Student posts (all, do not display in menu)

To most educators, the essential element to the success of their mission is academic integrity. It can be said that higher education as well as society will benefit from standards of integrity that pave the way for vibrant academic life, promote scientific progress, and prepare students for responsible citizenship. Despite efforts to uphold such principles, academic dishonesty is a growing concern for most educational institutions. Academic dishonesty has been a problem in schools as long as schools have existed, but over the past decade researchers and teachers have reported a dramatic climb in the occurrence of academic dishonesty especially among students in higher education, seemingly sparked by the rise of the Internet. Although increased technological developments of the last twenty or so years have been critical in creating new aids in research and avenues for faculty to publish their works, the Internet has made it easier for students to plagiarize, fabricate, and tamper with information. Another important factor that can be considered is student confusion over the nature of originality and textual appropriation when it comes to using online resources. Because many students do not know exactly what constitutes cheating and plagiarism through the use of the Internet, it is becoming increasingly more common and acceptable among students to use sources found on the Internet in some way that is not in accordance with higher education institutions. With this, can it be proven that the growth of academic dishonesty been facilitated by the Internet and have the methods in which academic dishonesty is employed changed since is widespread prevalence?

What is Academic Dishonesty?

Academic Dishonesty, “includes ‘cheating,’ ‘fraud,’ and ‘plagiarism,’ the theft of ideas and other forms of intellectual property-whether they are published or not. (). This practice is commonly believe by many to endanger the quality of education and depreciate the authentic achievements of others. There are many different forms of academic dishonesty including plagiarism, cheating, fabrication and falsification, multiple submissions, misuse of academic materials, and complicity in academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is the use of another person’s distinct ideas or words without acknowledgment. On the other hand, cheating involves the possession, communication, or use of any type of information not authorized by the instructor. Fabrication and falsification means to invent or counterfeit information by creating your own results or deliberately altering information in any academic exercise. Another form of academic dishonesty that is often overlooked is that of multiple submissions, meaning submitting academic work for which academic credit has already been earned. Misuse of academic materials includes stealing, destroying, or unauthorized possession/alteration/sale/purchase of any academic materials. Lastly, complicity in academic dishonesty, sometimes overlooked, entails knowingly contributing to another’s acts of academic dishonesty ().

Growth of Academic Dishonesty

The Internet has revolutionized the computer and world of communications like nothing ever before. The invention of the telegraph, telephone, radio and computer, set the stage for the unprecedented integration of capabilities that later arose with the invention of the Internet. It is generally agreed upon that the Internet reached public consciousness in the United States in the mid to late 1990s and with this later came the growth of academic dishonesty. Here are some studies and cases about academic dishonesty that lead to insight about its relation to the Internet:

In a study, “The Impact of Unethical Reasoning On Different Types of Academic Dishonesty: An Exploratory Study,” the authors argue that there is an increase in academic dishonesty in the education system, which is concerning because it is suggested that those who cheat in college are more likely to cheat on the job. The idea that it is likely that students who cheat in academics are more likely to cheat in the business world coupled with the thought that academic dishonesty is on the rise, is problematic for it would seem to create an increasingly corrupt society. This is one of the reasons professors and academic institutions are concerned about this growing problem (Iyer 2008).

