It is most likely that without the mandate 90% of the kids would never even try to volunteer. We mandate all kinds of things for kids because it is for their own good. We mandate school, curfews, drinking age, driving age, and even the age at which they can have sex without excessive public scorn. Now we can mandate that they have to get up off their behinds and contribute to society.

Some kids would not participate because they were lazy. Some kids would not participate because they were unsure if they would be welcome or they were unsure about what to do. Some kids would not participate because their parents would not let them for any number of seemingly irrational reasons.

If it is mandatory then the 10% of kids who have an actual real reason why they can’t volunteer would be excused. The rest of them can find out how easy and useful it is to become a volunteer. They will learn something they can use for the rest of their lives.

Now that I have stuck up for the mandatory bit, I do have a question: Is there any money for this program? Is it moving forward at all? It has been well over a year and I only heard about it because I was researching legislation that has been passed since Obama took office.

the at risk populations that Becky Robinson suggests

means Hamas? I received an alarmed call asking me to research this issue and I'd like to be able to respond to the request but I haven't found the passage in question to try to figure out what could result from the bill HR1388. My caller suggested the

start of Hitler-like children's camps and talked about the Nazis, too. Also, reference to building

terrorist (Muslim) population in America.

I had an email this morning indicating that this bill has a provision in it that is virtually unknown. The information follows:

"This bill, hr 1388, funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn't make the headlines…

By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza."

The senior projects kids do at our local high school are a requirement, but the children choose what to do. We have had kids volunteer in grade schools, rebuild the bus shelter, paint the community hall, etc. They present their projects to the community.

If the service learning occurred during the regular school day, then perhaps it would be better too. To expect children who may need to have jobs, chores, etc. to devote extra time outside of school may also be unrealistic.

Yes, not Hitler youth comments on this one.

The sad truth is that Americans are less associative than they used to be. We belong less, we join less, we volunteer less. Might such programs help fill the obvious social gaps while simultaneously providing the knowledge, skills and experience to make our educational system a little more effective?

And finally, let me pre-comment before all of the Nazi/Hitler Youth comments start rolling in. Save it for somewhere else, maybe Glenn Beck has a blog or something.

As far as the financial incentives, whether in actual payment or college tuition assistance, I think that they should be fair (not below minimum wage) to actually be jobs. I feel my job as a public school teacher is public service and getting a paycheck does not make it any less meaningful or valuable, but it is not volunteerism or mandatory. It is my choice (of course I volunteer a lot of time and resources to get the job done right, but again, it is my choice).

I absolutely agree with your comments regarding hands on learning and the value of service experience before college. I just fear mandates.

Always enjoy your analysis, but this is one of the rare cases in which I disagree with you (at least in part). First, I don't see anything particularly threatening about mandatory service requirements — service learning is an incredibly effective means of tying classroom knowledge to the "real world." Even the college freshman I've taught tend to learn ideas better through "hands-on" methods… and those who've had some service experience prior to college almost always tend to do better — they've got a sense of the big picture beyond the ivory tower (or the fraternity party).

Secondly, I don't think adding financial incentives makes public service work any less meaningful… if anything, it broadens the pool of workers who can choose such work, since they're able to support themselves while serving their communities. Why limit such service only to those who have other financial resources? And, does entering such a program just for the payment, or student loan debt forgiveness, or other financial motivations, make the work someone does less meaningful?

Glad you're taking a look at these things…