Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Gas Tax Tyler Fromi

           The reason that congress would raise the gas tax is because the emissions that come out of our cars hurts the environment. Also it would help the government get more tax revenue to help the national debt. ''Originally put in place to raise funds during the Great Depression and first increased to help pay for U.S. costs of fighting World War II'' (David Blackmon, forbes.com, 2018). This shows that this could help our national debt. But also this could have some negative affects.  

        The reason we shouldn't raise the gas tax is because we have use the local gas stations all the time its basically a necessity. Also the government says they need more money to rebuild roads and highways. ''Our highway infrastructure isn’t crumbling'' (Randal O'Toole, huffingtonpost.com 2014). This shows that raising the gas tax would not be a good solution. 

         My opinion on this matter is that we should not raise the gas tax. My reasoning behind this is that it would not be ideal for the public. Also the government can find other way to get money for the roads. It would not be efficient by adding a tax on something that people need to get places would not be go. This is why we shouldn't raise the gas tax. 

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

A pollution tax would be good for the US as a whole. We could use that money to provide more affordable public transportation or help fund our lucrative spending as a whole. It would also help us cut down on emissions as a whole(New York Times,www.nytimes.com,2018).

A pollution tax would cause us to not have us trading with other countries and cause our diplomacy to drop severely.  It would cause unnecessary stress for the average american because they don't have a very high budget. In this article the author states that Americans love to drive and also some areas are very spaced out so you have to drive or else you won't get there on time(Travis Brown,http://www.howmoneywalks.com,2015).

My opinion on the topic is that we should have a gas tax. I say this because it would allow us to have another source of income and allow us to improve things in general. It would also allow us to live longer because we would be preserving the environment. Those are reasons why I think that we should have a gas tax.

Gas Tax

If the tax on gasoline is raised it can help provide the government money for other things. It can help get money for infrastructure repairs like bridges and roads. It can help get more money to help the people on welfare and other government funded benefits. "A higher gas tax would help fix crumbling highways while also generating money that could help offset the impact on low- and middle-income families" (New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com, 2013).

If the tax on gasoline is raised it isn't going to solve the real problems associated with driving. All it will do is simply enrage the normal drivers. "Although increasing the gas tax might lead to a reduction both in the consumption of fuel and in a few other negative side effects like air pollution, it wouldn't do much to address two of the biggest problems associated with driving: traffic congestion and traffic accidents, says a policy brief co-written by a team of University of Illinois economists" ( Illinois News, news.illinois.edu, 2015).

I think that raising the tax is a  bad idea. Not everyone in the world has the ability to pay for a 3 or four dollar gallon of gas. While yes there are many alternatives like electric cars, they also are very expensive and most people are not financially capable of buying one. 

To many people increasing pollution tax on gas is a good thing. Mainly because they think it's going to improve infrastructure. According to Josh Siegel author of 'Republicans consider the unthinkable: A gas tax increase to pay for infrastructure' stated "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently called for the Trump administration and Congress to raise the gas tax by 25 cents per gallon to help pay for an infrastructure package, projecting it would generate more than $375 billion over a decade. For 25 years, the federal tax on gasoline has held steady at 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel, It is not indexed to inflation" (Josh Siegel, washingtonexaminer.com, 2018). Fixing the infrastructure would give the U.S. a better look, most of the bridges and buildings are getting older and older to the point where they need to be fixed.  

Taxes shouldn't increase it's just causing more unnecessary money to be spent. According to Jake Novak author of 'Gas tax hikes are the bad idea that won't go away' stated "Instead of raising the gas tax, Congress needs to stop spending Highway Trust Fund money on unrelated projects and debt reduction. Relying on gas tax hikes also means relying on Americans continuing to drive and buy more at the pump. With fuel efficiency rising across all classes of vehicles and hybrids more available than ever, the government could tax itself right out of its own needed funding source" (Jake Novak, cnbc.com, 2018). People may stop driving as much or start buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars if gas prices rise. Of course any tax hike, whether consumers feel it or not, isn't good for the economy. Every added cent spent on gas is a cent not invested or spent on clothing, dining out, etc.

I personally don't think the pollution tax on gas should increase. I mean yea there's may ways for transportation but why increase? Knowing that almost everyone has a car or at least some way of transportation it shouldn't be high. People are already spending enough money just by spending money on gas weekly. Pollution tax isn't good for anyone, knowing that there's a chance people may struggle trying to pay these taxes could cause more people to lose their jobs or even move out of the country.  People are trying their best to save, increasing this tax would only hurt the pockets of Americans.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline would be great because it would be great for the environment because cars are responsible for over 75 percent of the carbon monoxide emissions. According to HowStuffWorks.com , "Seventy-five percent of carbon monoxide emissions come from automobiles. In urban areas, harmful automotive emissions are responsible for anywhere between 50 and 90 percent of air pollution". If raise the pollution tax on gasoline it would make people less likely to drive and would be good for the environment.

Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline would be bad. It would be bad because it would drive people off the road and would hurt the american economy. For example, according to Thinkprogress.org, the top oil and gas companies make around $137 billion per year. This would hurt these companies which are important to the American economy.

I believe that we should raise the pollution tax on gasoline because it is important that we protect our environment. Car are responsible for a large percent of the pollution so if we make it more difficult and inconvenient to drive there will be less pollution,

I heavily disagree with raising the tax on gas. America is already a spread out country and we use cars to go everywhere. Raising the tax would limit our transportation making it harder to get around or even go to work. " An increase in gas taxes will hurt middle-income Americans the most. Middle-income families make up roughly one-third of Americans. By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too. It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities."(New York Times). This would only take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and would just be used to pay for government programs making us in even more debt.

Raising the tax could potentially be beneficial. If it it used to pay to fix roads and make even more roads that could benefit the economy greatly. "Small wonder then that many of the country’s roads and transit systems are somewhere between shoddy and falling apart. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the country’s roads a grade of D and transit systems a D-. It said the poor state of the roads cost the country $160 billion in time and fuel in 2014. And the country’s transit systems have a $90 billion repair backlog, according to a government report published in January." Strengthening access to around the country could bring even more potential to Americans.

