Been A Bit Busy

[Annie]

Hi All. It's one of the zionist mods, checking in to let 'those concerned' have a bit of a glimpse of what has been eating into my time. I've been in training to ready my classes on a civics program.

In the course of that, I got volunteered to work on the Illinois part of this project Sandra Day O'Conner will be affiliated with:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401621.html

Not By Math Alone

By Sandra Day O'Connor and Roy Romer
Saturday, March 25, 2006; A19

Fierce global competition prompted President Bush to use the State of the Union address to call for better math and science education, where there's evidence that many schools are falling short.

We should be equally troubled by another shortcoming in American schools: Most young people today simply do not have an adequate understanding of how our government and political system work, and they are thus not well prepared to participate as citizens.

This country has long exemplified democratic practice to the rest of the world. With the attention we are paying to advancing democracy abroad, we ought not neglect it at home.

Two-thirds of 12th-graders scored below "proficient" on the last national civics assessment in 1998, and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation. Yes, young people remain highly patriotic, and many volunteer in their communities. But most are largely disconnected from current events and issues.

A healthy democracy depends on the participation of citizens, and that participation is learned behavior; it doesn't just happen. As the 2003 report "The Civic Mission of Schools" noted: "Individuals do not automatically become free and responsible citizens, but must be educated for citizenship." That means civic learning -- educating students for democracy -- needs to be on par with other academic subjects.

This is not a new idea. Our first public schools saw education for citizenship as a core part of their mission. Eighty years ago, John Dewey said, "Democracy needs to be reborn in every generation and education is its midwife."

But in recent years, civic learning has been pushed aside. Until the 1960s, three courses in civics and government were common in American high schools, and two of them ("civics" and "problems of democracy") explored the role of citizens and encouraged students to discuss current issues. Today those courses are very rare.

What remains is a course on "American government" that usually spends little time on how people can -- and why they should -- participate. The effect of reduced civic learning on civic life is not theoretical. Research shows that the better people understand our history and system of government, the more likely they are to vote and participate in the civic life.

We need more and better classes to impart the knowledge of government, history, law and current events that students need to understand and participate in a democratic republic. And we also know that much effective civic learning takes place beyond the classroom -- in extracurricular activity, service work that is connected to class work, and other ways students experience civic life.

Preserving our democracy should be reason enough to promote civic learning. But there are other benefits. Understanding society and how we relate to each other fosters the attitudes essential for success in college, work and communities; it enhances student learning in other subjects.

Economic and technological competitiveness is essential, and America's economy and technology have flourished because of the rule of law and the "assets" of a free and open society. Democracy has been good for business and for economic well-being. By the same token, failing to hone the civic tools of democracy will have economic consequences.

Bill Gates -- a top business and technology leader -- argues strongly that schools have to prepare students not only for college and career but for citizenship as well.

None of this is to diminish the importance of improving math and science education. This latest push, as well as the earlier emphasis on literacy, deserves support. It should also be the occasion for a broader commitment, and that means restoring education for democracy to its central place in school.

We need more students proficient in math, science and engineering. We also need them to be prepared for their role as citizens. Only then can self-government work. Only then will we not only be more competitive but also remain the beacon of liberty in a tumultuous world.

Sandra Day O'Connor retired as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Roy Romer, a former governor of Colorado, is superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District. They are co-chairs of the national advisory council of the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools.

More here:

http://www.civiced.org/campaign_intro.php

 

[Annie]

Hi All. It's one of the zionist mods, checking in to let 'those concerned' have a bit of a glimpse of what has been eating into my time. I've been in training to ready my classes on a civics program.

In the course of that, I got volunteered to work on the Illinois part of this project Sandra Day O'Conner will be affiliated with:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401621.html



More here:

http://www.civiced.org/campaign_intro.php

Here is a snippet that's related:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_higher_education.html

Note that the writer is referencing mostly ' privileged students'...

...

