Shaping the future of America. Education, civics classes & parenting.
(About a 2+ minute read)
“. . . of the people, by the people, for the people . . .”
First, as a passing thought, should the conversation with 17 & 18-year-olds begin ‘now’, especially for those that will be eligible to vote, through schools and/or parents, for the upcoming 2024 election? Is there a teaching opportunity ‘now’ with the campaigning process with the candidates just beginning to unfold?
*****
An element of Democracy is civic engagement through voting. Some say voting is an act of ‘Freedom of Expression’ as well as ‘Freedom of Speech’ guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Others disagree. In the previous sentence, there are four elements key to our nation:
** Democracy
** The Constitution
** First Amendment
** Freedom of expression
** Freedom of speech
Yet, does our youth today know about those after completing K - 12? Should they know that? Do we as citizens have a responsibility to ensure our youth are informed and encouraged to be responsible citizens and vote?
To achieve that education is key, right? So, what is happening in our nation and states to achieve that goal?
From School Library Journal, Feb. 3, 2020, through a report by The Center of American Progress they share:
** Twenty-six states met all five established curriculum requirements.
** Thirty states require at least a semester of standalone civics courses; eight states and Washington, DC, require a full-year course. Hawaii requires 1.5 credits. The 11 states that have no civics requirements are Alaska, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
** Less than half (40 percent) of states require students to take a civics exam as a graduation requirement. Indiana and Nevada added this requirement in 2018. Kentucky includes the requirement but does not mandate a civics course. It is the only state that requires the exam without requiring a class on the subject.
** Two out of three states address media literacy in their civics curriculum.
** Only Washington, DC, and Maryland require community service for students to graduate. Twenty-three states give academic credit for community service.
What are the five areas they looked at? They are:
** Explanation or comparison of democracy
** The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
** Public participation
** Information on state and local voting rules
**Media literacy and the role and influence of media.
A Look at Civics Education, State by State by School Library Journal.[/u] Feb 3, 2020)
https://www.slj.com/story/a-look-at-civ … e-by-state
If a person does not know their state policy take a peek at the following link. There is an interactive map there presented by CivXnow verified through 2023. Click on your state and a short summary is provided.
https://civxnow.org/our-work/state-policy/
Do you think civic classes will lead to responsible voters? I do.
Are you happy with your state’s education policy for civic classes? For me, here in Calif., Yes and no. No assessment is required.
Are you concerned about what other states are doing for civic classes? Yes, I am.
Do you think politics influence a state’s civic class policy? Yes, I do.
Was a civics class required when you attended school? Not for me, however, that was 1969 – 1972 for high school in Calif.
What influenced/inspired you to become a voter? For me, the Boy Scouts & Church.In reading and pondering over your intro to this forum, I’m quite intrigued to learn how school education in America compares to the UK, in respect to the subject areas covered, including civics.
Part of the national curriculum in Britain includes ‘citizenship’, which sounds similar to your ‘civics’; in Britain ‘citizenship’ is a mandatory (Compulsory) subject for all school children from the age of 11 to 16; although individual schools can if they wish, optionally choose to teach ‘citizenships’ to children at any age from the age of 5.
The Citizenship programmes of study for school children in Britain (as stated on the Government’s website):
“Purpose of study: A high-quality citizenship education helps to provide pupils with knowledge, skills and understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in society. In particular, citizenship education should foster pupils’ keen awareness and understanding of democracy, government and how laws are made and upheld. Teaching should equip pupils with the skills and knowledge to explore political and social issues critically, to weigh evidence, debate and make reasoned arguments. It should also prepare pupils to take their place in society as responsible citizens, manage their money well and make sound financial decisions.”
In Britain, the national curriculum for school children from the age of 5 to 11 is as follows:-
Compulsory Education:-
• English
• maths
• science
• design and technology
• history
• geography
• art and design
• music
• physical education, including swimming
• computing
• ancient and modern foreign languages from the age of 7
• relationships and health education
• religious education - unless the parents request otherwise.
At this age (from 5 to 11) schools can optionally also teach, if they so wish:
• personal, social and health education
• citizenship
• modern foreign languages (from the age of 5)
• sex education - unless the parents request otherwise.
