Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘civics’

Only true election and poly sci fanboys will enjoy this post

Fanboy

Syllabification: (fan·boy)
Pronunciation: /ˈfanˌboi/

noun
An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games, etc.

Yes. That’s me. I follow politics. I’m an extreme fan of elections and love talking strategy, candidates, and poll numbers – and just about anything else that connects somehow with the process. I’m an election fanboy.

So I’m probably one of a very small group of election geeks who cares much about yesterday’s presidential election.

Read more

7 great places to watch the election

For political junkies like me, this is Super Bowl week. If you haven’t noticed, the 2012 election is tomorrow. Yes. Tomorrow.

I’ve been loving all of the online / TV coverage of polls, events, speeches, fundraising, and pundits. And I’ve been just a little freaked out.

Read more

Fact, opinion, bias, media literacy and the need for democrats with a lower case D

It may be one of the most important things we do as social studies teachers. But it seems as if it’s often one of the first things pushed to the side in our frantic attempt to “cover” all of our content.

What’s it?

It is what we do when we teach our kids to distinquish between fact and opinion, to recognize bias, to identify propaganda and misleading statements – providing the opportunity for our kids to develop strong media literacy skills. These are skills that we should not teach in isolation as simply part of some lesson plan in the back of our supplementary materials. These are skills that prepare your kids to be democrats.

We need more democrats. And I’m not talking Democrats as in the opposite of Republicans. Read more

How to get smart again

We’re not stupid, we’re ignorant.

Current US history and civic knowledge among American citizens is not good. And worse, it seems as if the extremists are the only ones who care about that stuff. Moderates are choosing to “tune out” from the political process – making it more difficult for consensus to happen.

So what? What’s our role as social studies teachers?

A few suggestions:

1. Teach the idea and process of something called deliberative democracy -  developed by James Fishkin, communications professor at Stanford.

The premise is simple: poll citizens on a major issue, blind; then see how their opinions evolve when they’re forced to confront the facts. What Fishkin has found is that while people start out with deep value disagreements over, say, government spending, they tend to agree on rational policy responses once they learn the ins and outs of the budget.

2. Replace large, expensive, boring textbooks with well-written, engaging, smaller ones. Niall Ferguson calls these 10 pound history books

an encyclopedia without the convenience of alphabetical order.

And design them to be web-friendly . . . connected to web sites and primary sources and photos and video clips and live news reports and outside experts. Build in social media connections. Not just the same old textbooks put online or in some sort of iPad app format that reads exactly the same. (Though that format would at least allow anywhere, anytime access.) We need a true e-book with true interactive features.

Very few of us have the time, tech skills and history content knowledge to do this on our own. But we can be a bit more picky when selecting classroom materials. Textbooks like Joy Hakim’s The History of US and web sites like NARA’s DocsTeach give us more flexibility then traditional textbooks.

New tools like iPads with installed apps such as Shmoop’s American Revolution and Early Jamestown provide access to materials and resources in ways not possible even two years ago.

3. Use more video games and simulations. More and more companies are designing awesome games specifically for the educational market.

A couple of my favorites? Making History: The Calm and the Storm and You Are the Historian.

4. We need to ask better questions. We need to make history and government more of a mystery. What many kids get out of textbooks and traditional instruction is what author Philip Roth calls “the sense of inevitability.”

Do we know what’s going to happen in Libya and in middle eastern countries? Will China actually become a superpower? In the moment, no one really knows what’s going to happen but we teach history as if what actually happened was “inevitable.”

The American Revolution was not a done deal in 1776. The Confederacy was one victory away from gaining a possible ally in England. The Depression didn’t have to happen the way it did. Roth says that

the terror of the unseen is what the science of history hides.

We lose the “unseen” when we don’t ask good questions and encourage kids to solve interesting problems

We can do better. And based on the results of Newsweek’s research, we probably need to.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

We’re not stupid. We’re ignorant.

Bill Waterson 1995

And there’s a difference, says Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker.

The problem is ignorance, not stupidity. We suffer from a lack of information rather than a lack of ability.

Recently, Newsweek asked 1000 US citizens to take America’s official citizenship test. You probably know where this is headed. Yeah . . . we didn’t do too well.

  • Almost 75% couldn’t correct state why we fought the Cold War
  • 1/3 couldn’t name the current Vice-President
  • Less than 20% could name a power specific to the federal government
  • 94% don’t know how many Constitutional amendments there are
  • Just 40% know how long an elected senator serves
  • 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights
  • And 6% couldn’t circle Independence Day on a calendar (Psst. Here’s a hint . . . it’s in July.)

But we knew this already, right? Knowledge of US government and history facts has always been low. In fact, Michael Carpini of the Annenberg School of Communication claims that

yearly shifts in civic knowledge since World War II have averaged out to slightly under 1 percent.

So these sorts of scores are nothing new. But . . . times are different and they’ve changed in ways that make civic ignorance a huge problem. The current conversation on the federal budget points out the dangers of not understanding the system.

When we think about it, the answer is simple:

  • cut spending in big ticket items (like Medicare and defense)
  • tax reforms that increase revenues (like ending Bush era tax cuts)

But we just don’t get it. According to a 2010 World Public Opinion poll, rather than seeing the obvious, most of us would solve the budget problem by cuttting foreign aid from what we think is the current level (27% of the budget) to a much more realistic 13%.

The actual percent? Less than 1%.

A January 25 CNN poll found out that 71% of us want a smaller government but huge majorities of around 80% don’t want to cut Medicare of Social Security.

And not only are we confused about things like the budget and other government underpinnings, many of us just don’t care anymore. This is especially dangerous.

Newsweek broke out the data a bit more based on Republican and Democrat test takers and discovered some frightening statistics. The more conservative you are or the more liberal you are, the better you did on the test. Moderates didn’t do so well.

This illustrates something quite dangerous. The operative theory about America’s political situation holds that the fringe of each party is poorly informed, and the middle possesses the wisdom, but our numbers show it’s actually the extremes that are engaged—and thus, up on their facts—while the middle is relatively ill informed.

More than lacking knowledge, a lot of Americans, particularly in the middle, have completely tuned out.

Stop and think a bit here about the “so what.”

Our current system is based on the idea of compromise. Compromise between branches of government, compromise between political parties, compromise between state and federal. Thomas Jefferson once said

I see the necessity of sacrificing our opinions sometimes to the opinions of others for the sake of harmony.

But it seems as if the extreme ends of the political spectrum – those more likely to “fan flames” and less likely to seek compromise – are the ones engaging in the system. The middle – those most likely to listen and look for solutions – is choosing to retreat from participation.

If only the loud and strident campaign and vote, then only the loud and strident will be elected. And consensus and solutions will be difficult to come by.

Tomorrow:

  • What’s our role as social studies teachers in all of this?

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers