It's a debate whether students in high schools and secondary schools should be required to perform community service before their graduation, with the implication of forfeiting their diplomas if they fail to do so. To be honest, as much as the idea is good and probably a few schools have implemented it, the concept of punishment only signifies "forced service." When service is coerced under the threat of failing to graduate, it can turn an act of goodwill into a resented chore or compliance task. Community service has its advantages, providing knowledge of real-world practices and guidance to one's field of study. But unfortunately, beyond its goodwill, if it feels forced, it harbors resentment.

This also has certain disadvantages for students who already work part-time. These are students from poor and average backgrounds who work shifts to pay for fees and afford certain needs. Enforcing such a rule may penalize them in such a way that their means of earning is stripped from them to serve a community with no payment attached. This isn't only applicable to students who work shifts, but also to others who are their family's burden bearers, either caring for their siblings or bearing family responsibilities outside of school. The community service may be advantageous, but not to these students who already bear the burden of responsibilities.

Assuming such a scheme is implemented in schools, this would mean one thing: the school timetable would be altered in a way that affects other curriculum activities done in the school. Probably, lessons would be cut off or shortened, field trips removed, excursions and other activities that were part of the student experience program adjusted. One way or another, the students still lose when school tries to rush a semester or term to meet their new program.

Image generated using Gemini AI

Finally, ethically, forcing students to do unpaid labor in the name of community service crosses ethical boundaries. Ethically, every worker deserves their wages, and when it's forced, it must come with a stipend that pays them for their service. If no form of payment is put in place, then it breaks a legal contract and only seems to benefit the people whom the service is offered to for free, while they're already allocated payments as part of their duties. Unless payment is allocated to this community service, it has little benefit to economically disadvantaged students.

My verdict is: community service is good. It teaches students patriotism and instills in them the spirit of hard work and participation. It may even teach students how to be selfless as they meet with people in the course of their duties, showing empathy and a picture of what the world outside looks like. However, if it's forced, it becomes a burden instead of a service, defeating the goal for which the program was organized, as resentment and bitterness set in. As discussed earlier, students who work to provide for themselves may see it as a disadvantage because it strips them of their means of making a living. There are programs already that expose students to certain fields, so I see no need in enforcing community service in high schools or secondary schools.