In Britain, the national curriculum for school children from the age of 11 to 16 is as follows:-
Compulsory Education:-
• English
• maths
• science
• history
• geography
• modern foreign languages
• design and technology
• art and design
• music
• physical education
• citizenship
• computing
• relationships, sex and health education - unless the parents request otherwise
• religious education - unless the parents request otherwise
I’d be interested in how the school national curriculum in Britain (listed above) compares to American school education.
Also, another area of education of school children in Britain, that seems relevant to this forum, is the UK’s Youth Parliament. The UK Youth Parliament was founded by the British Youth Council in 1998. The British Youth Council is a UK charity (partly funded by the Government) that works to empower young people and promote their interests. The national charity, run by young people, exists to represent the views of young people to government and decision-makers at a local and national level.
Each year 369 school children between the ages of 11 and 18, across the whole of the UK, are elected by their fellow school children of the same age group.
And since 2009 the UK Youth Parliament sit in the House of Commons 1 day a year to debate and vote on their policies: Below is a short extract from one of those debates: https://youtu.be/rqYdnF8EIpIFirst, are Britain and the UK the same?
It is apparent Britain takes educating the youth on civics with its responsibilities more seriously in the context of Britain. Here, at this time it is a state-by-state issue as the OP shares.
That leads to state rights regarding the Constitution. States rights is taken very seriously. There is federal legislation for the education system, but none with the curriculum. If interested the link next shares what major legislation is in effect. A short read.
https://www.newamerica.org/education-po … gislation/
Within the OP is a link leading to an interactive map of the states. When selecting a state what the states do regarding civic classes is seen with a popup.
I like the idea of youth participation in the Parliament. Yet, it would have to be at the state level. I don't see it happening with Congress other than as a visitor perhaps as a class.No, Britain and the UK are not the same:-
• Britain is Scotland, Wales and England.
• UK (United Kingdom) is Britain plus Northern Ireland.
Brits (myself included) far too often incorrectly substitute one for the other e.g. saying Britain when we mean UK and vice versa.
The nearest we have in the UK to ‘State’s Rights’ to make Legislation, as opposed to national (Federal Law) is the fact that the UK is four separate countries held together by international treaties e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own national governments that have limited powers to pass their own laws – So in reality laws do differ between the four nations of the UK:-
For a couple of examples:
• The voting age in Scotland and Wales is 16, while in England and Northern Ireland it is still 18.
• University Education in Scotland is free for any Scottish, UK and EU citizen; except the English, who have to pay university fees in Scotland. While, in the rest of the UK all students have to pay university fees.
Each Celtic nation being able to pass their own laws does sometimes does cause friction between the UK Government and the Celtic Governments; for examples:-
1. Last year the Scottish Government passed a law allowing transgenders to obtain a certificate giving them legal status as a transgender without the need for any confirmation from the medical profession. The UK Government objected, and managed to get the Scottish Law quashed in the Courts.
2. The ‘Power Sharing’ Government in Northern Ireland hasn't sat since 2017 because the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party)(hard-right-wing) having been sulking over various matters. Under the Northern Ireland 1998 Peace Treaty the Northern Ireland Government can only sit as a ‘power sharing’ government, with the DUP (hard-right) and Sinn Féin (hard left) agreeing to sit together to share power.
When they don’t sit, under the Peace Treaty, the UK Government has the legal right to intercede and pass laws in Northern Ireland, but because of the delicate situation in Northern Ireland the UK Government has taken a softly, softly (hands off) approach: Which means that for the past six years the people in Northern Ireland have had no effective Government.
However, in 2019, as attempt to galvanise the DUP into sitting again, Boris Johnson made a threat that if they didn’t sit by the end of that year, that he would pass a law allowing same sex marriage in Northern Ireland e.g. with the DUP being a far-right-wing highly religious political party that are very anti LGBT Boris Johnson thought that that threat would be incentive enough to get DUP motivated into resuming the Northern Ireland Government, as a way of blocking any pro-LGBT laws:-
But the DUP called his bluff and lost e.g. Boris Johnson carried out his threat, and introduced same sex marriage as law in Northern Ireland.
3. This week the Welsh Government passed a new law lowering the default maximum speed on urban town and city roads across the whole of Wales to just 20mph; the national maximum by default in the rest of the UK is 30mph, although local governments have the power to reduce it to 20mph on specific roads if they so wish (but not as a blanket maximum speed on all roads in their area).