“A Campus Fad That’s Being Copied: Internet Plagarism,” is an article about how a study conducted in 2004 on 23 college campuses has found that Internet plagiarism is rising among students. Out of the undergraduate students surveyed said that in the last year they had engaged in some sort of Internet plagiarism without citation. In a similar survey three years earlier than this study, only 10 percent of students had acknowledged such cheating. This study in 2004, by Donald L. McCabe from Rutgers University, surveyed over 18,000 students, 2,6000 faculty members and 650 teaching assistants at large public universities and small private colleges nationwide, not including Ivy Leagues. Professor McCabe says, “There are a lot of students who are growing up with the Internet who are convinced that anything you find on the Internet is public knowledge and doesn’t need to be cited.” This studied revealed that about half the students who participated in the study considered Internet cheating to be trivial plagiarism while only twenty-two percent of undergraduates acknowledged that they have cheated in a “serious” way in the past year. According to the majority opinion of students, the more serious way of cheating is copying from another student on a test, using unauthorized notes or helping someone else to cheat on a test. Most students believe that cheating and plagiarism through the use of the Internet is less serious and therefore students are more likely to partake in this sort of plagiarism. The article also adds that administrators at Princeton have said that many times students as well as parents do not understand why it is wrong to using sections of text for academic word without using citation. The author ends by saying that colleges need to make it clear to their students what defines cheating and that is important to uphold principles of academic integrity in order to stop the growth of academic dishonesty within educational institutions (Rimer 2003).

In the article “Student Online Plagiarism: How Do We Respond?” the author talks about how it has been perceived that Internet plagiarism by college students is on the rise and that professors and administrators are alarmed. It reviews quantitative studies of student plagiarism over the past forty years, as well as how institutions have responded weakly. Lastly it offers strategies for addressing and preventing such plagiarism. The author reveals that quantitative studies based on student self-reports have reported high levels of academic dishonesty over several decades, but vary from 9 to 95 percent of students admitting to some form of academic dishonesty. It is found that Internet plagiarism is highly influenced by peer behavior on students’ decisions to plagiarize and that it is on the rise among high school students. Because of this, it is now even more critical how colleges respond to such dishonesty. In the past, cheating and plagiarism was more time consuming, as it required students to obtain books, read, and copy. Now students can find online resources in a matter of seconds, with just the click of a mouse, which has led to the growth of academic dishonesty (Scanlon 2003).

In the literature review of the study, “It’s Wrong, But Everybody Does it: Academic Dishonesty among High School and College Students,” it is suggested that cheating has increased over the course of the past several decades. “In 1941, Drake found that 23% of college students reported cheating. Goldsen (1960) reported rates of 38% in 1952 and 49% in 1960. By the 1980s, Jendrek (1989) estimated the typical rate between 40 and 60%. By 1992, she found that 74% of college students engaged in cheating (Jendrek, 1992). Even more recently, researchers have reported rates as high as 90% (Graham, Monday, O’Brien, and Steffen, 1994). These rates pertain to college students” This study gives evidence that academic dishonesty has increased since the Internet has become mainstream and continues to become more widely used.

Here are studies and reports of academic dishonesty from 1915-2010:

http://www.cheatingculture.com/academic-dishonesty/2010/10/7/academic-dishonesty-studies-and-reports-1915-2010.html

Methods of Academic Dishonesty through use of the Internet

Although it is commonly accepted that the Internet in general is an easily accessed source in which students take unfair advantage in academia, there are many different ways students obtain information on the web. In an analytical study on where students find unoriginal content on the Internet, “Plagiarism and the Web: Myths and Realities,” close to 40 million college student papers were examined to obtain a glimpse into the resources students use over the Internet. These papers were submitted to Turnitin, which is the leading plagiarism prevention and wiring application for instructors. The results reveal that there were about five different resource categories that students used when it came to plagiarism, although it was reported that some were used more often than others. These five categories are as follows: Social networking and content sharing, homework and academic, news and portals, paper mill and cheat sites, encyclopedias (White Paper).

Social networking and content sharing are sites that rely on user-generate content rather than published professional content. These social networking sites include sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and question and answers on Yahoo Answers and Answers.com. The homework and academic category encompasses websites that are established to help students prepare for tests or give aid in some educational or academic aspect. Most of these sites have .org or .gov domain registrations, but also includes sites such as www.bookrags .com and www.sparknotes.com. News and portals include sites that have a traditional published model, such as the New York Times, and the Huffington Post. Sites that profit from students selling and exchanging original student papers are called paper mills or cheat sites. Lastly, encyclopedia web sites are classified into their own category because of its vast and growing popularity, including Brittanica.com and Encyclopedia.com and Wikipedia (White Paper).