I personally think we should not raise tax on gas. It already takes $20 to fill half a tank and depending on the car you drive can take over $40 to fill your tank. That is already decent size chunk out of your weekly budget. Raising that would make people have to pay more money just to drive. Why make you pay more for the government which would limit how much you purchase gas vs you spending your money and not losing as much.
With our worlds increasing industrialization, and our increasing pollution, comes the consequence in the decline of our worlds health.  This is partially due to our extreme use of fuel such as gasoline to power engines of all types.  Should there be a gas pollution tax to prevent the destruction of our world? One benefit of raising the pollution tax is that it encourages businesses to find better alternatives.  According to an article about the tax  "A higher price of carbon emissions will encourage firms and consumers to develop more efficient engines or alternatives to consuming carbon emissions. " (Tejvan Pettinger, economicshelp.com, 10/21/17).  Raising the tax also encourages people to find better alternatives to polluting such as cycling,walking, or taking public transportation.  Using these alternatives enables greater social efficiency and can have several health benefits in the future.  The gas pollution tax enables innovators to take on the challenge of a clean world, or it makes companies move production to a new location.
One argument against raising the gas pollution tax is that could also force companies to shift their production to other countries.  In Pettinger's article, he states that these so called "pollution havens", harbor the dangerous manufacturing habits of producers and create further outsourcing of material.  It can give more incentive to third world countries to have little to no pollution laws just to give a slight boost to their economy at the cost of their land.  This will create a mass scale tragedy of the commons situation.  Countries, seizing the opportunity of the short boost, will sacrifice the world for the revenue of manufacturing.
I believe that having a gas pollution tax is necessary to slightly deter those who wish to harm the environment.  Not only is the consumption of gasoline negative to our environment, but so is every aspect of its production.  Raising the tax would increase would increase social efficiency and makes people pay the social cost to further even for over consumption of gasoline.  It also helps the benefits received of living in a better environment ideal of humanity and also for the health benefits of cleaner air and an almost guaranteed longer life span  I think that if humans want to increase their years of being able to live on earth, lessening the use of gasoline is a good place to start.

Pollution Tax

Humans drive cars daily because that's our transportation, when using cars to get to point A to point B we have to use gas to make the car run. Vehicles help people get to places faster than walking or riding a bike. Cars help accomplish tasks in a short amount of time. But there is one flaw that cars produce and that is pollution, cars produce a lot of pollution from there exhaust pipes. This is making the earth an unhealthy place to live and over time it will get worse. China has exceeded the pollution limit in their country. China is working on making their country less polluted, they want to clear their skies (Daniel Shane-2017-cnn). A pollution tax in America would prevent our country from becoming like China and we would be much healthier, our economy will be safer and less polluted.

A pollution tax would hurt our economy in a couple of ways. It would bring big problems to people of the country and it would cause many problems for people. Businesses would claim higher taxes and items would be more expensive for consumers to buy.Taxes would be a big part of this because more taxes will be introduced to citizens (econhelp-2018). It would be more expensive to live in the United States and this might cause more people to move out. Pollution tax will bring cause many problems for people.

I think that the pollution tax should not be passed because more taxes will be introduced and the cost for living will raise. Transportation will ski rocket in price and will be limited to how much you can drive. If the tax was passed, people might move out of the country to avoid these expensive taxes. This tax will cause more people to become poor because, they cant afford to pay the taxes.

Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline?

They're isn't a good reason to increase a pollution tax on gasoline. in this research by fox news they have done their research to find out what the world would do if this had happened. "You can find economists on opposite sides of many issues, but this is one area where most of us agree: taxes that target pollution are the least costly way to improve environmental quality" (http://www.foxnews.com, Arik Levinson, 2017). As they did there research they found out that it's not something that should even happen. Putting a tax on gasoline would also be a waste of something to tax because they're different things that could be getting taxed that would actually have an affect.

I think that gasoline should be taxed. I think that it should be taxed because it would open up more opportunities for the world to increase roads and possible other things. "The tumbling price of crude oil is helping many Americans save money. It also presents a good opportunity for state governments to raise their gasoline taxes to help pay for road repairs and other needed transportation investments" (www.nytimes.com, 2016).  So with adding a gas tax it will help get more money for better things in the world to help better the environment.

In my opinion I believe that the government shouldn't increase its pollution tax on gas. The government already gets so much money from other taxes that we have to give up. Putting taxes on gasoline could honestly just end up in people rioting because since so many people drive it's gonna end up in a disaster. If you were to keep making new taxes or keep taxing more things in the world then people are gonna take this to a new level and make even more issues because they won't want to pay these. So I believe that the government should not put a pollution tax on gasoline.
There are many advantages and disadvantages of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. An advantage of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline is to help pay for President Trump's infrastructure plan. According to New York Times, "Between inflation and the higher fuel economy of cars, the tax is hardly up to the job"(newyorktimes.com, 2018). If we were to ramie our tax in gas, we would be making more money for our economy. We barley have enough to get the job done, and if we raise the tax, we would be able to get the job done without stressing. 

Though there are advantages, there are also disadvantages. A disadvantage is that people would stop driving as much, which would mean they wouldn't make a profit of the gas. According to Johnathan McGlumpy, there are many reasons on why increasing the tax would be bad, but one reason is,"Ultimately, this would lead to a reduction of the American waistline, along with a reversal of the trend of a suburban sprawl as people chose to live closer to their places of work and recreation"(collegiatetimes, Johnathan McGlumpy, 2006). If we increase our tax on gas, it would encourage people to walk and live closer to work, than drive themselves to work. 