But they also need an understanding of American civics—particularly the principles of the Constitution. For all their academic achievement, students at Princeton and Yale and Stanford and Harvard and other schools that attract America’s most talented young people rarely come to campus with a sound grasp of the philosophy of America’s constitutional government. How did the Founding Fathers seek, via the institutions that the Constitution created, to build and maintain a regime of ordered liberty? Even some of our best-informed students think something along these lines: the Framers set down a list of basic freedoms in a Bill of Rights, which an independent judiciary, protected from the vicissitudes of politics, would then enforce.

It’s the rare student indeed who enters the classroom already aware that the Framers believed that the true bulwark of liberty was limited government. Few students comprehend the crucial distinction between (on the one hand) the national government as one of delegated and enumerated powers, and (on the other) the states as governments of general jurisdiction, exercising police powers to protect public health, safety, and morals, and to advance the general welfare. If anything, they imagine that it’s the other way around. Thus they have no comprehension as to why leading supporters of the Constitution objected to a Bill of Rights, worried that it could compromise the delegated-powers doctrine and thus undermine the true liberty-securing principle of limited government.

Good students these days have heard of federalism, yet they have little appreciation of how it works or why the Founders thought it so vital. They’ve heard of the separation of powers and often can sketch how the system of checks and balances should work. But if one asks, for example, “Who checks the courts?” they cannot give a satisfactory answer.

The students’ lack of awareness flows partly from the conception of the American civic order that they have drunk in, which treats courts as if they aren’t really part of the government. Judges, on this view, are “non-political” actors whose job is to keep politicians in line with what elite circles regard as enlightened opinions. Judicial supremacy, of the kind that Jefferson and Lincoln stingingly condemned, thus winds up uncritically assumed to be sound constitutional law. The idea that the courts themselves could violate the Constitution by, for example, usurping authority that the Constitution vests in other branches of government, is off the radar screen.

Lacking basic knowledge of the American Founders’ political philosophy and of the principles that they enshrined in the Constitution, students often fall prey to the notion that ours is a “Living Constitution,” whose actual words matter little. On the Living Constitution theory, judges—especially Supreme Court justices—serve as members of a kind of standing constitutional convention whose role is to invalidate legislation that progressive circles regard as antiquated or retrograde, all in the name of adapting the Constitution to keep up with the times.

It doesn’t take much to expose the absurdity of this theory. The purpose of enshrining principles in a constitution is to ensure that the nation’s fundamental values remain honored even if they fall out of fashion. As for adapting the nation’s laws to keep up with the times, legislators can—and should—take care of that task. The proper role of courts when they exercise the power of judicial review is essentially a conserving (you could even say “conservative”) one. It is not to change anything but rather to place limits on what one can change.

Does this mean that our Constitution is “dead”? No: the Constitution’s principles are “living” in the sense that they can apply validly even to matters that the Founders themselves could not have anticipated. The original understanding of Fourth Amendment principles governing searches and seizures, for example, can reliably extend to cover today’s controversies about computer files, cyber-storage, and electronic surveillance. So to reject, as we should, the Living Constitution and its anticonstitutional doctrine of virtually unlimited judicial power is by no means to treat our Constitution as a dead letter. Rather, it is to treat the Constitution as law—supreme law—binding on, and limiting the power of, every branch of government and agency of the state, including the courts.

What is the source of this educational breakdown? The trouble isn’t the students—they’re bright and eager to learn. It’s that too few teachers are presenting students with the Founders’ philosophy, much less introducing them to the great issues, some still with us today, that divided the Founders.

And if teachers aren’t teaching the Founding’s principles, where will students learn them? They’re not likely to get any sense of the distinction between the delegated powers of the national government and the general jurisdiction of the states from any newspapers, national magazines, or television news networks, that’s for sure. Have the editors of the New York Times and the folks at CBS News even heard of that distinction yet? News travels slowly, true; but it shouldn’t take 218 years.

