“The eyes of the virtuous all over the earth are turned with anxiety on us, as the only depositories of the sacred fire of liberty, and …our falling into anarchy would decide forever the destinies of mankind, and seal the political heresy that man is incapable of self-government.” - Tyack quotes Jefferson
In other words, the world was and still is watching us. The 2008 presidential election is a pivotal point in our nation’s history. Not just because the times are changing but because millions of people are turning into active citizens by taking interest in the election. Elshtain states that, “a compilation of opinions does not make a civic culture; such a culture emerges only from a deliberative process.”
In the movie, The American President, the president makes a speech in which he declares,
“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
Debates are an essential part of American politics and when we come to a respected acknowledgement of different positions, it is then time for compromise. Elshtain claims that democracy “embeds at its heart the ideal of compromise.” Obama seems to agree. In his speech last Thursday he said, “but this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.”
In Bowling Alone, Putnum observes a decline in American civility. The American people turned into passive citizens. “Security guards and metal detectors (in our schools) are poor surrogates for civility,” states Barber. Kids are smart. They watch and learn from the way society acts. Barber goes on to state, “are our kids stupid or smart for ignoring what we preach and copying what we practice? The young, with their keen noses for hypocrisy, are in fact adept readers—but not of books. They are society-smart rather than book-smart.” Barber goes on to say, “most agree that although money can’t by itself solve problems, without money few problems can be solved. Money also can’t win wars or put men in space, but it is the crucial facilitator. It is also how America has traditionally announced, we are serious about this!” Americans must demand that we get up and get serious. Jefferson said we must, “reclaim them by enlightening them.” As of right now, America does not care enough to seriously improve education nor even to vote for a president. Who we vote into the White House will have to power to make change. Maybe the next president can put our children on the track to becoming both society and book-smart.
This election is important because people are starting to wake-up from an apathetic haze. We can teach our youth by being role-models, being active citizens and by voting in this election. Elshtain states, “for when equality and justice seem far-off ideas, freedom preserves the human discourse necessary to work toward the realization of both.”
Erica Harlow September 1, 2008
Related links:
Glassbooth.org
RocktheVote.org
Transcript of Obama’s nomination speech in the New York Times
GenerationEngage.org
American President clip (1.15-1.40minutes)
16 comments:
I like your discussion on compromise in democracy and the need to focus our students into realizing that they can be role models and citizens. How do we teach our students to appreciate our liberty and freedoms? As Barber said,
" I wonder whether Americans still believe liberty has to be learned and that its skills are worth learning. Or have they been deluded by two centuries of rhetoric into thinking that freedom is "natural" and can be taken for granted?"
How do we get the students to vote? Our voting process is just and sacred, and our citizens seem to take it for granted.
Take for instance the situation in Venezuela. According to many Venezuelan citizens, voting precincts are rigged to favor the dictator. He buses poor people and gives them money and food to vote in his favor. Would that type of behavior stop people from voting? No,on the contrary, it is shown that a high percentage of people still voted in the referendum last year to shorten the presidential term even though they had doubts in the polling system. They still exerted their democractic right to vote, even if the system is flawed.
As Americans, we need to see that our system works and that our vote is the basis for our freedom and civility.
Nice connection, Amy... I think Barber and Elshtan both deal with that issue. But I think Matt raised an interesting issue last night that's connected to this: voter disengagement. How does that reflect what Elshtan termed our "politcs of displacement?" If I identify myself first as a (mother/ academic/ Volvo-driver) and only secondarily (or maybe not at all) as a citizen, what does that mean for my loyalties to the civic process. I might vote because I see something that will benefit me personally (more pedicures for mothers/ a three month school year/ free gas for the SUV) or I might not vote at all. How would that be different if I saw my first duty as you implicitly argue "As American"? Do we have a sense of "civic duty" anymore?
I would like to address the comment:
"Maybe the next president can put our children on the track to becoming both society and book-smart."
If we need an educated population to produce a vibrant democracy (www.educationanddemocracy.org/ and http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/education.htm) how should the next president go about changing our current school system to reflect democracy.
I am wondering how either ticket will put anyone on this 'track'. Andrew Shepherd (The American President) describes people who are involved in the democracy, involved in the back and forth tussle of what it means to be democratic. In the readings last week as discussed in class our current culture is not engaged.