I believe that we should not increase our tax. I believe with Johnathan McGlumpy that if we increase the tax, it will hurt us more than help us. Over the past years, we have increased the tax and I believe that our economy is fine how it is now. Overall there are many advantages and disadvantages of increasing the tax but I believe that we should keep it how it is. 
                 A pollution tax should be raised on gas because it would create a more fair price for us polluting the planet we are living on. Increasing a tax would allow the U.S government to spend more on pollution research because of the revenue that's gained from the additional tax. Also more people would be encouraged to find alternatives because of the higher prices of taxes. More consumers would be looking towards solar and battery ran cars instead of fossil fuel ran cars. According to (Tejvan'Pettinger'Economics.org'Carbontax) "We should raise taxes because in theory this would greatly increase social efficiency as we would pay full social cost" I think this is a great point for us and this means that we would all be paying a greater price and it would create less pollution. Although many people wouldn't agree on a high raise of these taxes, I think preventing mass pollution is more important and will help us in the end.  I think that A pollution tax would be a great ideal in the end. 
                 A pollution tax should not be raised for many reasons present though. It is very hard for them to determinate and measure external costs and it would be difficult them to get a general for how much taxes should actually be. Another reason is there will be administrating costs in measuring and collecting pollution taxes. Also many people disagree with high taxes and this may cause strikes and riots because they believe revenue may be neutral. In (Tejvan'Pettinger'Economics.org'Carbontax) he stated that "Production may shift to countries with no or lower carbon taxes. (so-called ‘pollution havens’) This can give developing countries an incentive to encourage production processes which cause pollution, i.e. there is ‘outsourcing’ of pollution." This means that this will give countries a reason to encourage the production process that cause pollution and would cause a lot of problems. I think it wouldn't be a good idea to raise these taxes because of all of the problems it could cause and we would be faced with.
             In my opinion I don't think we should raise taxes because of all of the problems in general that would cause. Many people don't have money for an alternative car that doesn't run on fossil fuels. I think it would be very dumb for them to charge a high tax when the poverty line is as big as ever. How would people be able to afford transportation if they are not where a bus is. I think the argument against it is right as well because it would give foreign countries a reason to raise gas prices etc. I think this would majorly affect someones ability to pay a lot because higher prices will equal the majority of people to have problems paying for extreme prices. 

The Gas Tax

Raising the gas tax would help out significantly with infrastructure. Roads and bridges depend a lot on money from both federal and state gas taxes. The gas tax hasn't been raised in over 24 years, and the government is in desperate need of money for roads and bridges. One in nine bridges is considered structurally deficient (David Fessler, energyandresourcesdigest.com, 2016). If the gas tax was increased, the quality of roads and bridges would increase.

Increasing the gas tax could have negative effects on the economy. It would make it more difficult for people to access jobs and increase the costs of shipping for companies. Also, families' disposable income would go down quite a bit, leading to less goods being bought in the market. There are other ways to improve the roads and bridges of America. One idea is to give money to states so that they can address specific transportation needs. This money would come from cutting wasteful government programs (Rea Hederman; Alfredo Goyburu, www.heritage.org, 2004). The economy would suffer from a higher gas tax and there are other options available to replace the gas tax.

I think the gas tax is harmful to the economy and should not be increased. It is very important for lower class people to be able to access jobs and goods easily. Also, it is vital for these people to have more disposable income to put into businesses. As for where the money for roads and bridges should come from, it should be given to states by the federal government so that the state governments can target whatever problems they want to. States have a much better idea of what to do with roads than the large, cumbersome federal government.

Pollution Tax

I believe pollution tax is a benefit for the economy because it helps keep the planet healthy and the people who inhabit it safe as well. According to Lisa Tyson of New York Times "When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, participating in a cap-and-trade program like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is important, but it’s only a partial solution. After all, the initiative covers emissions solely from power plants, whereas transportation produces the bulk of New York’s emissions. And so far, the initiative has not cut carbon at the speed science tells us is required to avert dangerous warming." This shows that the tax is helping with the stop of the greenhouse effect and we are still making a reasonable profit even with the tax

Pollution tax may help the environment but it doesn't always help the workforce and is a big problem for some companies and businesses. According to Sarah Ferguson of Forbes "The problem stems from two landmark developments reshaping electricity generation, transmission, distribution, and retailing: the introduction of renewable s and market liberalization. Renewable are handicapped by what is called their indeterminacy. In its present form, many renewable energy sources cannot be turned on and off with a switch because wind still stubbornly refuses to blow when we want it to, while access to sunlight can be interrupted by the weather and air pollution  or simply be switched off by an inconvenient phenomenon called night-time." This shows that the cost to get these renewable items if far more than the cost to help get rid of pollution.

In my opinion I Believe that the tax is a good thing for the economy and keeps the economy safer and cleaner and is better for everyone who is living in it. So I think that we should keep the tax and that it is better than having all of the pollution.

Taxation on gasoline can cause  a big debate and the amount of tax put on gasoline based on where you live. In some places taxes on gasoline are very high because the government promotes  taking transportation provided by the city such as buses train and taxi services. some governments don't have a high taxon gasoline because it's common to have your own cars possibly because of low population or having a rural areas where having public transportation is less efficient as it may be in large highly populated cities.
I don't think that there should be a high tax on gasoline because it should be your own decision whether you take public transportation or whether you use your own gas should be cheap enough to afford without crazy high taxes so it still allows you to use personal transportation. According to www.nber.com some gasoline taxes are places on gasoline to prevent air pollution and to keep the air cleaner in order to prevent other issues. Some people agree that having high taxes on gasoline is a good thing in order to prevent high pollution in areas and also a good way for the government to control the types of transportation provides and what is used.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Should there be a Pollution tax- Kyler Castro

There are several benefits of having a pollution tax. One of which being the fact that the tax can act as an excise tax, and limit the amount of the product bought. This tax can reduce the amount of gas bought, and therefore limits the amount of pollution. This obviously increases the quality of air and water. According to Robert N. Stavins from Harvard Kennedy School, "They [Pollution taxes] can enable environmental protection to be pursued at less cost of compliance to private industry, and thereby at less cost to consumers" The mention of three different groups establishes an implication that pollution taxes have benefits that extend into many groups. The quote states that pollution taxes create a less expensive method of helping the environment, private industry, and consumers. 

There are many deleterious effects of pollution taxes. Pollution taxes may increase the level of tax evasion and may drive businesses to the black market to sell their product. Also, as seen when the cigarette tax was put into place, the tax may effect lower level income families and lead to social unrest. A video by the AQA board on tutor2u.net states,"Low price elasticity- the tax may not change behaviour, there might be more effective alternative policies on offer". This states that if the tax is put into place to reduce an activity, the outcome may not have the desired intent. In conclusion, Pollution taxes are unreliable, increases level of tax evasion, and has a larger effect on lower level income families. 