The UK Government has raised objection to this Welsh law, and is currently considering introducing new UK Legislation that would prevent any of the Celtic nations from reducing the national maximum speed limit within their realm to below the UK national speed limit.
As you are probably aware, the Scottish Government, and the Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, both want to leave the UK and join the EU.I was not aware of Northern Ireland or Scotland desiring to leave the UK. Thanks! Yes, I considered that there were other countries involved, yet unsure how.
States' rights arrived in our Constitution with the Tenth Amendment ratified in the year 1791. The Constitution itself was ratified in 1788. The 10th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. What the 10th Amendment says is:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am no expert on the Constitution nor will be.
For some background on the 10th Amendment if interested see the next link.
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 10 – “Rights to the States or to the People” found at the Ronald Reagan (40th sitting president 1981 - 1989) Library website. It is a short read.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitut … -or-peopleO yeah; both Scotland, and the Catholics in Northern Ireland, wants to leave the UK:-
I’ll start with Scotland first, as that is perhaps the simplest.
During the Roman’s occupation of England for 4 centuries (from 43 AD to 410 AD) they could never conquer Scotland; and to protect the border between England and Scotland in 122 AD the Romans built a heavily defended wall right across the border – called Hadrian's Wall.
From 596 AD to 1651 there have been a total of 10 major wars between England and Scotland, as follows:-
• 4 Battles between Northern England and Scotland between 596 AD & 685 AD.
• 7 Battles between England and Scotland between 937 AD & 1174.
• 1st War of Scottish Independence from 1296 to 1327.
• 2nd War of Scottish Independence from 1332 to 1356.
• Border Wars from 1372 to 1448.
• Anglo-Scottish Wars from 1460 to 1542.
• Rough Wooing Wars (part of the Anglo-Scottish Wars) from 1544 to 1549.
• Scottish Reformation War with France (this time the English fought with the Scots against France).
• Border skirmishes in 1575
• Wars of the Three Kingdoms from 1640 to 1651.
It was the ‘Wars of the Three Kingdoms’ that eventually led to the signing of the Peace Treaties that formed the UK.
The Peace Treaty, whereby Scotland became part of the English Empire, was signed in 1707.
The Peace Treaty, whereby Ireland became part of the English Empire, was signed in 1801.
Scotland held a referendum for Independence in 2014; at the time the UK Government gave the Scottish people absolute assurance that the UK would remain in the EU – and the Scottish people voted by a two thirds majority to stay within the UK.
However, the UK left the EU just a few years later, which has peeved a lot of Scottish people, because the vast majority of Scottish people voted to remain in the EU. Therefore they Scottish Government is pressing for another Referendum of Independence on the bases that the English Government lied to the Scottish people over remaining in the EU. To date the English Government has denied the Scottish Government the right to hold another Referendum on Independence so soon: Although it is only a matter of time.
As regards Ireland:
England first invaded and occupied Ireland in the 12th century; by the 16th century England, which was by then a Protestant country, imposed a strict rule over the Irish (Catholic) e.g. Catholics were not allowed to own their own land or property, and were forced to grow food for England.
Needless to say, as a result of the English suppression of the Irish, from 1534 to the 1923 there’s been around 15 wars, uprisings and rebellions against the English; the last one being ‘Irish War of Independence’ in the 1920s, when Ireland finally won its independence from England, to become The Republic of Ireland.
As part of the peace treaty, whereby Ireland gained its independence from England (to become the Republic of Ireland), Northern Ireland remained under English control on the bases that there were more Protestant (English) living in Northern Ireland than Catholics (Irish).
In Northern Ireland, the main political party that represents the Protestants (who are very patriotic to England) is the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party), a hard-right-wing and very religious political party who wants Northern Ireland to remain in the UK.
In Northern Ireland, the main political party that represents the Catholics (who are very anti-English, and who wants the reunification of Ireland) is Sinn Fein, a hard-left-wing political party who wants Northern Ireland to leave the UK.
As you may remember Northern Ireland was in civil war (known as the ‘Troubles’) from 1968 to 1998 as the IRA tried to fight for Northern Ireland to leave the UK and be reunited with the Republic of Ireland.
Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, and DUP is the political wing of the terrorists (freedom fighters) who fought against the IRA.
