The Outdoor School program was groundbreaking when it started more than a half-century ago. Since then, more than 1 million children have enjoyed—or endured—this rite of passage at campsites scattered from Oregon's stormy coast to its towering evergreen forests to its rugged high desert.
At the program's heyday, 90 percent of sixth-graders spent the week testing water samples, studying fungi and digging through topsoil. Today, just half of Oregon's 11- and 12-year-olds take part, mostly through a patchwork of grants, fundraising, parent fees and charitable donations. Caps on property taxes, plus the recent recession, have forced many school districts to scrap the program or whittle it down to just a few days.
Now, backers of a statewide ballot measure want to use a slice of lottery proceeds to guarantee a week of Outdoor School for all children. If it passes, the measure would make Oregon the only state with dedicated funding for outdoor education, including students in charter, private and home schools, said Sarah Bodor, policy director for the North American Association for Environmental Education.
It's more biology camp than Outward Bound.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:48PM
Play the Discovery Channel once in a while on a 32" TV in school cafeterias.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:50PM
Just the commercials, though. Don't want them accidentally seeing a special on global warming that doesn't attribute it to ancient aliens.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:58PM
I was going to object that it should be Fox News, but I'm sure we can try to secure a campaign donation from the local Christian broadcaster.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:13PM
I would point out that the Democrats are the ones opposing this.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:14PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 28 2016, @05:58PM
I would point out that you are lying. [ballotpedia.org]
Supporters
Officials
Gov. Kate Brown (D)[8]
Bend City Council[9]
Parties
Democratic Party of Oregon[9]
College Democrats of Oregon
The Deschutes County Democrats
Marion County Democrats
Multnomah County Democrats
Tillamook County Democrats
Washington County Democrats
(Score: 4, Interesting) by scruffybeard on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:03PM
I like the idea of sending everyone to camp, but I don't like the idea of creating dedicated funding sources like this. In the end you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This forces the legislature to take money from one program and give it to another, and since it is a ballot measure, it can only be undone by another ballot measure.
(Score: 4, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:37PM
In the end you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Actually, in this case they're talking about using lottery funds, so it's more like robbing people who are bad at math. The lottery is a de facto tax on the poor, desperate, and stupid (who are most likely to buy lottery tickets). I never thought about this much until I read about the Chicago billboards they once put up in the poorest neighborhoods reading, "Get from Grand Boulevard to Easy Street. This could be your ticket out!" [implication ...of the slums]
At least the Illinois lottery folks were willing to own up to explicitly targeting poor people with their bogus message. In most states, they just want to deny the stats and not admit what the lottery does to many people. (And that even includes the winners, who all too frequently end up destroying their lives.)
To me, it's a really problematic source of government revenue. That doesn't say anything about whether or not this program is a good idea for kids... but the source of funds isn't the best.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 28 2016, @01:02AM
On the other hand, the chance of winning the lottery when you buy one ticket is far greater than the chance when you buy none.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 28 2016, @05:02PM
Not really. I think you are greatly overestimating your chances of winning the lottery (which is how the lottery traps even moderately educated people).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 28 2016, @07:41PM
Not overestimating at all, but it's a choice between zero chance and a very tiny chance the universe could throw you a bone.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday October 28 2016, @08:54PM
There are ways to win the lottery without explicitly buying a lottery ticket, for example finding one on the ground.
It's a choice between functionally zero chance and functionally zero chance. You can consider winning the lottery to be a glitch in the matrix for all intents and purposes.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday October 30 2016, @02:42AM
On the other hand, the chance of winning the lottery when you buy one ticket is far greater than the chance when you buy none.
I have never in my life bought a lottery ticket. I have won something around $200. The following is absolutely true.
I'm talking about scratch tickets here, which are affiliated with the lottery in many states. See, there is one person in my extended family who LOVED scratch tickets. So, it became tradition in her family to give them as gifts, particularly as stocking stuffers or with a holiday card or something.
I got a few over the course of several years. First year I got them, I won maybe $10 or $20. Nothing crazy, but much more than most family members ever saw. I think it was the second or third year I received them that I scratched one off and won $50. That was a larger prize than any of the family members had seen before for these holiday scratch tickets.
So, two years later I got two more with a holiday card. I won $100 off one and $20 on the other one. The person at the lottery counter at the local gas station told me I had to go somewhere else, since they didn't pay out for tickets that high, and she had never seen a $100 winner for a scratch ticket before. (I remember looking up the odds for that game online, and just getting the $100 ticket was something like 1 in 20,000 odds for that particular game... most payouts are like $5 or $10.)
It's been several years since, and I've never won anything again. Obviously it was a statistical fluke. But it was quite a thing when I did, since nobody in the family ever saw payouts that big from scratch tickets.
Anyhow, even though what happened to me was a statistical fluke with the tickets that I never bought, I'm pretty sure it's a HECK of a lot more common to win something at a lottery without buying a ticket (even finding a scratch ticket dropped on the street) than your chances of winning a Powerball jackpot.
Of course, I'm also the guy who has never spent a dime at a casino and who won $150. I've only been to one once, at my parents' invitation -- they like the "play the slots" a few times per year. I wasn't really in the mood for just losing my money, so my dad put $50 on a card for me to play, saying he'd start me off. I went about halfway through that $50 when I hit a $250 payoff. I figured "what the heck" and played a bit more until my balance went back down to $200. I gave my dad back his $50, and never have played at a casino again.