In my opinion, I believe that pollution taxes, though have beneficial effects, should not be in place. As stated in class, the annual revenue of the Federal government is more than sufficient even without this tax. The programs that are funded by these taxes already receive enough funding from other taxes. Such programs as the EPA already receive sufficient amount of funding, so much so that some people believe that the EPA is a bloated corporation. Another reason that pollution taxes should not exist is because of the restricting of the economy. The tax reduces the amount of a product bought, and therefore limits economic growth. This stagnation in the market may force some companies into crooked dealings on the Black Market. A final detrimental effect of pollution taxes is the fact that it mostly effects the lower class. The tax forces lower income families to buy products, in some cases an essential product, at a higher rate. Pollution taxes are redundant, limit economic growth, and mainly effects lower classes. 
Many people believe that the United States government needs to raise the pollution tax on gasoline. Raising this pollution tax would result in gas being more expensive and ,ultimately, less drivers on the road. "If our goal is to get Americans to drive less and use more fuel efficient vehicles, and to reduce air pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases, gas prices need to be even higher"(Valerie Karplus, NY Times, 2013). Air pollution is becoming a huge problem in today's society, raising the pollution tax on gasoline in an effort to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases may be the next step in the fight to lower pollution.

While some think that raising the pollution tax on gas would be a great thing, others don't feel the same way. Many people believe that raising the pollution tax on gas wouldn't do much to help with pollution at all, all it would do is take people's money. "Cars emit a tiny fraction of the pollution they once did. The lead in gasoline was dealt with decades ago, when it was removed"(Steve Forbes, Forbes, 2015). If people really want to help save the environment, raising the pollution tax on gas is not the way to do it.

Personally I do not think that the US government should increase the pollution tax on gas. The pollution tax on gas in the United States is very small compared to the same tax in England or other European countries, but I think it must remain this way because driving and transportation is at the center of American society. Everyone has a car or a truck and everyone drives to the places that they need to go. I feel that there are not enough benefits that would affect the American people to justify raising this pollution tax.

Gas Taxes Paragraphs

There are several benefits for increasing taxes on gas. Due to recent gas shortages, it would make sense to raise the gas tax, (Charles Krauthammer, www.washingtonpost.com, 2015). Increasing taxes on gas would not only be helpful to the environment, but would also increase the government's income significantly.

However, there are also many people skeptical of raising gas taxes. For some people, increasing the gas tax would slow the economy greatly, (Rea Hederman and Alfredo Goyburu, www.heritage.org, 2004). These taxes would greatly affect how America travels due to its mobility needs. Due to increased taxes, American families would spend more money on transportation than ever.

In my personal opinion, I think that the tax shouldn't be raised. Yes, there are gas shortages, which would obviously raise the gas tax, but there are several alternatives to gas. Electric cars are a great example; there has been a significant increase in the usage of electric cars over the past few years. This would decrease the amount of gas the U.S. consumes yearly if this trend stays. And with that being said, it wouldn't make sense to raise gas taxes if fewer Americans are using it, right?

Friday, February 9, 2018

Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Mon, Feb 12 at 1:10 pm)

The Economics of Pollution Taxes:

The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.184/gallon.  Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a state sales tax of $0.305/gallon.  For comparison, the sales tax on gas in England is $3.44/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org, 2018).  Should the various levels of American government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline?  Analyze this issue using the following format:

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the US government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.

This assignment is due by 1:10 pm on Monday, Feb 12.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

"Between 80 and 95 percent of high school students admitted to cheating in the past year" (Tim Walker, neatoday.org, 2012). With numbers like this there is debate over whether or not the punishment for cheating is harsh enough. Those kids also aren’t caught in nearly as high numbers. If you are caught today the punishment for first time offenders is that they will get a zero on that assignment and call home. A harsher punishment could in theory lower the number of kids that cheat and could be anything from losing additional points to expulsion.

Lots of people cheat on test or even just there homework with a percentage in between 80 and 95 percent that have admitted to it you would be hard pressed to find someone who haven’t cheated at least once(Tim Walker, neatoday.org, 2012). If so many people have done this a harsher punishment would be difficult to enforce, especially if a student get caught once and then stopped with the current system.

I think that cheating in school should be dealt with a progressive punishment system. This would work with both sides keeping the relatively low first offense and the punishments get more harsh the more that they cheat.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Cheating is a huge problem in American school systems. "Between 80 and 95 percent of high school students admitted to cheating in the past year" (Tim Walker, neatoday.org, 2012). With this many students admitting to cheating many people think that we need to make the punishments handed out to students that are caught more harsh. Currently what typically happens to a student caught cheating is that they receive a zero on whatever they were caught cheating on and the school calls home. If they are caught cheating again then they could be dropped from the course with an F or even get suspended. To deter more students from cheating schools could threaten to drop cheaters with an F after just one instance of cheating or even threaten to suspend or expel them.

While cheating in today's schools is a problem, most people believe that students should have a second chance. "A course is something a kid needs to graduate, so a second chance is appropriate"(Doug Graney, Washington Post, 2001). While receiving a zero on the test that you were caught cheating on is acceptable, being dropped from the class or expulsion is a little overboard. Many students that cheat once don't cheat again so giving them a zero in the grade book should make them learn their lesson.

I think making punishments a little harsher for students caught cheating should happen. I do not believe we should go as far as corporal punishment but dropping someone from the course would deter students from cheating. I think the punishment should be decided depending one how serious the cheating was and what the student cheated on. The punishments for a student who cheated on a 10 question quiz should not be as harsh as the punishment for a student who cheated on a final that is worth 15% of their grade.

some incentives of cheating are that they want to have the better grade but their should be a harsher punishment because harsher punishments make it so thast the kids don't think it is OK to cheat. Sarah Andrews of the Washington post says that due to harsher punishments the percentage of cheating has gone down and the people have also been getting better grades

some good incentives to cheating are that you you do usually do get better grades but it is at a very high risk experts  say that the desire to cheat is so high because of the pressure that is put on them by parents and their peers so they

I think that punishments shouldn't be harder because it would just out more pressure on kids and it would cause a lot more problems for kids and grades might be lower because of this so i think they should keep the punishments the same that  they are

There are many good things and many bad things about how we should handle cheating. There are 2 ways that we can handle cheating, corporal punishment or what we have in Iowa. According to Dr. James Dobson, "Children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to preform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work"(Dr James Dobson, thenewamerican.com, 2010). Parents will say they don't want you to hit your children because they won't be there to see what is happening. 