As part of the Peace Treaty signed in 1998, Sinn Fein and DUP are obliged to power share in Government; and to appease Sinn Fein, in the Peace Treaty is a clause of ‘self-determination’ (the will of the people) e.g. if the people of Northern Ireland vote in a referendum to leave the UK and become part of the Republic of Ireland, then that is what would happen.
Politically, in the power sharing government in Northern Ireland, the DUP have managed to block any attempt by Sinn Fein to hold a referendum; but with the Catholic population now slowly becoming the majority in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein is slowing inching towards a point whereby they may be able to push such a referendum through the power sharing parliament – so it may only be a matter of time!Thanks for the link about ‘Amendment 10’; after reading it I took a coffee break to let it sink in – not that I am any the wiser consciously, but subconsciously I think I’ve absorbed something. One thing I noted (which is obvious and common sense) is that like with interpretation of the British Constitution, the Courts play a major role in ruling on the American Constitution when any aspect of it is in dispute.
Likewise – I’m also not expert on the Constitution in my country (the British Constitution), and I don’t think anybody is really, as unlike the American Constitution the British Constitution is unwritten – which makes it more difficult to understand. The big difference in having an unwritten Constitution is that it’s not set in stone, and can evolve with the times; although ultimately it’s the Courts who rules on its interpretation.
As you are probably aware, the British Constitution, based on traditions, common practices and convention, has its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215:-
What is Magna Carta? https://youtu.be/7xo4tUMdAMwYup, the Constitution, is somewhat of a complex document, especially with the amendments particularly the first 10 - The Bill of Rights. I am fascinated with it, however, it is in one of my folders on my PC on the back burner.
As said, I am no expert. To keep it simple for me, the main body is about the establishment of our government and its function. It delineates the Federal government from the States. It is seven articles. The seven articles do:
Articles:
** Article I – Outlines the Legislative Branch
** Article II – Outlines the Executive Branch
** Article III – Outlines the Judicial Branch
** Article IV – Defines the rules for and relationship between the states
** States the rules and procedures for amending the Constitution
** Article VI – Declares that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land
** Article VII – Outlines the process for ratifying, or approving, the Constitution
Then comes along the Amendments. The first 10 Amendments spell out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual.
The rest of the Amendments to me dance from one thing to another. However, within them are definitions of what a voter is or pertaining to it. Consider, that nowhere within it does it state there is a right to vote.
** The 15th Amendment gave African-American men the right to vote in 1870
** The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
** The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes.
Then in the Constitution's articles are the dynamics of voting regarding the powers of the Federal government and those of the States.
I have a strong interest in the dynamics of voting. Some of my forum posts as OPs were on voting.
What intrigues me maybe the most is the Preamble. That is:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That has led me on an on-again/off-again project particular to; " . . . Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .". The key word is Liberty. After all, the main point of the Revolution was Liberty as I see it.
I am also interested in its history for when it was written. Things like how England's thinkers and law such as the Magna Carte influencing it intrigue me. Alas, it also shares with me my ignorance thus place my faith in the Judicial system to interpret it correctly.Yes, ignorance is the worst.
It will lead to the fall.
If teachers do not impart knowledge based on truth and history, we are doomed.
If the teachers in America fail to educate their students regarding the knowledge, history and truth of The of Constitution the United States, in light of the founding fathers' intent and design, on what does the citizenry base it's lives, thoughts and actions?
Teachers are so key.
Yet teachers are the most diminished and disrespected.
The current rate of burn-out of teachers tells us something.
I'm not sure what.
Either are they.You could get a copy of the Federalist Papers. This book holds the combination of writings by Madison, Jay and Hamilton, which were published in New York newspapers to explain, inform and convince the people of the benefit, practicality and importance of The Constitution.
The founders knew that the aspect of freedom and liberty is very vital in considering the state of human affairs. Only liberty gives us the joy to live, prosper and progress in material, psychological and spiritual ways. Yet Liberty is the cause of all our troubles. This difficulty is dealt with in the Federalist Papers. The writings are not easy to understand unless one has specific questions in mind and the passages are read more than once.
PS The the Magna Carte and its history are important to read and know (study) in light of all things civic and social.Thanks for your comprehensive response; I’ve been pondering over them in my coffee breaks over the last couple of days.