I am going to use the premise 'children are socially smart because they do what the see'. Parents have a significant role in not only the education of their children but also the example of democracy. Maybe the next president can find ways to increase the engagement of parents in the education of their children and allow parents to find ways to exercise democratic principles by having a greater say.
Both candidates want more school choice in the form of charter schools, although Obama goes against his party on this issue. Obama would prefer to centralize control and place more emphases on the teachers and schools than on the community. McCain wants a vocher program to any schools and more of a decentralized, local control model with parents and the community at the center (http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Barack_obama_Education.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm).
Can these policies bring parents into education? Will school choice be a means of demonstrating the democratic process? If we give disengaged parents more say, will that mean they will automatically take part or does the state need to be more involved because parents are not currently taking part?
I am a market believer and am more engaged when I have choices. I would prefer local control and more voucher options including religious private schools.
“The illiterate man is a blind man – failure and disaster await him everywhere” (Aleksei Radakov, Soviet artist, 1920).
The idea that education will save a particular political system is not unique to democratic America. The former Soviet Union believed education was a way to “solve important political, economic, and moral problems” (Noah, Harold. “Soviet Education’s Unsolved Problems”, 1965). I would bet that if I stopped my comment here, a few feathers would be ruffled. Since this is no longer the Cold War Era, I am tempted to do so. However, I do have a point, so read on.
Regardless of where you stand on Communism v. Capitalism (or Religion, Democracy, etc.), both sides of the “versus” story have an education system. I hate to break it to you, but the systems have striking similarities. Didn’t we learn through our readings that early American education was following an agenda, to mold the proper American citizen? Sounds frighteningly Soviet, if you ask me.
Personally, I am not patriotic. I chose to vote in the last Presidential election, but not because I felt it was my “civic duty”. I am seriously debating if I will vote this time around. If I do, it won’t be for Obama or McCain, but for McKinney (look her up if you’re interested). I will proudly announce that I learned that I have the right to not vote in a high school government class. Voting is a privilege, but it is also a choice.
I like how Amy brought up Barber’s quote about how liberty is no longer felt as something to learn. Freedom is not natural, but the entitled generation feels otherwise. How ironic that the entitled generation is so close on the timeline to the “children of the sixties” who opposed corporate greed. Everyone so far has commented that there is a need for change, but no one seems to know from where that change will come. Will it come from an education system that is tied by the social boundaries that claim “everyone is a winner?” In the age of political correctness, where it is a faux pas to step on anyone’s toes to even point out a wrong-doing, a teacher must learn how to help a child move forward in a PC fashion, without threatening a parent’s sense of authority.
So then it would seem that the parents should teach children to be the "model citizen", it is up to the parent to teach a child that freedom is a privilege that precariously balances on the cliff of existence. Erica reminds us of Barber’s warning that children are only mimicking the characteristics they see in their parents and society. Where, then, is the society that will inspire a change? Historically, it was the college-students who vocally advocated change. Look at the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), a group of college students in the ‘60s that made their voice known. Responsible for what may be considered chaos, they instituted protests, riots, demonstrations, and strikes in the name of “seek[ing] the establishment of a democracy of individual participation....that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life” (The Port Huron Statement). These students saw the hypocrisy in society, yet they chose to act. Today, most college students are apathetic. I studied with someone in undergrad who claimed he didn’t believe in anything strongly enough to be worthy of a protest. Maybe a protest won’t change anything, but you will be heard, just as voting (or abstaining) is a chance to be heard. It will take more than one teacher to help change society, but if there are no teachers willing to try than America doesn’t stand a chance. Last thought: where is the line between teaching freedom and creating a drone?
There are a lot of really intense thoughts going on here, so I'm going to try to stick with just one of them if I'm able.
I believe that this situation is not going to be solved by any single organization. In order for our society to become more interested in the issues that we are presenting, education and democracy among them, all factors will need to be involved in order to create change.
That being said, I think a forerunner needs to take place. Personally, I think this will begin in the school systems and regardless of if I like it or not, it will come from Nationalization.
Zach and others bring up a very good point in that more local control might help stir parents into action. Unfortunately I believe that this current trend is not working. With states and local school districts all of the map in terms of quality and efficiency, I believe a National intervention needs to occur. Our world is growing beyond simply our boundaries of individual education and I believe that we as a nation owe it to ourselves to bring everyone up to speed in order to strengthen our democracy and our well-being.