Even though there are good reasons for corporal punishment, there are also bad reasons. According to ABC.com, they believe that there shouldn't be corporal punishment because "When you hit kids with a 24-inch board that's and inch thick and 4 to 6 inches wide, this is not allowed anywhere else, not in prisons, mental hospitals, not in the military"(Block, abc.com, 2017). Block is saying that school's shouldn't be able to hit their students because no one else does it. People will say that doesn't it teach then discipline? I believe that it does, but most experts say that they don't believe that is true. 

I believe that we should have corporal punishment. I agree with Doctor James Dobson. I agree because I think that it builds discipline. Doctor James also said that they were more likely to go to college which, statistics show. Overall I believe that they should be harsher for treating. 
       School cheating is a big deal for a lot of people in communities. In colleges the punishments are harsh and in high school they are moderate. Cheating in school in some instances is cheating your life and when you get caught your left thinking how did I get here. According to (Serena'johnson'enotes.com) "Cheating is getting easier and easier every year, many students feel surprised when they realize they have gotten caught and it pushes students to reinvent the wheel and come up with new strategies" She also states "Kids should be taught at the beginning of the year punishment for cheating will result in a coarse zero". I agree with this totally because in my opinion cheating is a choice with risks attached. If you want to try to cheat you know the consequences if caught and this would increase the punishment teachers can pursue which is a great idea in my opinion.

          School cheating on the counter is also a way of the normal day for most. Many people have forgotten to study and are forced into evasive action. Cheating is there only way out. According to kaleyjohnson'washingtonpost.com "Students that cheat are the only ones that feel the pressure of college and to succeed". I think this is true to an extent and i feel like it should be a thing where they should have a second chose.

 Punishments in school are something that many people take for granted. I as a fellow student don't think these kids get punished as much as they need to be to fully teach them that cheating is not right. To be honest I don't think these kids learn anything most of the time except that they just got there tests thrown away or talked to by an authority higher than the teacher. People who cheat on tests later cheat in life and that's why i think we as a community and nation need to make cheating more strict and allow teachers to punish students more.

Cheating in Schools

Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher?  As time has progressed and more schools have been built the issue of cheating has become more prevalent.  Punishing students for cheating is the most obvious choice but should administrators be handing out more severe punishments to the offenders?  According to a study (plagarism.org, 6/7/17)  59% of students have cheated on something during high school and 39% of those reported that they cheated multiple times and 95% of them reported that they don;t regret their decision.  And the numbers have only gone up over the years.  If punishment were to increase it would be a larger and more severe incentive for students to not even try it.  Out of fear of punishment the student would think twice before they would cheat and face severe consequences.  In other countries, cheating is a more serious offense than it is in the United States, taking a corporal punishment method, almost leading by example.  Students caught cheating are brought to the public and physically punished as a lesson to not only them but to all students.  Maybe not to this extreme, but producing a more severe and instant punishment for cheating will likely prevent "on the fence" offenders from committing the act.
  On the other hand according to an article from Psychology Today (Jay Belsky, 10/25/08)  if the number of students cheating have risen, even with increased punishment, it still doesn't deter students from cheating, so schools need a better solution.  Students who are rather rewarded for positive behavior tend to do better in testing environment rather than increasing for a bad behavior.  Also, students who cheat think they can't get caught, and they usually don't.  Some students blame cheating on the unfair criteria of the teacher.  Noting that if they didn't cheat there would be no way of getting a good grade in the class.  A large percentage of students who cheat (95%) say they don't regret cheating, even with increased punishment if they were to get caught.  They decide to take the risks and hope to not get caught and face the consequences.
As stated earlier the idea of a harsher punishment system does not deter students from cheating.  From the beginning of competition or assessment there has been the aspect of cheating, so why now do we think we can combat/abolish it now?  Instead of creating a harder punishment, the solution should start in the classroom.  One solution to this problem is increased monitoring during tests, especially with the recent development in technology.  This way, if the teacher were to constantly walk around or somehow find a way to monitor all students at once instead of sitting at a desk and reading and not paying attention, this would reduce the overall number of students cheating or overall effectiveness of cheating.  Another solution is giving the students more resources to study from.  The students often complain of certain aspects of the test not being taught in class.  So if all aspects of the tests are outlined somehow in a vast array of resources, the students reason for cheating will no longer be valid.

We should have harsher punishments in school because school is a place of learning. Students are able to misbehave in school and have no consequences, this is why there should be harsher punishments in school. "there are some children who like to push their limits" (procon.org 2/31/18). Students will push the limits of their teachers until they have reached a point that they are satisfied with. With harsher punishments the students would not be able to push the limits of the teacher.

We should not have harsher punishments against cheats in school because such harsh punishment can harm the students and impact the rest of their lives. "A Dec. 2016 study found that children who were physically punished were more likely to have problems with aggression and attention" (procon.org 2/31/18) Punishment like this can lead to long to effects that will hurt the children.

I believe that we should not harsher punishments against cheaters because of the long term effects that they can have on children. The punishments that cheaters suffer under corporal punishment have effects such as problems with aggression and attention. We should not have harsher punishments for cheaters if we do not want these side-effects.

Harsher punishments for cheaters in school is necessary. Corporal punishment is a form of harsher punishment in which the kids are spanked with a paddle or hand. In a school in Texas the parents are protesting the recall of the corporal punishment law. In the article they say that it will give the children what they deserve (Kim Russel,www.wxyz.com,2018).

The argument for harsher punishments is logical but if the kids are punished very harshly on their first attempt. Corporal punishment is alright but for multiple offenders. In a state with a trend of corporal punishment, Mississippi one school district has just voted to ban corporal punishment. In a study done by a site they say that corporal punishment has lowered test scores and upped the fear,depression, and anger(Elham Khatami, thinkprogress.org,2018)

My position is that the punishment should be harsher. Kids now a days think that it is so easy to cheat and do well that they just do it. I feel that Corporal punishment is a fair punishment for a cheater of multiple offences but a cheater of just one offence will fail the course.
Most students will cheat in their high school years so I agree with some punishments some places do. I do not agree with hurting students, but I do agree with punishing them deeper since it could make people stop cheating. "We are in a crisis," said Josephson. Kids all over the world find themselves cheating, but why to get a better grade? Harsher punishments can make kids not have the tendency to cheat and to actually study and succeed on their own.