A couple of points that stick out are:-
1. Your “interest in the dynamics of voting”, and
2. The “elimination of poll taxes” in the USA in 1964.
In Britain, true democracy only began with the “Great Reform Act” passed in 1832 by the Whigs (the forerunner to the Liberals (Democrats)); although it only went as far as giving the vote to middle class men – it wasn't until 1918 that the working class men (and some women) were given the vote – all women didn’t get the vote in Britain until 1928.
Prior to 1832 only the wealthy had the vote and a small, but significant, number of constituencies (seats) were known as ‘Rotten Boroughs’ e.g. at a time when voting was not a secret ballot, and where seats controlled by wealthy land owners who could evict voters from their land if those voters didn’t vote for him.
Rotten Boroughs were explained in a couple of ‘Black Adder’ episodes – see below:
A Rotten Candidate for a Rotten Borough: https://youtu.be/Tkb9SIe4WWo
In 1831 - the previous year to the “Great Reform Act” being passed in 1832, the Government tried to push the Great Reform Act through Parliament, but the House of Lords blocked it – and in protest of the House of Lords preventing the abolition of the Rotten Boroughs, Bristolians caused a riot in Bristol where 4 rioters were killed and 86 wounded e.g. Bristol was a more democratic constituency seat, and Bristolians strongly objected to the practice of Rotten Boroughs elsewhere in the country.
POLL TAX
I wasn’t aware you had the poll tax in America; when was the poll tax introduced in America, and was there any great public opposition to it?
In Britain Governments have made two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the poll tax:-
1. The first attempt by King Richard II in 1381 led to ‘The Peasants’ Revolt’ and the subsequent withdrawal of the poll tax, and
2. The second attempt in 1990 by Margaret Thatcher, which led to the poll tax demonstrations and riots across Britain, and civil disobedience whereby 30% of the British population refused to pay the poll tax:
The sheer size and strength of the public revolt against the poll tax led to Margaret Thatcher resigning as Prime Minister and the poll tax being scrapped in 1992.
1990: Chaos, Carnage & Bloodshed in Poll Tax Riots https://youtu.be/I4QQN2aqeKAThanks for the info! As shared poll taxes is to disenfranchise voters. Historically, here, it was used to prevent blacks from voting during the 1890's mainly in the Southern States.
Poll taxes, today, are unconstitutional. Ratified January 23, 1964 by Congress is the 24th Amendment. Here we see Amendments again referring back to another conversation. The 24th Amendment states;
Section one:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Section two:
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
From the Ronald Reagan Library are two long paragraphs about the history of Poll Taxes, though not a long read.
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 24 – “Elimination of Poll Taxes”
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitut … elections.Thanks for the clarification on the poll tax in America; one quote from your link that makes the American poll tax distinctly different to the poll taxes in Britain is:-
“One of the many discriminatory methods was the poll tax, which required voters to pay a fee in order to enter the polling places to cast their ballots.”
In Britain there was no link whatsoever between the poll tax and voting e.g. every adult in Britain had to pay the poll tax regardless to whether they voted or not.
What made the poll taxes in Britain so unpopular in 1381 and in 1990 is that they were both flat rate taxes that every adult had to pay regardless to their wealth or lack of it e.g. even if you had no income you were still obliged to pay the poll tax: Flat rate, being that everyone paid the same amount, which put a heavier tax burden on those who could least afford it.
With 30% of the adult population refusing to pay the poll tax in 1990-92, as you can imagine, the courts were clogged up for years as the local authorities tried to get the taxes owed by going through the courts, each case having to be dealt with individually. In the end about 4 million cases were dropped because of the time limitation e.g. the six years limit under British law.
Great subject! This is a subject that I think is important. A middle ground we all can share our thoughts on.
Message
"Do you think civic classes will lead to responsible voters? "
Yes, in my view, civic classes can lead to responsible voters. Civic classes typically provide students with a foundational understanding of government structures, political processes, and their civic responsibilities. This knowledge can work to empower individuals to make informed decisions when participating in elections and engaging in civic activities, which contributes to responsible voting.
"Are you happy with your state’s education policy for civic classes?" Yes
"Are you concerned about what other states are doing for civic classes?" Yes, I am. -- Civic education plays a vital role in shaping informed and engaged citizens who understand their rights, responsibilities, and the workings of their government. Without proper civic education, individuals may be less prepared to participate in the democratic process, make informed decisions, and hold their elected officials accountable.