However, I think that with this trend of Nationalization will bring about a sudden surge of parental and local involvement. It seems almost like local organizations have taken for granted their abilities to control what and how their students learn. Take this away from them and I believe they will suddenly get involved on a new level.
So in all, a change in the way we operate cannot occur from one single source along, but I believe a domino effect can occur if we go in certain directions.
Wow. Great discussion so far. Makes me wish we could stay in class until 9PM instead of 7. ;)
There are a couple of implicit debates happening here. To name a few:
To whom is public education accountable? Is it to parents, who by Z's argument should be able to choose their children's schools? Is it to the Nation, which by D's argument depends upon some nationalized (or at least nationally agreed upon) agreement about what happens in schools? How do we "improve" what happens there under each model? How do we decide what an "improvement" looks like?
Another implicit one here is in what the role of the citizen is. Citizenship is, literally, a birthright in this country. Is there a difference between being and American and being a citizen?
Finally (although not comprehensively), I think you're struggling with the nexus of political change. What is the role of national leadership in affecting that change? The press? Local values? What comes first?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enH2igVo55U&feature=related
"To whom is education accountable?” Somemight say our high-stakes testing feigns as a nationalized curriculum. It is what we hold schools, teachers, and children accountable for whether it is just or not. Woven throughout NCLB, and specifically Title 1, are the words “fair” and “equal.” Yet how can biased tests used to measure ability give equitable chances to the children who take them? The idea behind these tests is that student achievement can be assessed with validity. Whether we agree with it or not, it is a reality we will all have to face if we teach in public schools. Therefore, I am not as much concerned with the bigger question of whois responsible for education because the reality is that I (the teacher) am, like it or not.
“Is there a difference between being and American and being a citizen?”
According to Webster-Online, citizen can be defined as:
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state.
If being a citizen is “an inhabitant of a city or town” then one could say yes, it is the same to be American and a citizen. But if being a citizen means being entitled to the “rights and privileges of a freeman” then no, being a citizen is not the same as being American. We see this in our own community everyday, Americans being denied basic civic rights.
How can we ask our students to become active "citizens" in society when we deny them the very rights that should come with “citizenship?”
As Barber states, “There will be no liberty, no equality, no social justice without democracy, and there will be no democracy without citizens and the schools that forge civic identity and democratic responsibility,” (p.46)If there is no democracy without citizens, the we must first give equal rights before we ask for democratic resposiblity.
How do we expect children to believe in and support the very system that unfairly targets, labels, and groups them from early on?
Change is important and essential, yet it in many posts thus far I believe that too much emphasis has been placed on the President as the supreme agent of change. The President has far less power than most people think in the creation and implementation of policy (sorry to burst any overly hopeful bubbles eagerly awaiting January). The President has a say, a very important say at that, but in the end it is the legislature that creates policy and in most cases does so hoping to “win friends and influence people” rather than make the world a better place (Yes, I too am cynical). I don’t care how much a president’s rhetoric demands for educational change, unless a very sizeable and influential group of citizens get angry, mobilize (not militarily of course), and make their voices heard, nothing will happen above and beyond the bandage fixes that are currently being implemented or proposed.
The problem, then, concerns where that large group of active civil Citizens (notice the capital C, as not all citizens are Citizens) will come from. Nearly all the readings pointed to the growing cynicism, lack of civility, and lack of participation in civil societies that has led to the dramatic decline in civic participation unless it concerns the “I” as opposed to the “We.” This loss of civic duty, I believe, finds its genesis directly in the fact that many Americans (myself included) take for granted democracy and its trappings because, as we see it, democracy is firmly entrenched and does not appear to be going anywhere. Contrast this attitude however to the first generation of the United States in which the future of the republic was very much a debatable topic, and notice how different their participation and stock in the civic system was compared to America today (cf. also the Las Madras). Why should citizens fight for rights concerning “we” if “we” have had those rights set in stone for the past 200 years? I believe this is why we have seen the marked shift toward the “politics of displacement” and its vociferous arguments for making personal wants into codified rights.