Punishment for cheating is most definitely necessary, but is abusing children? Corporal punishment is legal is some southern states in America, but mostly known for its severity in third world countries. I don't agree with these actions at all. Doing something so small like being late to school could make you get embarrassed in front of all your peers not to mention what that would do to a person's ego. I think these cruel ways are hurting kids all around the world and I don't think it should be allowed anywhere. "Though some research shows long-term harms connected to corporal punishment (mood and anxiety disorders, lower test scores, truancy, and -- later in life -- addiction and spousal abuse), courts have been skittish about halting the practice altogether." That's enough reasoning for me it makes kids do worse and there is nothing beneficial to it.

After tons of research and being a child in school myself I don't agree with these methods at all. I think the punishment should be bigger, but literal assault on a student for their loss and your enjoyment isn't ok. I think kids cheat when they are desperate because they are risking a ton just because they didn't study. I don't agree with cheating I believe it's morally incorrect, but the same thing with corporal punishment.

1. One reason why schools should make the punishment harsher is because the trend of cheating will continue if they do not learn the first time they will continue to make the same mistake. "When the newly elected student government president at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda was caught cheating on a final exam, many teachers and parents thought he should lose his student office and all credit for that semester's history course." This new president only got a F on the test and nothing else. Even though he should have been dropped from presidency as that is just a poor reflection of the student body. This is why the schools need to inflict harsher punishment because they school saw if their own president could get away with barely any punishment they could too.

2. A reason why schools should not enforce harsher punishment is because it is supposed to be a learning environment and not a testing environment. Test and quizzes should not be graded only homework and participation should be. ""Believe me, it is difficult to go back into a classroom when your teacher knows you have cheated. And a zero is a big deal, especially for those kids who are accustomed to A's," she said.". Just knowing your teacher caught you cheating is bad but going back to that class is just embarrassing for anyone. That is why we should not inflict punishment and make it have it based off of homework and participation so nobody has the incentive to cheat.

3. I thoroughly agree that punishments should be less harsh. I believe this because if they feel the need to heat it is possible the teacher did not cover the material well. So they should just be able to take a brand new test. This would stop the incentive of needing to cheat to pass a test or class. If you get rid of the incentive there would be no cheating. This reasoning does not go for the students that do not pay attention at all and cheat because they purposelessly do not learn the material. Those people deserve a harsh punishment to teach them school is important.

School Cheating

The schools in America should have harsher punishments for cheating. Cheating has gotten easier with the new technology. "According to many studies, in between 80 and 95 percent percent of high school students admitted to cheating at least once in the past year and 75 percent admitted to cheating four or more times."(Tim Walker neatoday.org 2012). This shows that almost every student has cheated before. The punishments are minimal and you would only get a 0 on the test. There needs to be harsher punishment in school for cheating. 

Schools should not have harsher punishments because the students might have not understood the work and couldn't find a way to study. Punishment for cheating should be based on the magnitude on how much the test is worth or how much they are cheating. "You have the obvious example – students who are struggling and don’t understand the work." (Tim Walker neatoday.org 2012). This shows that the teacher may have not taught the lesson well enough or that the student does not understand the material. Cheating punishment should stay the same because if they fail a whole test it could be a big deal. 

My opinion is that the punishment for cheating should stay the same because when you get caught cheating you fail the test. After that if you get caught cheating you can fail the whole class. When students cheat they know they run the risk of failing or failing the class. Also the test might not have the same exact material the teacher teaches. in conclusion I believe that punishment for cheating should stay the same in schools.  

Punishments in school

There should be less harsh punishments for cheating in school. Many colleges expel students who are caught cheating in school. This is bad because often times when these students are expelled they are forced to put it on applications for other colleges, which results in them getting turned down majority of the time. "Expelling students for cheating leads to serious consequences, which affect a student's personality. Likewise, it may lead to a loss of self-esteem too" (LinkedIn, www.linkedin.com, 2015). This then leads to them not ever finishing their degree and can lead to depression or even suicide. When these students don't finish their degree they don't get as high of a paying job as they could have with the degree.

There should be harsher punishments for cheating in school. When students cheat in school, they are wasting their time even going. Learning is achieved through mastering  one step and moving on to the next, so when one step isn't completely comprehended, then the rest aren't going to either. "Cheating lowers your self-respect and confidence. And if others see you cheating, you will lose their respect and trust" (Middle Earth, middleearthnj.wordpress.com, 2014). This shows why cheating is so bad and that with harsher punishments students will stray away from cheating in the future.

Should there be harsher punishments for cheating in school? I think that there should be harsher punishments in school. I think that with harsher punishments it will be enough to keep that student from cheating again, and will deter and intimidate other students from doing it. If there are less harsh punishments then it won't keep the students from cheating in the future and they don't ever learn their lesson. That's why  we need harsher punishments in schools for cheating.

The Economics of "Cheating In School"

One argument in favor of harsher punishment for cheating, some people say that there should be harsher punishment because it is not fair to other students who prepare or did there work on their own. cheating happens and every school all over. Students who are struggling are more like to be the students cheating. According to (neatoday.org) there is suspicion that technology has caused more cheating and has been proven that it has added more way to get answers to something.
One Argument that says that there should not be harsher punishment for cheating in school is one reason people say technology has caused a rise in the problem which has been noted that it had added some way for it to happen but most cheating is still verbal or passed on through had written things. Some cheating is not as obvious so some student s never get caught which could be considered "unfair" to student who get caught even though it wasn't their intention.
My thought on cheating is that there should be punishment depending on the degree of cheating you did for example if the other person you are cheating off is aware that you are cheating then the consequence should be severe because it could've been prevent or not have been OK from the other person that you are looking taking their work. I do think there should be a consequence if you take or copy someones work without their permission then they should face a punishment.

Cheating in School

People think that having harsher punishments on cheating is a good thing, but truly in the outcome it helps kids feel better. It helps them feel better because they did good and are getting goods grades. They may have to cheat to get these, but they also could have been pressured into it by their friends. Kids believe that; "it is an easy way out, everyone seems to do it, and it is even fun to do"(http://www.school-for-champions.com, Ron Kurtus, 2012). These are some thoughts kids that cheat have on their mind because it makes them feel good about themselves.

People also thing that harsher punishments are a good thing and that they should be improved to be even more harsh. Kids who cheat are making it unfair for kids who study their butts off because those kids put in hard work while they just cheated and got the same grade if not better. "However the consequences of getting caught cheating overshadow any apparent benefits. You can get an automatic failing grade or be kicked out of school, among other punishments" (http://www.school-for-champions.com, Ron Kurtus, 2012). Many people think that they should become even worse than this. The risk you take with making them harsher would be the fact that then you have parents mad at you for disciplining their child even worse.