The results of the study show that plagiarism is going social. One-third of all content matched in the study is from social networks or other question-and-answer sites where users contribute and share information over the web. One-quarter of all matched material is from educational web sites, which is more than double the number coming from paper mills or cheat sites. This means that educational sites are a more popular way students tend to plagiarize, although paper mills and cheat sites are the third most popular category for matched content. With 7 percent of matches, Wikipedia remains the most popular single source for student-matched content. This study also argues that educators who employ the proper tools and technologies can minimize plagiarism. The authors present this argument by giving statistics that institutions with widespread adoption of Turnitin experience a reduction in unoriginal content of 30 to 35 percent in the first year. By the fourth year, many see levels of unoriginality fall up to 70 percent. (White Paper).

Discussion:

With the increasing prevalence of the Internet and advancing technology, students have become more creative and discrete in how they go about cheating. The old standards of cheating, prior to the invention of the Internet, often involved looking over a classmates shoulder during a test, copying homework from another student, or bullying someone into writing a paper. The Internet itself has become a breeding ground for plagiarism as students often just copy and paste information and declare it as their own words and ideas. Although there are many studies and reports that have given evidence that academic dishonesty is on the rise, it cannot be fully proven. It is true, however, that the Internet has allowed for different methods of cheating that were impossible before its widespread popularity, but many people are unaware of what constitutes such cheating. It is unclear whether students have significantly dropped their old methods of cheating and replaced them with techniques involving the Internet, although it is pretty well known that both methods are still in considerable practice. With the rise of the Internet, it has also become easier for professors and educational institutions to detect academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, from Internet sources through the use of devices that are able to detect unoriginality. It is only until recent years that universities and other academic institutions have been keeping records of academic dishonesty cases. When starting my research project I originally wanted to find out if academic dishonesty has increased at Trinity College since the 1980s, but I found that I was unable to do so. I spoke to Peter Knapp to see if there were any files on such cases in the Watkinson Library, but he told me that there was no pertinent material in the Archives. He told me that the best place for me to go would be the Dean of Students’ Office for this information, but when I told Dean Reuman about my research she told me that there is only data from the last 7 years. Because of this I found it to be impossible to complete my research on this specific matter. It may be that there is a rise in concern over academic dishonesty in recent years and more honor councils are being established to punish cheating and promote academic integrity.

Here are studies and reports of academic dishonesty from 1915-2010:

http://www.cheatingculture.com/academic-dishonesty/2010/10/7/academic-dishonesty-studies-and-reports-1915-2010.html

Works Cited

Rimer, Sara. 2003. “A Campus Fad That’s Being Copied: Internet Plagiarism.” New York Times, 3 Sept. nytimes.com/2003/09/03/education/03CHEA.html

Scanlon, PM (2003) “Student Online Plagiarism: How Do We Respond?” College Teaching, 51: 161-5. Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Iyer R, Eastman JK (2008). The impact of unethical reasoning onacademic dishonesty: Exploring the moderating effect of social desirability. Mark. Educ. Rev., 18(2): 21-33.

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s wrong, but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 209 –28. 229 –241.

“White Paper – Plagiarism and the Web: Myths and Realities.” Web. 01 May 2012. <http://pages.turnitin.com/PlagiarismandtheWebSEC.html>.

Diekhoff, George M., Emily E. LaBeff, Robert E. Clark, Larry E. Williams, Billy Francis, and Valerie J. Haines. “College Cheating: Ten Years Later.” Research in Higher Education 37.4 (1996): 487-502. Print.

Maramark, S., & Maline, M. B. (1993). Issues in education: Academic dishonesty amongcollege students. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

“An Ethical Dilemma: Talking About Plagiarism and Academic Integrity in the Digital Age More.” An Ethical Dilemma: Talking About Plagiarism and Academic Integrity in the Digital Age (Ebony Elizabeth Thomas). Web. 04 Apr. 2012. <http://wayne.academia.edu/EbonyElizabethThomas/Papers/832016/An_Ethical_Dilemma_Talking_About_Plagiarism_and_Academic_Integrity_in_the_Digital_Age>.