The solution as I see it—to a lack of civility, lack of political participation and participation in civil societies, and a failing school system—is to awaken America to the possibility that the democratic “rights of we” which are looked upon as naturally and unassailable as oxygen, may not be as secure as many entertain. What will be the cause of that great paradigmatic shift? I have no clue. It is interesting, however, to think that it might come in a “V for Vendetta” type fashion in which internal strife (possibly from terrorism?) leads to a central government which limits rights in order to “protect the people,” which in turn finally awakens a resistance that wins back the power for the demos. Those individuals would then truly appreciate democracy because they lived for a time without it, and would therefore be committed to active participation in the system to ensure its existence for themselves and their progeny.
Also, kate, will you please explain what you meant by your statement that society “unfairly targets, labels, and groups them [children] from early on” that thus causes a lack of civic interests in students. Are you arguing that children should have the identical rights as adults (such as voting, etc.), or do you have reference to the labeling and tracking that goes on in schools?
PS – D and his talk about “nationalization” and “centralization” scares me…maybe because I have Orwell’s “1984,” “V for “Vendetta,” and Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” in mind.
I would have to agree with Mathew to an extent when it comes to how effective a new President will be at changing the Educational system. As he said, the power to change the system does not truly lie with the president, but rather with the legislature that will pass bills in order to reform our ailing system. No Child Left Behind, while attributed to President Bush, was pushed through Congress by George Millar of California and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. It is that same congress that failed at providing the funding that the bill required. While the President does set the overall budget for the Education Department, congress is required to ensure that those funds are used in the correct way. Therefore, an election of a new President, while it could bring more money to Education overall, would not necessarily bring that money to the right places. Another factor working against this election and the ability for the winner to bring meaningful changes to education is that it does not appear to be high on the list when it comes to policy talk. Most of the time, when education is discussed by either candidate, the comments are more filled with rhetoric than policy. It seems that when foreign policy, or the environment are discussed (the hot button issues for this election), there is plenty to say by both candidates, but when education comes up, the quality of conversation by the two go down.
I do have to disagree with Mathew about the inability to fight for rights concerning “we.” While most have been set in stone for 200 years, I do not think that something as radical as a population revolting against its government would be necessary in order to convince those with power that a change in rights is needed. It only requires an agreed upon message, or a common goal. Martin Luther King Jr. did not enrage the masses to revolt against government, but rather he preached and spread his message throughout the country until enough people were talking about it that the government had no choice but to listen. While times have changed dramatically, methods such as this could enable new rights to common into fruition.
I happen to disagree with “Democracy on Trial” to an extent. While it states that ‘wants’ have been portrayed as ‘rights’ it neglects the fact that this may be necessary for a constantly evolving culture. The issues that plague us today are no where near the issues that plagued those who etched these rights into our constitution. As we went over in the past two classes, the public education system was not even in place when these rights were made. There are new problems in today’s world, and these new problems require new solutions, or possibly even new rights. The fight to create wants into rights is what has made this country evolve over the years. Without this fight, there are many people would even be able to vote, no matter what level of enthusiasm they placed in the act of voting.
Amy asked: "How do we get the students to vote? Our voting process is just and sacred, and our citizens seem to take it for granted. "
I agree that our voting system is far more just than many others. It’s not perfect, but we’re working on it, and I’m not yet cynical enough to believe we have voting corruption on a scale even close to some “budding democratic nations.” I'm also a fairly traditional person when it comes to school. I believe that Shakespeare is valuable and can be relevant, though I also think we should teach Chinua Achebe. I believe in the teaching of civics and ethics. I think schools and teachers CAN reach through the informational haze and have an effect on students' thinking without resorting to text message spelling, or youtube, or whatever (not that I have anything against youtube, either).
However, I think that our politicians can and should make use of contemporary communication technology to help build community and enthusiasm for the vote--without abandoning town hall meetings and the like. I think these technologies may have the power to help bring us back into the fold of community and civil life, if only we deploy them correctly.
I mentioned in class that my own problem in connecting to a civic network is a feeling of displacement and instability; I've moved around a lot and I don't always know what state I live in. I think that college campuses can provide a sense of stability for people like me. There are organizations all around you, clamoring for your attention and your membership. Sometimes it's even overwhelming, but I know a lot of graduates who wish they'd taken advantage of those almost endless opportunities while they were in school; it’s a little sad and lonely to get into the “real world” and no longer be surrounded by flyers, posters, tables of canvassing students, and e-mail listservs bringing you up to date on all the groups you can join, events you can participate in, and causes you can champion.
