Service Learning vs Fund-raising

The following reflection contains some challenging notions around service and charitable pursuits for high school students and staff. It is presented cautiously and with a little trepidation as whenever good intention is challenged, it can understandably cause upset. That said, it is designed to take service learning to a more considered, relational and realistic space. It does assume the reader is familiar with my 7Rs of Service Learning.

*

I received an email recently about a particularly large and generous school donation to a worthy cause. It got me thinking. While this is an impressive outcome in terms of dollars raised, it is in truth an outcome that will most likely further promote the idea that fund-raising is paramount to charitable activity and that a lot can be solved with a cheque book over and above any relational investment. My underlying fear (particularly since Covid appeared on the scene) is that an increasingly large percentage of young people appear to be graduating from schools with the idea that service endeavour is best provided through faceless transactional donations rather than the donation of time - in which real people are actually present and walking alongside others in a service relationship. I also fear that this is a belief taken by most young people into adulthood if it remains unchallenged.

I wondered if any schools making such donations maintain anything relational with the recipients of the funds after they are cleared or run out, such as checking in on or visiting (virtually at least) in order to share the joys of any positive outcomes made possible by these generous proceeds? It is true that this might be perceived as callously checking in on how funds were distributed, but this awkwardness can be alleviated with careful, leading questions such as: “How can we possibly and safely help by truly walking alongside you rather than being kept way at arm’s length?” The ensuing discussion will surely help to determine the future of your service relationship.

The outcomes of fund-raising can be truly fantastic – no doubt about it, especially as a quick fix - but just how many one-off activities of this nature can a school complete before fund-raising becomes a habit and worse – a substitute for the less transactional and more face-to-face service activity? At what point does the tallying of funds corrode and even work against a school’s value system? For instance if a school values empowerment, how is it doing this if it is constantly sending cheques out to people in need? It is helpful to keep a check on the attitudes, values and actual statistics surrounding fund-raising involvement, preferably in an unthreatening way. But I suspect even writing a reflection such as this will threaten people.

I wonder if we unpack fundraising of this sort, how many of the 7Rs would be affirmed by what is taking place? I will do this below hypothetically, wishing to more generally and objectively explore the notion that fund-raising can become an unfortunate default position that often overrides the relational side of service learning. (This is opposed to attacking any specific activity and/or its good intention. As announced at the outset, this can produce emotional upset, particularly if a charity is close to a person’s heart and context. I am not wanting to seem heartless. But I lost a father to cancer and am willing to still question the seemingly uneven amount of school fundraising sent to cancer-related organisations.)

So why does fundraising become a default? Because it is essentially easier to do. It seems to require less staff and student time, risk assessments, travel expenses, meetings, research, Covid considerations and potentially messy follow-up, to suggest but a few reasons. In most schools – but large ones in particular - the preference for one-off, fund-raising-oriented approach can be totally understandable if not practical, yet it is also not ideal. What actual learning has in fact occurred through fund-raising? Is a young person’s empathy being extended to fully consider the dignity of the person receiving the cheque and the ramifications of trying to fix things with money? And what are we implying about the value of human interaction and our attitudes towards the disempowered in doing these things from a distance and largely unresearched?  These questions need to be seriously addressed.

The rub is as follows: Does your school need to produce an actual Service Learning “policy” (for want of a better word) or at least simple sets of guidelines and checks which encourage staff and students to checklist their approaches and outcomes? How detrimental can conflicting policies and philosophies of service activity be to a school? And having said all this, are staff weary of another set of policies at a time when so much is expected of them in terms of accountability? While I have presented ideas about authentic service learning to staff conferences and or smaller specialised groups, I often feel I am preaching to the converted. And that a lot of people will nod in agreement but then rarely move towards any action or change. As previously stated, we lead busy lives. But the hard truth is that you cannot escape the fact that authentic service learning requires a lot of time and genuine energy invested in it.

It would be true that service philosophies are usually quite mixed across a school’s staff, which explains the tensions that often simmer surrounding the authenticity of service learning activity. I am unsure if a policy/guide will fully rectify this, but figure it is worth attempting as it will certainly open up useful conversation. But if this conversation only occurs in isolated instances or in small focus groups, I fear it will be ineffective in the long term. Service Learning deserves the time spent on cultivating a whole-school approach.

I have made two hypothetical checklist reports in the Appendix below. They are fabricated (ie. I have made-them up) to show how things might look if this analysis was done for a real service activity. You may wish to test it against a service activity you have completed. (I will promise to have authentic responses in due course.)

GH

20 June, 2022

*

Appendix: Two Examples of Service Learning Activity Checks

Rating Scale:     Not Really.     Basic.      Satisfactory.     Excellent.

Activity 1

Respect: Excellent. Students and staff take exemplary care in respecting the specific needs, privacy and individuality of those they work alongside.

Relationships: Excellent. Developing strongly as a result of above, both with the organisation as well as their participants.

Returning:  Satisfactory. Plans exist to return with realistic regularity.

Research: Basic and needs a bit of attention. Students and staff could benefit from a brief session with the organisation’s experts on a few key areas. That, or perhaps a few links to relevant articles of interest/assistance.

Reality: Excellent. Activity is sustainable and making an impact on both volunteers and participants.

Resilience: Satisfactory. Some students showing inspiring signs of commitment and even comfort in occasional challenging situations/scenarios. They seem ready to ask questions rather than be defeated by what they do not know.

Reflection: Satisfactory. Always done at the end of the session. Ongoing reflection apparent in how students present/speak of the activity to others in formal and informal settings. Perhaps at the end of year will see a more detailed evaluation/reflection.

*

Activity 2

Respect: Satisfactory, possibly excellent. The care taken with respectfully engaging in the fund-raising was apparent. The organisation logo and website details were visible at the stall. In truth, a few students did not know the underlying cause/organisation.

Relationships: Not really. Only between organising teachers.

Returning: Not really. Students have crowded schedules and thus one-off activity such as this suits them. A couple have agreed to lead this activity next year and one is interested in exploring further voluntary work for if not a career with the organisation. That surely makes it worthwhile!

Research: Basic. Imagine keen students have done some googling with respect to the reason/history/context behind the needs for fund-raising for People X from Region Y. All have received basic info from guest speaker to House (although a percentage were absent due to Covid and an excursion).

Reality: As activity is one-off, the reality is that the funds have been well utilised by Organisation Z to our knowledge. The students involved will probably/sadly not see the outcome of their endeavours.

Resilience: As activity is one-off, resilience n/a.

Reflection: Not really. Students seemed happy with things on the surface during pack-up. Only a few responded to the e-survey sent. That said, we have witnessed students speaking passionately about the cause/organisation in classes and in the playground.

*

Further Questions

Are the 7Rs helpful in shaping critical evaluation of a service activity?

Are they helpful is motivating your school towards a more considered, consistent and authentic approach and philosophy/policy?

How can we (safely) give people – and their time - rather than money to charitable organisations and people in need?

What are the costs associated with this?