"Do you think politics influence a state’s civic class policy? "Yes, I do. One of the primary concerns with a civic class becoming political is the risk of bias and partisanship. If the curriculum is influenced by a particular political ideology or party, it can lead to an imbalance of information. This can result in students being indoctrinated rather than educated, which undermines the purpose of civic education
"Was a civics class required when you attended school? " Yes
"What influenced/inspired you to become a voter?" My common sense inspired me.
I became a voter because I realized that my voice, no matter how small it may seem, has the power to shape the future of my community and my country. I am also inspired by the potential for positive change that voting represents. Each election is an opportunity to elect leaders who can address the challenges facing our society. Ultimately, my inspiration to become a voter comes from the belief that every vote matters and that together a majority can have a say, and we can build a better future for ourselves and generations to come.Thanks for contributing! Seems we are in agreement on many of the questions I asked at the end of the OP. As I read your reply my mind, as curious as it is, wondered if anyone has done a study on voter participation for the youth contrasting states with civic classes as opposed without. I will explore later.
From what I presented I was surprised that the states requiring civic classes were close to even at 30 states requiring one. I was disappointed with how many states require a test being 40%. I say that as to become a naturalized citizen with all the rights that come with that are not only required to take a civics exam, yet a basic English literacy test. Once citizenship is granted to them then they can vote.
However, I am not proposing placing a requirement upon native born Americans to pass a civics test to have the privilege to vote. I have pondered on and off the fact that the Constitution does not bless us with the right to vote. Though positions may differ with that topic. In essence, as I see it, it does define who/what a voter is, doesn't it? And, then I ponder does the right to vote actually exist in the context of becoming a naturalized citizen?
A perspective from my life journey is, frankly, I did not understand fully how our government functioned until after the ripe old age of 61. Nor, the game of politics. I knew the bare bones basics of governing only. I mean the bare bones basics.
My education came when after a few years of hiatus from HubPages I came back to write again while at the same time began following forum topics mainly reading seeking to learn. I did, too. Inspired by OPs and the discussions I have gone on a few adventures to learn. I am thankful to forum contributors especially in this forum topic area - politics and social issues.I did a bit of research in regard to your thoughts on how civic education might affect one's propensity to vote. I have not nailed down comparing state-to-state studies.
https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-researc … nd-engaged
https://www.civiced.org/images/stories/ … n_2011.pdfThanks, Sharlee!! I read the first recommendation while skimming the second. However, I did put that one in my 'To read' folder on my PC.
The first report lends credibility that, yes, teachers' encouragement to vote will lead to students' civic engagement by voting. Even more so with active participation in the process itself through volunteering one way or the other even if just advising a fellow student. Who knows maybe a parent?
That gives me pause with the report I offered sharing some states require community service to pass the class. It would be cool for a student during an election year to serve the community with a Get Out the Vote campaign or volunteer for a candidate
I am still curious about the question if state school districts with mandatory civic classes have greater voting participation. My thought is that very well be what convinces a state that doesn't require a civics class to at least strongly consider it. Perhaps, the authors of the article - the Center For Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) actively campaign for it. I hope they are.This article gives info on a study on whether civic classes result in getting out the young vote.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learnin … ut/2022/11Thanks for the recommended article, Sharlee! Just finishing it it leaves somewhat mixed. Maybe a contrast between my belief and what they provided. The opening paragraphs states:
"Schools can help instill students with long-term habits of civic engagement and voting—but a new study suggests that requiring students to take a civics test may not be the best way to do it."
Later it shares:
"In part, this may be because of ongoing differences in how educators approach civics education. In one recent RAND survey, only 5 percent of public school teachers said they thought civics education should prepare students for future political engagement. (What do they mean by that?) Nearly 70 percent said the main goal of civics education was to foster critical thinking.
“If states hope to improve civic participation among successive generations of citizen leaders, they need to do a lot more (or a lot different) than just mandate a civic test policy aimed at testing civic and political knowledge for high school graduation,” they concluded.
I reflected upon what was presented in the OP:
"Less than half (40 percent) of states require students to take a civics exam as a graduation requirement."
and,
"Thirty states require at least a semester of standalone civics courses;"
It seems there was a focus on testing in the article. I didn't see much in an actual class education other than the first quote above. With that in mind if civic classes are a good teaching tool for critical thinking while being related to civics I see it as a plus. Maybe can the testing?