Everyone agrees that having an online component to one’s campaign is important these days, but only one of the current campaigns is even beginning to touch on the potential rallying power of texts, e-mails, and the like. I’ve been contacted by e-mail, phone call, and text message NOT just to ask for donations, but to tell me where and when I can attend a meeting, a party, or a rally near my current address, which I can update as needed online. If more politicians and more communities could tap into these resources, people like me would know where to go, whom to talk to, and how to get involved in civic opportunities the way I’d like to. By now you all know whom I support for President, and that’s fine with me. On Glassbooth, I found myself 80% aligned with one of the candidates and only about 30% with the other.
I don’t know how to address the problem of people who simply don’t WANT to be involved in democratic and civil life, because I’m not one of those people. I don’t know what would reach them. I also apologize that my comments here aren’t so directly related to education, but I’m still focused on the underlying currents in our culture. Not to mention that my little suggestion is so far from a panacea to perhaps be laughable. But recent experience is also showing that it can be surprisingly effective. Even grass-roots organizations can’t be pulled off by scattered citizens with no organizing force—at least, not on a national level. A leader who takes the initiative to provide a framework for that organization, though, can rally people who want to be involved but don’t know how; people who want to make a difference but aren’t sure they can, people who need to make their voice heard but would really appreciate someone giving them a megaphone.
I would have to agree with Chuck. If enough people get together to fight for a cause, change can occur. I do worry, however, that civic interest has decreased because Americans do not believe that they will make real changes. Possibly, they have become too lazy and lethargic in the fight. We live in a society that thrives on immediacy. In our world, virtually every need can be satisfied instantly. It is important to realize that real changes in our society, and education systems cannot happen over night but that is no reason to forget them altogether.
There is “strength in numbers,” I think it is be incredibly beneficial for people as well as legislators to realize that a multitude of people do have the same opinions, ideas and concerns. (Perhaps this sort of action, in relation to education, would move education to a higher spot on the list of important election topics.) At the same time, however, for every side to a topic there is always another side that usually has just as many supporters and followers. As Elshtain states, “For practical politics to thrive, there must be a way for people who differ in important respects to come together.” By focusing on the common good that each group (and often political party) is trying to achieve, people’s self-interests can be alleviated and hopefully public and legislative action will occur. Especially with education, it is important for opposing sides to realize that ultimately, everyone wants improved educational systems. Because we are all fighting for this same cause, I hope that some day a sort of compromise can be reached. After all, “Compromise is not a mediocre way to do politics: it is the only way to do politics.” (Elshtain). In regards to education, do you believe that certain compromises can be made?
At the heart of every debatable issue lies accountability. In order to feel accountable, however, you have to have a vested interest in the topic at hand. As teachers, we are held most accountable for the learning that takes place within the classroom, as Kate pointed out. There are, undoubtedly, various other factors that determine how much a student does or wants to learn. One of the largest, in my opinion is personal motivation. I have to question, though where does this motivation come from.
I really do worry that the youth of America, speaking specifically about the multicultural, is becoming far less motivated to learn because even if they do perform well in schools, society still has proven that they do not always grant the same “rights and privileges” to these people. Close to what Barber implies, how can these students, as well as those who are not culturally diverse feel civic responsibility or at liberty if they do not have a positive opinion of the society at large?
Matthew- I was referring to the labeling and tracking that happens both in school and out of school. Whether its through the standardized tests or the resegregation that occurs in school districts. This is why community in the classroom is more important than ever. Children from impoverished communities, children with disabilities, and children of minorities are not always given equal opportunities in a society and educational system strongly influenced by social mobility.
I am mostly concerned about how to teach the importance of democracy and citizenship, while addressing the realities that my students are facing. I don't want to perpetuate the myth that all students are given equal opportunities because they are not. Where do we begin to reconstruct the power? I think we have to start in the local communities. I question if there can be a national plan or curriculum that can address the needs of all students given their backgrounds.