The reformation of education for Native Americans was based on ideals of individualism, industry, and the acceptance of Christian doctrine and morality (Wallace Adams 15). The set of European values that were prevalent in American culture saw to it that the Native Americans could never live in harmony due to Euro-centric hegemonic views. In the 19th century it became clear that the Native Americans would either face extermination or “civilization”. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Americans built an all-encompassing system of Indian academies. These academies were largely funded by Congress and increasingly controlled from Washington. These schools were primarily residential, boarding institutes. Their goal was to instruct Indian children in white ways or to get rid of native tribal cultures (Fear Segal). This movement to transform native children into American citizens appeared to represent a clear affirmation of faith in the equality and educability of the Indian. Two schools which pioneered the cause of Indian education were Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute, in Virginia, and Carlisle Indian Industrial School, in Pennsylvania. By carefully comparing the policies and philosophies of these two schools we can explain how the Native Americans experienced the “Americanization” process from the 1870s to 1910.

Today, Native Americans are one of the most underrepresented groups in the hierarchy of American culture. In the past they have been viewed as savages and lower level members of society. Attempts to educate the Indians were based on the ideals of assimilation or nothing at all. Policymakers never took into account that Native Americans had their own set of skills and intellect that they could bring to the table. In general, the system of mass education, not only for Native Americans but for other immigrants has been based around deculturation and not integration. This process is successful in creating a mostly unified nation but it fails to account for aspects of ethnic identity that cannot be drawn out and erased. Hampton School and Carlisle School were both somewhat successful in the process of educating the Native Americans during the 19^th century.   The attitudes and practices that these two schools shared have a lot common, but the schools have also exhibited significant disagreements which were vitally important at the time and which continue to animate the issue of cultural difference and assimilation today (Fear Segal 325). The ideals found at Hampton were based on a biological theory of social development while the ones found at Carlisle were based around an egalitarian view of society. These differing viewpoints crucially affected the way the students were taught and the way they experienced the American education process. Although the two schools taught the same things Carlisle may have been a better experience because they got the students at a younger age and the school’s underlying theory was based around a belief in universal human capacities.

The 19th century saw the rise of the common school movement, which changed American education forever. The common school movement led to the collective socialization of the American population. Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Richard Henry Pratt, the founders of the two Indian schools we will examine would both become pioneers in the common school movement for their efforts in education of the Indians. Samuel Chapman Armstrong was the founder of Hampton Institute. He was the son of a Hawaiian missionary and was awarded American citizenship after leading an all colored troop in the Civil War. His participation in the platoon of colored men aroused his interest for the welfare of blacks. After his time in the war he felt like colored people had enough mind power and determination and that they were capable of doing well in school and furthering their lives. This interest inspired him so much that he started up Hampton Institute in 1868 to educate freed blacks in the south. In 1878, a party of seventeen Indians was brought from St. Augustine, Florida where they had been prisoners of war. This became the nucleus for the Indian Department at Hampton (Armstrong, M F). The man who brought the Indian prisoners to Hampton was Captain Richard Henry Pratt who would soon become the founder of the Carlisle Institute. During Pratt’s time with the Indian prisoners of war Segal explains, “he used these warriors to develop a simple set of rules for educating Indians and then elaborated a code which he adhered to tenaciously for the rest of his life. (Fear Segal 326)” Segal further explains, “Every step Pratt took to ‘civilize’ the prisoners was guided by his belief that they were essentially no different from whites. (Fear Segal 326)”. Pratt’s belief in equality would provide a more enjoyable experience for Indians in education in the 19th century.