Seems that what Arthur shared about Britain is they place emphasis on it much more than we do here.
Hence, I have mixed thoughts.
Here in India, we had a History & Civics course from my elementary school stage. It dealt with social & human interactions and responsibilities. Freedom struggles were also included. In the high school stage, Civics was taught for Arts students only and it was optional for other branch students.
As regarding your questions, I am concerned about what they teaching at present to the students.
And, yes politics influence the courses always. A party in power controls the topics to be dealt with in their courses. When the other party acends the throne they can alter the courses according to their perceptions.Thanks! Yup, politics get their fingers in pretty much everything, don't they? aahh! Such is life, right?
I appreciate your concern about what is being taught in school. It is a concern of mine too. I subscribe to several Education organizations for their newsletters to 'try' to stay on top of it. And, I have only been following it in the most recent years. Often I compare/contrast today's education with my own.
For India is it structured at the national level like what Nathanville shared for Britain? As far as that goes is India broken into states/provinces? Here in the U.S., it is at the state level that structures education, so they contrast while may have similarities.
People get involved in politics once they understand that the government will confiscate their honest and hard earned money by offering shiny things in exchange. Once they realize they are being taxed into poverty, destitution and homelessness, they become interested.
The school of hard knocks offers the best education, in the final analysis.In my opinion, eighteen years old should not be allowed to vote, period. They should be 21.
And they should not be drafted either.
(I just heard that "they" are considering reinstating The Draft.)Q. Should the conversation with 17 & 18-year-olds begin ‘now’, especially for those that will be eligible to vote, through schools and/or parents, for the upcoming 2024 election?
A. OF COURSE!!!!!! But it needs to be in the context of family discussions that have taken place throughout the years.
Political conversations need to start in a child's early years. The parents should be discussing politics with each other in the presence of their children from the time the children are in elementary school.
Parents can engage in political conversations with their children according to the questions their children present based on what they have seen on screens or heard from peers and teachers or read in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Mothers and fathers should bring their children to patriotic events and read, watch and discuss, historical movies and documentaries.
Q. Is there a teaching opportunity ‘now’ with the campaigning process with the candidates just beginning to unfold?
A. NO. Its just a reality show of sorts.Q. Do we as citizens have a responsibility to ensure our youth are informed and encouraged to be responsible citizens and vote?"
A. OF COURSE!!!!!
However, schools can no longer be trusted to teach civics without bias.
Parents must do the educating.
Something has gone wrong in the teaching institutions. It used to be that teachers were encouraged to go into teaching for the benefit of the child and the joy of teaching. I had always wanted to be a junior high Art teacher. I graduated in the late 70's with a degree in Art.
Then, after raising children, I enrolled in Credential classes in the 90's. I was told in one credential-prep class, that one should really admit that children are difficult to deal with and that becoming a teacher should be for the sake of an adult career.
Sure enough, as a substitute teacher, as the years rolled by, I noticed that teachers were exhibiting less and less joy of teaching and were becoming more and more tyrannical and punitive.
The Way I Saw ItThanks! I appreciate your strong views about education and teaching, especially having experience as a teacher.
I disagree with the voting age. Enough said.
Don't you think the socialization of children through parents, family, extended family, social circles related to family, and community already impacts the forming of belief systems for the child? Aren't those inclusive of the parents' personal ideology regarding politics/governing?
Children/teens listen, don't they? Those old enough that watch the news most likely with a parent probably get the idea when it is about politics and/or government. At different levels too - local, state, and national. Maybe I got that wrong?
I know I understood the mayor was the leader of the city I lived in. And, knew what the city council was from watching TV, not through my parents or school. As far as that goes I remember electing a class president in elementary school. So, I had a grasp on what a president meant at an early age as I see it.
I know when in my teens my dad expressed his thoughts verbally at times with strong explicative commentary once in a while while watching the news. I got the idea who and what he disliked. That impacts the formation of the child/teen's belief system, doesn't it?
I think a civics class based on the guidelines the OP presented:
** Explanation or comparison of democracy
** The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
** Public participation
** Information on state and local voting rules
**Media literacy and the role and influence of media.
. . . would have given me a big head start.