I want to readdress Dr. McTamaney’s question of to whom is public education accountable? There is a psychological phenomenon called the "bystander effect" which I think unfortunately holds true for America's education. The Bystander Effect is the “finding that the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them are willing to help” (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2005). In the case of America’s education and public schools, I think our country has fallen victim to pointing fingers and assuming someone else will take care of the education crisis. Teachers think parents should be more involved, parents think teachers should be more involved, citizens blame the President; the blame continually is getting passed on to someone else. According to Barber, “if we are serious, parents, teachers, and students would be the real players, while administrators, politicians, and experts would be secondary, at best advisors whose chief skill ought to be knowing when and how to facilitate the work of each other and then get out of the way” (Barber, p. 45). Although this sounds feasible, I think much more needs to be done.
I agree with Daniel’s comment that the education crisis can not be solved by “one single organization.” Daniel suggested creating a National Intervention that may help improve American education. Although I can not answer Dr. McTamaney’s question of what will ultimately “solve the education crisis,” I do think a National Intervention would help improve our education system. In Barack Obama’s speech on education, which we watched and discussed in class, Obama continually referred to children as “American’s children” (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/20/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_34.php). He uses inclusive language to show that the entire nation is responsible for our youth, not solely the teachers and parents. If this is to be true, then we all need to take a more active role in improving education.
Furthermore, I agree with Amy when she posted that we need to focus on helping children to realize they can become role models and leaders. But before that, we, as Americans, need to become role models for them. Whether we like it or not, today’s youth will become tomorrow’s leaders and if we do not set the example now, what type of precedence will that set for America’s future?
Many people mentioned that one way to be better role models is to vote in the upcoming election, demonstrating to children the importance of exercising your right to vote. As Erica originally posted, “this election is important because people are starting to wake-up from an apathetic haze.” I definitely agree with Erica, especially since this election has encouraged more and more open dialogues regarding our nation’s future. However, Barber explains, “what they [youth] read so acutely are the social signals emanating from the world in which they will make a living” (p. 40). We, as Americans, need to do more than just exercise our right to vote. As we all know, learning extends beyond the classroom and children are constantly observing and learning from adults all around them. Therefore, we can no longer stand aside as innocent bystanders, assuming someone else will deal with the education crisis. We need to stop blaming others and finally take responsibility for our nation’s youth. The difficult part is how do we begin and more importantly, how do we encourage other people to help?
As I was reading through the many discussions about our nation and how to fix the involvement of our "American civil rights" I kept thinking back to I am an educator and I can make a difference to let our future generation feel this right and understand that it is a right. I agree with Julie that we need to be role models that show children that they need to be proud of their right to have a voice and that it does mean.
As a citizen though I rarely think about my duty to my city or neighborhood, like Nicole I moved around a lot growing up so I have never been attached to a YMCA or Community Center, so this duty isn't remembered often. But my duty as a citizen to the USA does. Some times people ask me where I am from and I just say "America" and people laugh, but it is true. That is where my citizenship lies, but I need to start becoming more aware with my local government and my role as a citizen there too. All this to say, I agree with many of you that the ownership of citizenship starts in the schools and through a child's education.
In high schools we have class elections and club elections, but again like our local governments many of us would not have voted if it wasn't done during class time. So we need to start teaching and exposing children to voting at a younger age. I reflect back to a classroom that the teacher valued voting and saw the importance in daily life. It was a second grade class who started the year with a vote. They voted on everything from what colors their groups were to who was going to pick up the papers for the month. Each thing they voted for had to have criteria and had to be backed up for why it was the right choice. She valued it so much that these votes happened monthly.
With this as an example I can see how a whole school could use the voting and having a voice in choices in many of the decisions that directly affect the students. For instance, voting for what special snack to have once a week in the lunch room, what sport to be played in P.E. next, what the theme of the parents night, etc. The list could go on but it would be exposing children to the value and need of democracy from a young age.
On Post Independent there is an article that quotes their director of curriculum, who states, "Someday [these students] will be adults, and we want them to feel comfortable with the democratic process", after their school did a mock presidential vote.
There is value to spending time and energy to give the students this power young so that they know that their voice will make a difference and is valued in their community.
