by over 70% in the last few years alone. The average apartment now costs almost 4 times the minimum wage. The chances of a political solution hover between infinitesimal and none.

The admin say, "Why should we make paid positions when we can just get them to VOLUNTEER?" Of Course that saves the rich person lots of money and drives down wages. Or do you not know the meaning of the word forced. As in "against your will".

The state forces people to do these things. that is the distinction. And there is a penalty if they do not. Don't you understand this. Guess not.

I think I have to some next year when I am a senior, I am not sure.

programs but there are still many that have not. I think at this point it is entirely up to the school board to decide. In private schools, community service is encouraged for grade schoolers and mandatory participation for middle school on up which increases with grade level.

I had to do it in middle school I know.

I thought so. I am not sure.

for a high school diploma.

I have a daughter in 9th grade. She has lots of homework, carries a good grade pt avg., takes violin, practices violin etc. She has little time for social activities as it is.

Also, both of my kids are the neighborhood babysitters, dog-sitters, property-sitters etc. They are highly regarded and trusted. They help out with shoveling the driveways of little old ladies. entertain the little kids of frazzled moms, just to give a break, not for $$ and do stuff for others cause they want to. I have taught them the whole greater-good thing and them watching me work in politics to make a difference in the world around us is a good way to set an example.

A mandatory community service program is unnecessary and I don't like the idea at all.

Julie

have the school just accredit or regognize or whatever the programs that she is already in?

The point, again, is to enhance the kids' experience and enrich the learning environment, not to provide free labor for the school-board president's sister, who just happens to be the director of the underfunded public clinic :)

"enrich the kids' experience and learning environment". Their experience has been "enriched" more than necessary already.

Not what I'm talking about anyway.

See my previous posts regarding "standalone" and "just because" community service requirements.

What I am talking about is your right, if you are a teacher, parent, or school board member, to advocate, develop and implement a "hands-on" or "practicum" element to a curriculum of a specific subject, which may take the form of the requirement that you have to write an essay to pass English, dissect a frog to pass biology, or plant some flowers or help an old lady plant hers to pass Civics.

While I think that the federal government should provide funding to local school districts, and certain minimum standards - like you have to have instruction in English and basic math to be an accredited school - I do not think that there is any need for Washington to micro-manage whether the earth sciences class should require that the kids go collect samples of 4 different types of rock that are found in the bed of the local creek - or whether the civics class should have to plant those damn flowers!

but she gets thanks and personal recognition. She also earns respect and trust which she is learning has a very high value.

In a way the school does have a bit of the community service through the music program. The 9th grade student coucil hosted a "Seniors" dance, for senior citizens. My daughter is in the orchestra and the Octet and so she played for them that evening. She does receive credit for performing that evening as with all concerts. That was a one time thing this school year, not an on-going program.

I can see good points in such a program but feel the disadvantages are greater. Just my .0125.

Julie

I am talking only about community service as a PART of a specific class on a specific topic. A concert for seniors sounds like a terrific way for kids to learn first hand how citizens can make a difference and a real contribution to making their community a better place to live, WITHOUT opening up the door to just utilizing the students to do necessary work that the city doesn't want to budget for, or that employees don't want to do.

The other example I used was planting flowers in front of a public building. Neither that nor a concert for seniors is an essential but both can make a big difference in the community's quality of life, and provide all the good things that you mention that will last a lot longer, and do more for HER, than the credit. I'm glad they do give her the credit though :)

Maybe it's harder for non-parents to understand how much responsibilities kids already have. It's just not fair to keep heaping more and more expectations onto our youth when as it is they are forced to grow up faster and faster with each passing year. Enough is enough.

I've let my kids be kids for as long as it was/is natural for them. Of course at 12 and 15 there's still plenty of "kid" left. They were known around the neighborhood as "good kids" when very little and began assuming small responsibities at young ages. They were flattered and excited the neighbors wanted to hire them for little jobs. They/we set the pace of their responsibility leaving free "kid" time. No TV, computers etc. They are very imaginative and have a great time.

I don't believe kids should be constantly busy and that balance is key. If such things as community service were assigned and/or mandatory, set goals to meet (like how many hours) that would mean it's not us determining their responsibility load but the state.

Julie

The point of my question being, are those that are sufficiently wealthy exempt from such requirements? Are only those that are attending public schools held to these requirements?

Also, I would be interested to know what kind of community service is being required of those in rich school districts as opposed to those from poor school districts. If there is even the SLIGHTEST difference I would strongly and vocally object. The children in our countries poor school districts are already being indoctrinated to their "place" in society.

I haven't given it much thought (it just popped in my head), but I don't think I would object to students from rich districts being required to tutor those from poor districts, and thereby both students fulfilling their "community service" requirements.

service requirement, in fact, the more uppity the school the more community service required. As for public schools here the wealthier areas have community service requirements already.

I object to any forced community or volunteer service. I do agree with Ductape that practical experience is a great and underutilized learing tool, but that is not quite the same as forced community service.

However, the requirements of a High School diploma are not analogous to forcing people to work for welfare. Work for welfare is, as Ductape said, in part a mean-spirited vengefullness and is also a diversion for the public from the reality that there are not enough jobs for everyone, our labor/capital structure requires a large pool of disposable workers, and the utter failure of family policy in the US.

it is also used to drive down wages. Look at hospitals and schools these places use volunteers for simple things instead of paying people in order to keep thier labor costs down.

:eyes:

until you posted.

:eyes:

However, if someone is getting public assistance and is able to to work and is just loafing otherwise they shoul be required to perform some service for the good of the community. I say it again...if you are unable to do work then you should be taken care of by society.