Pratt and Armstrong shared an interest in Native American education. Both agreed that the best answer to the age-old “Indian problem” lay in education (Fear Segal 327). After a lot of collaborative work Pratt began to defer because he didn’t share some of the same ideals as Armstrong. A year after the first Native American program started at Hampton he moved on and started the Carlisle Indian School. Pratt picked the right time to leave because politicians in Washington were looking for something to do with the Indians. By 1885, the United States made a clear effort to try and educate the Native Americans. Hampton Institute reported “120 Indians are provided for by the United States Government” (Armstrong, M F). Carlisle also received grants so that they could start their school in some abandoned military barracks in Pennsylvania.

The two institutions developed a pattern of schooling rooted in a general view of what was needed to convert wild Indians into American citizens (Fear Segal 326). At both Hampton and Carlisle, it was essential to teach the Indians how to work. The division of the day was split into two parts, one part was for study and the other part was for practical work. During these two time periods the children learned their lessons, were taught a trade and concurrently provided most of the goods and services necessary to run the schools. This process kept the costs down and made it easier for the schools to thrive financially. At both schools the students wore uniforms and were taught discipline. It was imperative that the students were taught agricultural work. Hampton particularly taught industry and the necessity of becoming good workers in the capitalist system for both blacks and Native Americans. Hampton was a normal school and it’s goal was to create teachers that would go on to educate minority students about the American values of both hard-work and perseverance that they internalized at Hampton. This process would effectively pass down white American values from generation to generation for both blacks and Indians. It is important to remember that the goal of these schools was to eradicate Indianness so it was vital to teach the students colonial trade. The course load focused on “the fundamentals of political economy and civil government” ( Armstrong, M F). Not only did the schools teach students the American way but they also stripped the students of their culture. The students had their hair cut, were put into American clothes and had their names changed to become assimilated.

Pratt believed that the process of eradicating Indianness could happen in a few years while Armstrong thought that it would take a few generations before change occurred. Particularly at Hampton Armstrong recalls, “For a majority of cases the three years’ Normal course is preceded by a year in the Night School, during which time the students work eight or ten hours daily and study two hours in the evening an arrangement which…weeds out effectually the incapable or unwilling.” Brief glances at Armstrong’s writings on his colored students show a general uncertainty about his colored students. When he says things like “Will Indians study? Can they learn” or “Will Indians work? Can they be broken in to civilized pursuits” it shows that he has a certain negative perception towards these students (Armstrong, M F). In comparison Pratt had a firm belief that the Indians could learn. He compared the situation of the Indians to that of the immigrants in that “they both needed to be absorbed into American society to achieve full participation” (Fear Segal). This positive viewpoint allows for a more liberal education where the Indian would not have to fear being disenfranchised.

Segal cites that Pratt was a Universalist and Armstrong was an evolutionist. For Armstrong, “education was necessary, but it was not sufficient alone (Fear Segal)”.  Segal states that in Armstrong’s opinion “Indians would have to be guided step by step up the evolutionary ladder, from hunter to herder to farmer.” Armstrong didn’t believe that the Native Americans could make any progress on their own or without guidance. It is reasonable to infer that their experience at Hampton wasn’t a polite one. Armstrong’s colleague Helen Ludlow talks about how she visited the Hampton Indians when they went back to Dakota. Her article asks about whether or not it was useful sending students to Hampton and how a good percentage of the students went back to the traditional dress of the Indians after receiving education at Hampton. Her testimony shows that the process was somewhat unsuccessful (Armstrong, M F). Many of the downfalls of Indian education at Hampton might be due to the fact that it was a black school for freedmen. Carlisle didn’t have to deal with this problem because their school was based solely on the education of Indians. Armstrong was uncertain about mixing the two races at Hampton because he believed that their strengths and weaknesses were very different.

In comparison, Carlisle’s procedures were much less focused on race. “At Carlisle he insisted on a set of principles rooted in a fundamentally different attitude to the Indian (Fear Segal 329).” Carlisle’s different structure allowed for a better Indian experience. In this testimonial to the Institutional experience some Indian children expressed excitement in “dressing up like whites” (Wallace Adams 108). “How proud we were with clothes that had pockets and boots that squeaked! We walked the floor nearly all that night. Many of the boys even went to bed with their clothes all on.” (Wallace Adams 108). This testimonial shows a certain positive attitude towards the Indian experience at Carlisle that is partially due to the theory of Universalism that Pratt instilled in the school.