So, I ask, do you think there is fear of teaching civics in high school or in some cases middle school? Remember from the OP we discovered only 30 states do have civic classes.
I agree with you parents should be having 'real' conversations with teens about politics/governing. Perhaps, that may be encouraged with the civics class with the assignment to do so.
You have me pondering what experience my niece as a sixth-grade teacher will undergo. Will her perhaps idealistic perception of a supposed noble career become polluted through the hum-drums of the teaching life? I mean that in the sense of becoming just routine and the attitude of many being, "I just want to get through the day and go home"."I disagree with the voting age." Why?
"Don't you think the socialization of children through parents, family, extended family, social circles related to family, and community already impacts the forming of belief systems for the child?"
Gleaning from parents is one thing. Being directly included in family discussions is another.
"Aren't those inclusive of the parents' personal ideology regarding politics/governing?"
Not necessarily, especially if the parents do not have opinions or well-informed opinions.
"Children and teens, who are old enough and watch the news, most likely with a parent, probably absorb political ideas."
Offspring often assume the opinions of their peers after they're about 15 and those opinions and beliefs could be totally opposite of their parents. As it happened in our generation and the rebellion of the Vietnam war.
(I also graduated highs school in 1972.)
"Do you think there is fear of teaching civics in high school or in some cases middle school? Remember from the OP we discovered only 30 states do have civic classes."
None were offered in my High School.
What do you suppose could cause the" fear" ???????? Isn't omitting Civics classes in Jr. High and High school, by design... so that the dumbing of America is guaranteed? This is a frightening admission: "Alas, it also shares with me my ignorance thus place my faith in the Judicial system to interpret it correctly."
Conclusion:
Requiring Civics classes, (with real conversations with parents as homework,) ideally, should be required for graduation as they would contribute toward a body of informed citizenry and intelligent voters.
Glad we got that settled.
PS I bet Civics classes were required back in the day.
Today's youth are coalescing around Tik Tok. It is a place that they share ideas, organize, find others who are like-minded and bounce around their ideas in a very creative manner. In the past several years it has come to be quite a politically organizing force also for young people. If you poll the generation z today I'm confident that you would find this social media site to be the one they credit most in terms of the formation of their views. Many would find the fact that the older generation believes teachers have any impact at all on those views. These are very old fashioned ideas in today's tech age. While a civics class maybe great within the curriculum, I still don't think it would have much of an impact and again like I stated they are already receiving such Civic lessons on social media. Have you read about the impact that Taylor Swift is about to have on the 2024 election
"Have you read about the impact that Taylor Swift is about to have on the 2024 election?"
no. What is it?"While a civics class maybe great within the curriculum, I still don't think it would have much of an impact and again like I stated they are already receiving such Civic lessons on social media."
I say maybe yes or maybe no to your statement. I think a civics class would have an impact. And, too, social media does have a great impact. Yet, one would think they would have a compare/contrast to sort out the BS in my mind.
Related Discussions
- 64
How important do you feel it is for school children to learn cursive writing?
by Beth Perry 10 years ago
How important do you feel it is for school children to learn cursive writing?Also known as "long hand" writing, this technique for penmanship has been around for ages. In this age of txting and electronic signatures, some people believe cursive/long hand is archaic and unnecessary. What...
- 461
The Killing of Innocent School Children
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
- 888
Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
by Scott Belford 29 hours ago
Three white men were recently convicted of chasing down and murdering a black man who had the audacity to appear in their neighborhood. A year ago or more they might have gotten away with it.Today there is a report of another white father and son team shooting at a black FedEx driver at least...
- 25
Pre-education for children into school and writers into HubPages?
by Eric Dierker 10 years ago
We are seeing some standardization of HP. It looks to being doing quite well. Even wild crazy eyed rebels like me can standardize our publications to do better. But that is nearly exactly like our pre-school children. They need to be set up to go to school.It seems to me that both HP and...
- 8
Do Today’s School Children Still Bully to Establish the Social Pecking Order? Ha
by ngureco 11 years ago
Do Today’s School Children Still Bully to Establish the Social Pecking Order? Have You...Bothered To Find Out How Your Child Rank In This Social Hierarchy?
- 96
UK decides to leave the EU
by rhamson 7 years ago
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a similar direction. Can the US learn anything from this or are we just terminally...