Some links to examples of mock voting in schools:
-Kids to pick president in mock voting:
http://www.postindependent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040616/VALLEYNEWS/106160004
-The National Student/Parent Mock Election:
http://www.nationalmockelection.org/curriculum.html
-Election Day: http://www.abcteach.com/directory/seasonalholidays/election_day/
-The Election Game: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elegme/gmeidx.htm#materials
Wow. I am completely overwhelmed by the number of ideas and discussions going on here. I guess that's what I get for responding late.
For me, the readings this week inspired a lot of thought about what it means to be an American. I, too, have been guilty of taking democracy and the rights it gives me for granted. The readings, especially Democracy on Trial (which I realize a lot of people didn't like), opened my eyes up to my own failings as a citizen.
I feel like a lot of the lack of civic interest these days goes back to the problem of cynicism, which Elshtain mentioned as part of the "culture of mistrust" and several of my classmates have at least hinted at. Cynicism about the government is, now more than ever, a part of our culture. The majority of the country hates the current presidential administration and the things it does, but feels powerless to do anything about it. I think a lot of people feel like the administration is driving the country off of a cliff and all we can do is sit in the back seat and watch. Why should we vote when the government obviously doesn't care/ isn't affected by what we think?
I agree with Matthew about the need for an awakening in our society. I especially liked his reference to "V for Vendetta," a movie which made a lot of people, including me, think about the tenuousness of our way of life. Could the awakening take place in art rather than reality? Perhaps with some Thomas Paine-like literature. Instead of pamphlets, though, we (and by "we" I mean the inspiring authors who want to awaken the country) could utilize the variety of technological opportunities available in today's society, as Nicole hoped politicians would.
In class, we talked about how social groups on the internet, such as chat rooms and blogs etc., have replaced the need for (or perhaps simply desire for) one-on-one contact in the kind of civic organizations that "Bowling Alone" speaks of. While I agree that civic involvement is important, I also see internet groups as a unique opportunity to raise social and political opportunity and encourage participation in these issues. As Emily said, "We live in a society that thrives on immediacy. In our world, virtually every need can be satisfied instantly." I agree. And while the fact that we want everything and we want it NOW can be annoying, it is what we have become. Maybe our civic involvement needs to catch up. As Chuck said, "There are new problems in today’s world, and these new problems require new solutions." One of these problems is the difficulty in getting people involved in civic life in a time when it is much easier to just sit at home. While we don't want to cater to people's laziness, the fact is that they probably won't get off the couch, so maybe we should make civic involvement come to them. In many ways this is already happening. For instance, Facebook provides a place where people from all over the country can join groups which reflect their concerns and political interests. These groups include "Americans for Alternative Energy" with 117,213 members, "Barack Obama" with 666,110 members, and "Beat the Terrorists, Vote Republican" with 12,288 members. In these groups people have the opportunity to discuss issues, through wall posts and discussion boards, that they might not be able to discuss otherwise. We live in a difficult and unique time, and, in this time, we need to utilize the variety of resources available to interest people in social/political issues and engage them in civic life.
Wow I definitely need to respond earlier next week, lol!
Ever since class last Tuesday I have been trying to pinpoint the exact reasons why I have never exercised my right to vote. Lindsey raised an excellent point when she brought up the issue of cynicism, and if I allow myself to be completely honest, I think that is the reason for my "lack of civic interest." This caused m to ask the question "If I don't take advantage of my rights and responsibilities as a citizen, can I truly call myself a citizen?"
When I was about 10 years old I was listening to the radio with my mom and a song with the lyrics "smiling faces lying to the races" came on the radio. I asked her what the lyrics meant and she informed me that they were referring to politicians. I think her statement laid the foundation for the way I view politicians even today as a 27 year old. I realize now that I've been using that "all politicians are liars" mindset as an excuse to just be inactive.
Amy asked "How do we get the students to vote?" and surprisingly I started to try and think of ways. This sounds somewhat hypocritical because I've never voted, but I do feel like I want all of my students to grow up informed and have an opinion about the issues that will impact their daily lives. I think the first step is making them realize that their voice is valuable and that their opinion does matter. I agree with Kate when she said "Children from impoverished communities, children with disabilities, and children of minorities are not always given equal opportunities in a society and educational system strongly influenced by social mobility." These are the students I fear will grow up feeling that their voices will never be heard unless parents and educators teach them otherwise. I think that the responsibility may lie with us.
Post a Comment