Carlisle was such an open and accompanying campus that it even put together a football team. Pratt wanted to bring Indians into direct competition with Americans and show they could win (Fear Segal). One of their goals was to become one of the best football teams in the country. They aqcuired a good coach and after a while the Carlisle team was known as one of the better teams in the country. Just the fact that Pratt wanted to do this shows a differing approach to the way Carlisle and Hampton went about the Indian experience. Pratt was “utterly opposed to what he called ‘race school'”(Fear Segal). He wanted his students to count as more than just Indians but as equals. In comparison at Hampton, Indian graduates weren’t encouraged to settle amongst white people. At Hampton the most important task was to train “Indian leadership.” This perspective is very significant and it insists upon self-sufficiency amongst the Indians. Armstrong of the Hampton school pushed for segregated environments which in his words would, “afford the best conditions to prepare the red race for citizenship.” (Fear Segal). Hampton Normal may have produced some of the same results as Carlisle Industrial but its methods didn’t provide as gratifying an experience for Indian students.

Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute, in Virginia, and Carlisle Indian Industrial School, in Pennsylvania were the foremost schools in the education of the Native Americans during the 19th century. The founders of the two schools believed in the education of the savages but went about it in very different ways. The approach that Armstrong from the Hampton Institute took was evolutionist and less encompassing. The approach that Pratt at the Carlisle Institute took was based around Universalism and it allowed for a better experience for the Indians.

Sources:

Required Community Service in US High Schools

In the United States civic engagement has been a crucial component of society, whether it is through political activism or lending a helping hand to our fellow neighbors. In recent years, youth participation in volunteerism has fluctuated, resulting in a growing number of high schools requiring them to complete a certain number of hours of service in order to graduate. This increase is most notably seen in the late 80s and early 90s when “…[v]olunteer rates among youth ages 16-19 soared from 13.4 to 24.5 percent between 1989-2007”(Clemmitt, 79). There has been a range of reactions regarding the movement of mandatory participation in community service, from lawsuits to enthusiasm, which beckons the question, how has this requirement changed since the 90s and how has it affected their long-term outcomes as citizens? Since the 90s there has been an even greater push for service as a result of federal incentives, thus engaging more students into the community, creating civic minded individuals (which can be dependent on the structure of the mandatory program).

When researching high school graduation requirements of community service, there are several terms that ought to be clarified, as they may be confusing. Civic engagement is an overarching term and is defined as enhancing civic society through the combined use of “knowledge, skills, values and motivation” to achieve social change (NYTimes). This occurs through several means including: volunteerism, community service, and service-learning. Volunteerism is the genuine devotion of time to a cause without receiving compensation, whereas community service is similar on some level, but differs in the sense that some “volunteers” participate because they are required to through an institution, like a school. Service-Learning as defined by the former US Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II is, “… an educational activity, program, or curriculum that seeks to promote student learning through experiences associated with volunteerism or community service…Service learning emerges from helping others and reflecting how you and they benefited from doing so” (Howe II, iv) These terms are often used interchangeably when discussing youth involvement in their communities. For the purposes of this research, the use of the terms service-learning and community service will be used interchangeably in a general sense of their definitions. The focus of this research will be required community service in US high schools since the 90s.

When engaging in the discourse of service-learning a key figure is philosopher John Dewey. Although he did not directly coin service-learning, he suggested that a significant instrument to education reform is experiencing the benefits of hands-on education that would contribute to social development (Conrad and Heiden, 1991). His words would bear more significance years later when the percentage of youth participation in volunteerism drops to 13.5 in 1989 (Clemmitt, 79). This drastically low percent heightened the urgency for youth civic engagement to increase. Thus individual schools began incorporating service-learning as a part of school curricula. The need for youth to be more civically engaged was acknowledged and solidified in 1990 when the federal government began promoting community service for all in the country while providing incentives for schools.