The solution to this educational breakdown is straightforward: we need to make a commitment at every level of schooling and within the public media to promote a deep awareness of the principles of the American Founding. Why educate students into archaism? some will doubtless object. Surely governing principles set forth in the eighteenth century have little relevance to us in the twenty-first. But American ideals, as embodied preeminently in the Declaration of Independence, are universal and timeless. They have force wherever there are human beings, fallible (indeed, as the Founders recognized, fallen) creatures, yet images of God in their possession of reason and freedom—beings, as the Declaration says, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”...

 

[Nienna]

We need more and better classes to impart the knowledge of government, history, law and current events that students need to understand and participate in a democratic republic. And we also know that much effective civic learning takes place beyond the classroom -- in extracurricular activity, service work that is connected to class work, and other ways students experience civic life.

Preserving our democracy should be reason enough to promote civic learning.

Not accusing YOU, Kathianne, but I think part of the problem is WHICH VERSION of history & current events is being imparted to the kids.

 

[Annie]

Not accusing YOU, Kathianne, but I think part of the problem is WHICH VERSION of history & current events is being imparted to the kids.

Actually, in this case we are speaking of basic civics. Sad to say that this is unusal today. This program however is first rate and has been funded by an act of Congress. It's important and if you have children that are in school; public, private or homeschooled; you should be fighting for the inclusion of these classes. Your school can get one set minimum at each level free (30 copies + teacher's edition); training and support for staff. If you homeschool, you may also qualify.

From Middle School/High School, (lower elementary (5 units) omits federalist/anti-federalist arguments, though good readers in 4th or 5th grade could use middle school text):

Unit 1. What is government? State of nature; republicanism; constitutional goverment Btw, 'constitutional government' is defined as the establishment of a government limited in powers, committed to the rule of law.

Unit 2. What experiences shaped the Founders' thinking about goverment? government philosophies from Greece to Rome to England and France; The colonial experience; French and Indian War; Magna Carta through Virginia Constitition; civic virtue

Unit 3. What happened at the Philadelphia Convention? Articles of Confederation and their impact on the Revolutionary War; Who attended and their backgrounds; their shared ideas of government; their differences articulated by Federalist/Anti-Federalist publications; Which branch could they trust most? Least? How is that evidenced?

Unit 4. How was the Constitution used to establish our government? Federalism; ratification; political parties; judicial review including 'Has the Supreme Court personified the fears of the Anti-Fedalists? (there is no 'answer' just questions and case law to look at).

Unit 5. How does the Constitution Protect our basic rights? Bill of Rights; the ongoing extension of francise; Equal protection; due process

Unit 6. What are the responsibilites of citizens? civic virtue; your ideas count, you legislators will respond to you; how to weigh issues; voting

There is no stretching to find diversity examples. There is no mention of the Native Americans, other than their helpfulness early on. (Trust me, it's not that the profs writing this are unaware of the Trail of Tears, rather they are not being diverted by pc at this point in time. Several have written texts on such blights on American experience, but the discussion of Constitution is not the time for that. Try telling that to Prentice-Hall and other major publishers).

The 3/5ths clause is dealt with as a clause, nothing more or less. There are questions asked that will lead the 'brighter' kids to get the connection of while ignored, the seeds of 1860 were sown here and before. Since it is dealt with in the discussion of 'compromise for ratification' the students are given a hard choice the Framer's faced. More than that, it's acknowledge not to be a compromise, as even this early trying to strike a compromise would have led to failure of ratification.

Nearly all USMB members are well versed in all of these topics. Perhaps you would be shocked that it's unusual now for kids to be taught these things? It is. It was testing done in 1998, that measured how 10th-11th grade students taught civics, in an unadulturated format knew more than college freshmen and sophomores at highly selective universities, had a better understanding of rights and responsibilities:

http://www.civiced.org/research_validation.html

An Evaluation of the Instructional Effects of the National Bicentennial Competition on the Constitution and Bill of Rights [#150]

What I find exciting about this, which I teach before the Constitution, is that the kids have a chance to develop an appreciation for the contributions and heroics of people like Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Cincinnatus, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, etc.

It doesn't bash or provide cherry tree stories. It tells their stories, through deeds and writings. Powerful stuff.