In my opinion I believe that when getting caught cheating your punishment shouldn't be not harsh. I believe that it really doesn't teach kids if you let them off easy. For some kids maybe letting them off easy will teach them a lesson, but for others they will just keep cheating because it wasn't a harsh punishment. I believe that if you were to not make it so harsh then kids will ignore the punishment given because it didn't effect them at all. So with having to make these punishments harsher it helps them learn a lesson because if it's a bad punishment then they wont want to do it again.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

One argument for harsher punishments for cheating in school is that students who cheat need a stronger incentive to not cheat. Making punishments harsher makes students consider the effects of cheating even more. It is also important to punish students harshly for cheating to let them know that what they are doing is unfair and harmful to themselves and others (Various authors, debate.org, 2017). Using stronger punishments gives an even larger incentive to not cheat to students, which may encourage them to make better choices.

One argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school is that students deserve a second chance after cheating. In something as important as a class required to graduate, it is important for students from their mistakes. Current punishments such as removal from extracurricular activities are a big punishment already, and some teachers believe going beyond a zero on a test is too harsh (Jay Matthews, www.washingtonpost.com, 2001). A punishment so strong that is has life-damaging implications should not be taking lightly, even for the offense of cheating.

I think that punishments should be pretty harsh for cheating on tests, but students should be given a second chance. It is appropriate to remove students from extracurricular activities for cheating, but not classes. Students need a chance to improve and get better, and they should be allowed to graduate by being allowed to complete all of their classes. Students know better than to cheat in school, so they should be dealt with strongly but not at an extreme level such as corporal punishment.

Should Punishments for Cheating in school be Harsher

     While there should be punishments for cheating, expelling a student is far too harsh. According to Zainab Hammadi, expulsion has many deleterious affects that no one really acknowledges. For example, one of Zainab's friends was caught cheating on the midterm and was expelled immediately. His friend then took a year off and tried to get into other colleges. She was not accepted because of the expulsion on her record. She was forced to enter the employment pool, but again was faced with rejection. Though she now has a job, the salary is very limited. Another reason for reducing the level of punishment for cheating is that there is no real lesson. Schools are designed to educate, but, as stated by Zainab, expulsion does not teach the student anything. Expulsion only reduces the student's desire for learning. Punishments for cheating should be reduced because of its inability to teach about consequences.

   Cheating is dishonest and unfair to those who did study, therefore cheating in school should have serious consequences. According to teen ink, many teenagers do not even see the issue with cheating. Cheating is disingenuous and not only harms the students that did study, but also the student cheating. Cheating prevents you from learning, and therefore pushes you farther and farther behind. This creates a vicious positive feedback loop. This loop is most likely a cause of societal pressure. According to teen ink, society believes that the more material wealth you own, the more successful you are. This belief encourages people to cheat in order to obtain more material wealth. Another reason why schools should punish cheaters is because of the future effects of cheating. Students that see no problem with cheating may have an askewed  judgement as adults. Punishment enforces self-discipline and therefore has many beneficial effects.

   I believe that schools, at the very least high schools, should have harsher penalties when it comes to cheating. I believe that cheating is not only immoral but also harms people that actually studied. Cheating is not a victim-less crime because it not only harms people that studied, but also the cheater. The person that cheats is preventing themself from learning the material and creates a generation built on cheating. This prevents a well-educated generation because the belief that cheating is wrong will dissolve. This dissolving of morals would have an obvious deleterious affect, as society's judgement runs farther and farther askew. Cheating harms more than one person, therefore schools should enforce stricter cheating rules.
When people cheat they don't think. They think it's helping them but in the long run it could cost them their chances of wanting to get into the college they really want. According to Cathleen Freedman author of "This is What Happens When You Cheat in School" stated "Even when it seems like a harmless little shortcut, there are real and seriously harmful repercussions to cheating in school whether you get caught or not" (Cathleen Freedman, collegexpress.com, 2016). When you cheat it goes on your permanent record, you automatically get an zero on the assignment or test, or you even could hurt your own self-esteem, and mess with your ability to actually think critically and solve problems. Long story short, you shouldn't cheat. 

You learn so much in a short amount of time and then boom you have have a test. Most of time there isn't enough time to process what their learning if they have test all the time. According to Cevin Soling author of "Why I Think Students Should Cheat" stated "Educators might try to stress the value of “learning” over grades, but that is a complete farce. When learning is not commensurately represented by grades, students rightly feel cheated by the system and become apathetic" (Cevin Soling, wired.com, 2015). It's important to bear in mind that students prepare for tests with the intention that they will retain the material just long enough to take the test and then forget most of what they learned soon afterwards. Cheating is a moral imperative.

I think the punishment they have for cheating is enough, in college if you get caught cheating you get expelled or even suspended. Then in high school if you get caught cheating you get an automatic zero on whatever you cheated on. It shouldn't be harsher I mean it's wrong but the person isn't doing something so bad that it's harming anyone. If your failing a class or need help, seek a teachers help or ask a friend for help. Students get overwhelmed with a lot of school work but if we could come up with some solutions to reduce cheating it might be helpful.

School Punishments

There are several benefits to having stricter punishments in schools. Enforcing more strict rules in schools allow students to focus more on their schoolwork rather than other activities, (Erin Lockley, www.hechingerreport.org, 2014). Also, a lack of school rules increases the chances of a student engaging in criminal activities.

However, there are still a lot of people who are against stricter punishments in school. At a high school in New Orleans, the CEO of New Orleans College Prep grew concerned that the suspension rate grew 50% more than before, (Sarah Carr, www.theatlantic.com, 2014). Because of the statistics, the CEO started to rethink about the disciplinary actions.

In my personal opinion, I believe that students should have stricter punishments in schools. But I'm not talking about physical punishments like spanking, I'm talking about stricter consequences for students who break the rules. Some may complain about the rules, and that's okay; the teachers can remove the rule if a significant number of students complain about it.