In the early 90s there were two significant pieces of federal legislature. The first was in 1990 when President Bush signed the National and Community Service Act which addressed the multiple facets of community service (Clemmitt, 79). This act provided $64 million in grants for community service programs like Serve America (now named Learn and Serve America) which works directly with students from the primary level through the tertiary level (ofm.wa.gov). The second piece was the National and Community Trust act of 1993 signed by President Clinton (Wutzdorff and Giles, 108). The law established the Corporation for National Service which promotes service through different organizations like Learn and Serve America (Wutzdorff and Giles, 108). These two efforts kick-started a movement toward greater youth participation in civic life. They allowed schools to pursue steps to receive federal funds for service-learning curricula. Recently, in 2009 President Obama has also encouraged volunteerism through federal legislature. In April of 2009 the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act was passed, granting even more opportunities for service, considering the $1.49 billion budget (nationalservice.gov). These efforts further legitimized school-based volunteerism which has been steadily increasing.

Although these federal movements are impressive, it does not directly define its significance. What does youth disengagement mean? It is dangerous for youth to go through many years of schooling and not be able to realize the grander scheme of things. Life is more than grade in a class and certainly more than a test score; if students are not interested in anything outside of the realm of academics, we have will have potentially lost citizens that could contribute greatly to society. Sometimes students may not be connected to education whatsoever and may turn to other non-productive routes to fill up time. In order to avoid both of these scenarios, and any other of the like, providing a safe and engaging outlet like community service would not only benefit the youth, but the larger society as well. Some schools have decided to approach this issue of disengagement in a number of ways, which are not always welcomed.

The combination of the need for youth to be civically engaged as well as the opportunities provided by the federal government motivated high schools to incorporate community service/service-learning as a part of the curriculum, sometimes as a high school requirement. As of August 2011, only the state of Maryland and the District of Colombia has adopted community service as a graduation requirement. While this is relatively low, high school districts across 35 states incorporate some level of service learning(whether required community service or granting credit toward graduation) which fares pretty high compared to districts in seven states in 2001 (Education Commission of the States; servicelearning.org). As a result of an increasing number of schools that have a community service/service-learning component, in the years 2008-2010 33.7 percent of civic engagement in the US was school-based. Although many may see the social gains society and participants receive by being mandated to volunteer, there has been opposition to the high school graduation requirement.

Over the years, there has been an adverse reaction toward the graduation requirement of volunteering in the students’ communities. One such case is that of Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District in 1993.

“The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a district’s 60- hour service requirement amounted to “involuntary servitude” banned under the 1 3th Amendment outlawing slavery. The amendment bans “forced labor through physical coercion,” not service that is “primarily designed for the students’ own benefit and education” by teaching them about the value of community work”(Clemmitt, 84).

This example, is obviously one of the most extreme reactions, but on some level understandable that one should pursue community service if they please. The Bethlehem case only further exemplifies the challenges schools face when trying to teach their students the value of community investment. One can assume what their immediate perspectives were upon fulfilling their requirement, which is a reflection of many youth: resentment and disdain. Researchers have attributed these attitudes to several factors like disorganization of service projects and imposing on the busy lives of the students. While mandating community service has been challenging in some respects, researchers have shown that it also inspires many students to do so as well.

In a 2005 study researchers studied graduating high school seniors as the required service policy shifted. One group of students were in the graduating cohort that did not require community service (’00) while the 2 following cohorts (’01, ’02) were required to participate in community service. They looked even further into these groups and tracking the change in attitude toward civic engagement from those who were more or less inclined to volunteer. Prior to thecommencement of the study, the researchers Metz and Yuniss surveyed the students about their civic views and activity to establish a baseline. Over the years, they recorded the change in student answers to track any growth. The following table is an example of their findings.