(And no, in general I don't consider myself a "lucky" person. I've never won money or a significant prize in any other thing I've entered, usually a raffle or something. This only seems to happen when I'm betting someone else's money....)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:04PM
Not unreasonable, but there are counterpoints:
1. Absolutely everything government does robs Peter to pay Paul. That argument is the basis for libertarianism as a basic political philosophy, and it can in fact be used to object to any government action whatsoever or indeed the existence of government altogether. The simple counter-argument to this is that sometimes Peter will make use of the resources in question in a way that yields a better outcome for society at large than Paul would have (e.g. paying Peter to maintain a beloved public park versus letting Paul spend the money on hookers and blow). A certain amount of collective decision-making about this seems appropriate.
2. If the legislature isn't forced to fund this program consistently, it won't. And if it isn't funded consistently, that makes it very hard to develop a program that works, rather than a program that looks good for the next round of funding.
3. As you mention, it can be removed exactly as easily as it was implemented, if it sucks. And the pilot trials suggest that it doesn't suck.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Friday October 28 2016, @02:50AM
You make good points. Governing means prioritizing some things over others. I would argue that removing a law via a ballot measure is not simple. It is a process that can take years. During that time the legislature's hands are tied. Now one or two measures like this do not pose much of a problem, but too many can cause significant problems. I recall that California is suffering from this right now.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:28PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:11PM
Nothing good EVER happened OUT OF DOORS!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:34PM
Weigh the kids, not the idea.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:38PM
If the education is conducted outdoors... how can we train the children to work and live in soulless corporate boxes? My $Bob! They might even start thinking for themselves!
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:12PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:54PM
No, because you don't actually get an education from state programs, or even from private schools.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:39PM
Growing up in Oregon I attended a school that did participate in outdoor school for those in the forth and fifth grades. Leading up to outdoor school we were put in electives like wood burning, some animal /plant identification, basket weaving, bowl making, camp songs, etc. When we finally went to camp for a week you just run around outside and get pushed around to various activities that may or may not have interested you based on your ability to sign up on time. The most enjoyable parts of outdoor camp were archery, I think we had some spear throwing, looking for bugs, some kids tried to escape to go swimming in a local pond.
I can't imagine that outdoor school in the current school environment would be very fun. Doubt there would be archery, doubt there would be any spears, I am sure they will be more adept at keeping you corralled. Any sort of getting out after lights out to find bugs will be even more restricted. A large point of outdoor school, in my opinion, was the ability (if you tried to exercise it) of getting away from the control and making stupid mistakes that teach you and everyone else lessons. I am not sure that these things could be provided in the current educational environment. I honestly do not want my kids wasting time doing wood burning, basket weaving, pottery, and singing when they could be doing educational electives. I wouldn't mind a few here and there, definitely would not mine a survival course, but I really doubt these would happen.
I will also mention the problem with funds actually being put toward outdoor school. Oregon has had an AMAZING history of asking for money and then finding a way to spend it on something else. I am pretty sure that bills/referenda are unable to determine how money is to be spent (outside of the Oregon lottery) so I foresee another funding source to shore up the failing PERS system. This ballot in Oregon has several spending measures that do not seem to tie very well to what they are supposed to be for. Another bill this time around is a 2.5% sales tax on corporations doing more than 25 million in sales in Oregon, measure 97. A part of the bill goes into how if any portion is invalidated then the remainder of the bill will still go into effect. The only part of this bill that could be invalidated and still have the bill actually function is the directive of the money being spend on school and old people. My bet is that if/when passed this will be invalidated and the money will go to shore up PERS. I would accept being called a pessimist but this happens all the time.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 28 2016, @01:11AM
That's an interesting take. I see those skills, with the exception of the singing, as survival skills. Wood burning, which I take to mean fire-building, is about the most important survival skill after finding water. Basket weaving and pottery, to which I'd add flint knapping, are about using the materials around you to create the tools you need to survive. The ancillary benefit for kids that live in the city and who will never need to survive in the woods is that they learn how to create things with their own hands instead of running down to Walmart to buy another Made-in-China trinket. I grew up in the Rockies and now live in Brooklyn; I appreciate the city for what it has to offer but am often amazed at the universal, learned helplessness of my city-born and -raised neighbors.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday October 28 2016, @02:27AM
Unfortunately by wood burning I meant using a device much like a soldering iron to burn letters into wood. I agree that ceremics, firemaking, survival, even weaving are desirable to learn to some extent, but I do not want my kids doing a half hour a day course in each for three months.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday October 28 2016, @03:58AM
Property tax caps "forced" school districts to scrap this program. I don't suppose there were certain other portions of the budget which ballooned during this time.
A school district where I used to live scrapped marching band and gave the superintendent a five-figure raise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @07:20AM
Depends a lot on how it's done. I'm worried that this would end up like PE, which for many kids only teaches them to hate exercise. I know it did for both my brother and me - and I bet it did the same for most people posting here.
We would have a lot less overweight people if we didn't teach them to hate exercise.
So now they want to teach them to hate the outdoors also? If this is a ploy to create more couch potatoes willing to pay for cable TV, shouldn't the cable TV companies be the ones funding the project?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @08:55AM
I can mimic a log pretty well, does that count?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @03:38PM
"You Have Died of Dysentery"