Corporal Punishment

Aidan Singh
Block 4
Corporal Punishment
Some schools today have banned the corporal punishment and some schools have not banned it. The corporal punishment allows teachers in schools to use physical punishments (spanking, hitting with paddle) for the students that are misbehaving in school. In China, if a student is misbehaving the whole school will gather to watch the misbehaving student get punished. The reason China makes the student watch the punishment of the student happen is that they are showing the students that if you do something bad you will end up like this student. Some reasons the corporal punishment is favored are, it lowers the bad behavior rate in schools, students tend not to repeat bad behavior (debatewise-2018).

People also think that the corporal punishment should be banned because, the students can be hurt from such physical punishment, the student can be traumatized after the punishment, the parents do not give the schools the right to physically punish their children, and it can lead to death (Brandon Sayers-Odyssey-2016). Sometimes with the corporal punishment a teacher might go overboard with the student's punishment like a teacher in Indian hills elementary physically punished a child when she was not listing to the lecture and the teacher noticed that she was playing with her pencils. The teacher went over to the girl and slammed some books on her desk then asked her what she was doing, then the teacher grabbed the girl on the back of her neck and squeezed it really hard, according to the girl that this happened to         (Shelbie Harris-IdahoStateJournal-2017). The corporal punishments can be accessed sometime and the teachers might not know how far to go with the punishment or when to stop.

I think that the corporal punishment should be banned because there are other ways to punish bad students like detention or if the student is cheating on a test and you catch them you can automatically fail that student’s test and teach them a lesson without physical contact. A student will horseplay sometime’s that just what they do and you don’t have to get physical to punish them you can just punish them in other ways that will teach them the same lesson.     
One positive of requiring students to get service hours for graduation is that students would learn how to help others in their community. Some point out that taxpayers pay for students to go to school, and that students should give back to their community through volunteer work (Simsimdowg, debate.org, 2017). Many people are in need of help and volunteering from students could help fill this gap. Also, students would be able to volunteer together, strengthening bonds in the community. Requiring service hours for graduation has benefits.

One negative of requiring students to get service hours for graduation is that they become a chore instead of something students willingly participate in. Students who did not want to volunteer in the first place will be even less motivated to do something good for others. Also, it could make them feel separated from the willing volunteers, promoting a sense of loneliness among people not inclined to volunteer (Will Maher, badgerherald.com, 2017). The volunteer work would probably be of lower quality from unwilling volunteers, so the community benefit might decrease.

I believe that volunteer hours should not be necessary for graduation because they remove the joy out of volunteering. When something that is meant to be a choice and it is done out of good will, the act is sincere. However, in the case of forced volunteering, the result would most likely be lackluster because the person working would not care about what they were doing. Also, I do not think it is school’s place to tell students what to do outside of academics. It is great to offer volunteering opportunities at school, but they should not be forced.

ASSIGNMENT: Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? (due Weds, Jan 31)

The Economics of 'Cheating in School':

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.

The due date is 1/31/18 at 1:00 pm.

Friday, January 26, 2018

      Many people think that for you to graduate you should be required to have service hours at Bettendorf high school. I think personally this could be a great reason because it'd be a great opportunity for you to give back to the community after the number of years its provided them such a great place for education and growing up. It's time for us to give back to the community and help those who have helped us. A post by New York times said that this might help kids who where to shy to get there name our there and volunteer (Saslow, Linda. “High Schools Mandating Community Service for Graduation.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Apr. 1994) Service hours would not only help bump up the amount of people there to help at shelters and other events but vastly reduce the amount of time it takes to complete some of these jobs. 

     On the other end a lot of people think we should not have service hours required to graduate. I think this is right too because of the amount of people that would simply refuse to do it. A lot of members that participate in high school don't aspire to go to college so why would they complete these hours? Yeah they want there diploma but i'm almost positive they would find a way around it. Also another thing is the amount of hours that would require some student athletes to have even more on there plate. Some students have there day full everyday with school, work, and sports. 

On my end I would not have a problem giving back to the community for all the years they have given to me. This would be a lot easier too because i'm in football and we volunteer regularly for this kind of stuff. As long as the required hours aren't outrageous i'd be fine with anything. 

Thursday, January 25, 2018

There's both good and bad benefits for service learning. There's benefits for both students and even staff. In some places teachers and students are required to do service learning as well, but at Bettendorf we do not. Benefits for the students could vary from; "Gain hands-on experience which possibly leading to an internship or job later, explore or cement your values and beliefs, develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills" (http://www.servicelearning.umn.edu, 2018). This would help the students because these can benefit there future lives as they grow up and become adults.

There are also bad things that happen with service learning. There are not many bad benefits with this, but There was one that stated; "It is rewarding for a student to share love, hugs, and mathematics with a student in a tutoring program, but this individualization of social issues ignores structural components and causes" (John W. www1.villanova.edu 2018). This isn't really good because then people have to focus on this and balance sports and school work and maybe even a job. 

This isn't a good idea to imply to Bettendorf. This would definitely put more stress on students because now they have to make time for these service hours. This would possible effect the students if they had school work, sports, and maybe even a job so this would make them have to quit or maybe get less sleep and then have less time to sleep or do anything else. So service learning shouldn't be incorporated in to Bettendorf.
Many people believe that we should require service hours for graduation at Bettendorf High School, like many other high schools do across the United States. One of the main reasons people believe this is that it would help the youth of Bettendorf give back to the community and teach them lessons and values that only community service can. Studies done by Florida National University found that volunteering increases overall life satisfaction and can help decrease stress and ease depression (fnu.edu, 2013). Making service hours mandatory for graduation would help engage students in the community and help them leave a positive impact on Bettendorf before they leave.

Some people think that we should not require service hours to graduate from Bettendorf High School. Currently Bettendorf High School does not require service hours for graduation and many people would like it to stay that way. A big reason that most people think we shouldn't require service hours to graduate is time. Some students simply just wouldn't have the time in their schedule to go out and get the required hours that would be expected of them. If you prove to be a valuable asset to an organization or program, you would most likely be asked or encouraged to do more (James Roland, Livestrong.com, 2015). This could cause scheduling issues with extra curricular's or jobs and could even interfere with your schoolwork.

Personally I would not have a problem with Bettendorf High School requiring service hours for graduation. I have plenty of time in my schedule that I could use to go out into the community and give back. As a student athlete it would be even easier to get those required hours because many of the sports at Bettendorf already go out and give back to the community. If you are not a student athlete then you should have more than enough to time in your schedule to be able to reach out and give back.