Mean Scores of Civic Engagement–Metz and Youniss

Overall, the less- inclined group of students who were required to participate in community service demonstrated significant growth in their civic engagement. When asked about their likeliness of future voting, the less-inclined group which were required to volunteer showed a .32 standard deviation increase, unlike the less-inclined cohort that were not required. As you can see, they decreased .14 standard deviations. A clearer demonstration of this data is displayed in the graph below:

Graphical display of decision to vote based on the groups of less and more inclined students who were and were not required to volunteer–Metz and Youniss

According to this research project, less-inclined students who are mandated to participate in community service, are generally benefited by furthering their desires to be civically engaged. Interestingly enough, one of the researchers Youniss participated in another relevant research project related to youth participation in community service and its effects in civic engagement. He and the small team of researchers discovered in 2007 that youth are more likely to vote (and participate in civic life through other manners)  as a result to their exposure to community service in high school (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, Atkins, 2007).

Although this research demonstrated some gains between these set of students there are other variables that need to be examined when determining why community service affects civic engagement. One must consider the factors that lead to successful implementation of community service requirements in high school. Jeffery Bennett of the University of Arizona conducted a study on urban high schools that had the graduation requirement suggested that the strength in the program determines whether or not it effectively promotes civic engagement. In his research he discovers that student opinion on community service and civic engagement was based upon the structure of the program. Mentors, better community relationships and a variety of service opportunities would have greatly influenced the views of the students. What is interesting is that Bennett explains that although that additional support would have been helpful, it would have also been limiting. For this study community service and service-learning are not interchangeable. I declare this because Bennett decides upon completing his research that requiring community service is limiting in the sense that it does not allow time for the students to process, to reflect upon their experiences. This only leaves them with an impression to volunteer some more versus looking at the larger picture and taking social action.

In sum, it is crucial to have youth participate in service learning/community service (mandatory or voluntary)/volunteerism that would expose them to becoming civically engaged. When youth are not involved, whether socially or politically, it puts our society at risk. We need a holistic view of education and citizenship in order to continue functioning as a society. It is therefor vital that we encourage our youth to become involved through federal incentives or even at the idea of personal growth. There is much to be learned outside of the classroom and much to gain as seen in the case studies outlined. There will be a continuous debate on whether or not community service should be required, but I think that we have to find ways to engage students to think beyond the walls of the classroom. Perhaps it will be through class trips, service-learning based curricula, or statewide required participation, whatever the means, we need to continue the efforts in order to maintain (as much as we can) a functioning society.

Bibliography:

Clemmitt, Marcia “Youth Volunteerism.” CQ Researcher by CQ Press, n.d.http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2012012700.

Dávila, Alberto, and Marie T. Mora. “Civic Engagement and High School Academic Progress: An Analysis Using NELS Data, [Part I of An Assessment of Civic Engagement and Academic Progress.” InUniversity of Maryland, 2007.

“ECS Education Policy Issue Site: Service-Learning.” Education Commission of the States–Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy. Web. <http://www.ecs.org/html/IssueSection.asp?issueid=109>.

Hart, Daniel, Thomas M Donnelly, James Youniss, and Robert Atkins. “High School Community Service as a Predictor of Adult Voting and Volunteering.” American Educational Research Journal 44, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 197–219.

“Impacts and Outcomes of Service-Learning in K-12 Settings: Selected Resources.” National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. <http://www.servicelearning.org/impacts-and-outcomes-service-learning-k-12-settings-selected-resources>

Metz, Edward C., and James Youniss. “Longitudinal Gains in Civic Development Through School-Based Required Service.” Political Psychology 26, no. 3 (June 1, 2005): 413–437.

“NationalService.gov Our History and Legislation.” Corporation for National and Community Service. Web. <http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/history.asp>.

Stanton, Timothy, Dwight Giles, and Nadinne I. Cruz.Service-learning: A Movement’s Pioneers Reflect on Its Origins, Practice, and Future. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999. Print.

Schine, Joan G. Service Learning. Chicago: NSSE, 1997. Print.