Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • but be warned, a piece of legislation filed by us lowly folks is usually the first to get shipped off to a study, never to be heard from again.  The General Court could employ every college student in the city just with the pieces of legislation that they pretend to “study” each year.

      <

      p>
      That said, I think if you get a crack team of legislators, and the Governor elect, and his civic engagement committee, and a group of motivated high school students to push it (could we find one in every rep district? at least all 40 senate districts?) then I think it would have some weight going forward.

      <

      p>
      Also to consider, there would have to be some money attached to this bill, otherwise it becomes an unfunded mandate.  I think this is a worthy cause, but our legislators may prefer gazebos.

      • My state rep filed a bill for me.  It was a late file, but it was heard in committee, where I got to testify and others who supported the bill testified as well.  It was voted out of committee unanymously, but then died as the session came to an end.  it will be refiled this year.

        <

        p>
        It is an interesting, but extremely frustrating process. Legislators seemed reluctant to co-sponsor, not because they disagreed with the issue, but, it seemed, because they didn’t want to offend, or worried about how their support of the bill would impact them.  The process is way too slow, much more pomp than circumstance.

        <

        p>
        I am looking forward to the refile and I am hopeful that the memebers of the committee who supported the bill will be willing to sign on to the bill.

        • Congratulations on rolling up your sleeves and doing the dirty legislative work yourself!  Watching sausages get made is never pretty.

          <

          p>
          Every bill must get a hearing, but its a good remindeder that there can be bills filed after the deadline.  I’ve often wondered how many bills are late-file bills, or, how many bills that eventually become law are late-filed.

          <

          p>
          I know services like InstaTrac can get those numbers for you, but my pockets arnt nearly deep enough to be able to afford it.  Does anyone have numbers?

  3. And I will just add that there is a new bill deadline this session — the second Wednesday in January (Jan. 11th), so there’s a bit more time to get any co-sponsors you want before filing.

  4. I can say I support the concept in general, but not in necessarily in the form you suggest.  Much of what you describe above is already covered in the U.S. History II and Grade 12 Elective American Government Curriculum Frameworks.

    <

    p>
    What I think is more useful, from my own experience, is a senior elective that covers problems or challenges (as others have noted) of democracy.  IOW, this is a course in which the students must apply the basics they learned in the frameworks-covered classes.  These electives should be oriented toward special topics, such as governmental roles and responsibilities in American society as well as in international relations.  A survey of contemporary governmental responses to large issues should be incorporated, e.g., Katrina, Darfur, Iraq, 9/11. 

    <

    p>
    I guess what I’m saying is that we should not be reinventing the wheel.  The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks already provides at least one opportunity for the basic civics material to be taught, if not two.  Curriculum built on that foundation through inventive, authentic, and relevant application of material is what’s indicated. 

    • When I went to school in Michigan, we had both.  No wonder there is a lack of engagement if these are missing in Massachusetts.  AmberPaw

      • The American Legion does have a mock legislature for both boys and girls, but its a few kids from every high school.  If every school did it on their own, then you would have something to talk about!

      • They’re not missing in Massachusetts.  Civics is taught as part of U.S. History I and II as well as in the American Government Elective. 

    • That’s why I said “…but not limited to…” in order to allow for the use of existing curriculum tools.

      <

      p>
      What I WOULD like your opinion on is making it mandatory instead of elective.  At first it seems coercive, but I freely admit I would not ave taken Math or Science in high school if I could have graduated without them – but now I use them every day.

      • as a matter of course.  Four years of math and four years of English in combination with the minimum requirements of three years of Social Studies and Science seems enough for me.  I’m not for forcing all students into taking such a class because I don’t think that’s a productive approach.  Sorry. 

        • One of my biases after having attended a private high school. I say require lots of stuff. We had to take 4 years of english and math, 3 1/2 years of social studies, 3 years of science, 3 years of a foreign language, a semester of religion every year, a semester of gym the first two years, a semester of typing freshman year…there were zero electives until Junior year.

          <

          p>
          And, yes, a government and civics course was part of the 3 1/2 years of social studies requirement. That was the senior year course.

        • I don’t understand this idea that anything beyond what you cite is somehow oppressive. Of course, if kids are miserable in school it is all oppressive, but you wouldn’t argue for reading and writing being “optional” would you?

          <

          p>
          It seems to me that if anything should be mandatory, it should be civics, not “social studies.” After all, everyone (should) vote, no? Maximum participation in democracy is the ideal, isn’t it? If the kids have too much work, then maybe something should be taken out so that civics can be fit in.

          <

          p>
          Ironically, when I was in school (Natick) those who were on the college track took history/social studies electives and not civics–that was the course where the non-college-bound were placed.

          • Let’s make reading and writing optional.  Why not?  Why would I be invested in education? 

            <

            p>
            Please, insulting my priorities doesn’t really get us far.  And don’t put words in my mouth.  I never claimed anything ws “oppressive,” a word with real meaning that has little to do with course selection in high school. 

            <

            p>
            They already get civics.  There are plenty of electives out there.  That’s not the problem.  The problem is young people choose, despite the education they are receiving, not to engage.  ENGAGEMENT is the problem to solve, not gutting history curriculum. 

            <

            p>
            ENGAGEMENT is not taught in a classroom. 

            • I don’t see how that is an argument against making civics mandatory; it’s not possible to get everyone engaged in everything, but some minimum exposure is the least we can do. If there are too many mandatory classes at present, then perhaps something else should be removed to make room. I don’t know how things have changed since I was in school, but perhaps one of the American History semesters (I think there were three years of it when I was in school) could make way for civics.

              <

              p>
              Of course, it should not just be a recitation of facts about government–it should include hands on exercises, such as learning how to run a meeting according Robert’s Rules, to practice actual democratic decision-making.

              • Civics is already included in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and is already taught in high schools around the state.  Students already get the basics of civics. 

                <

                p>
                The issue is not that the material isn’t taught, it’s that after the kids get the instruction, it doesn’t resonate and result in future engagement. 

                <

                p>
                We are trying to get them to engage. 

      • I am leaning toward agreeing with you, Peter.  Yesterday, my husband, who is employed by the Commonwealth, was addressing a group of college students about his agency.  After the talk, one student approached him and asked him what war he had fought in.  Surprised, to say the least, my husband said he had not been in the service.  The young woman replied that she knew only Veterans could work for the Commonwealth!!

        <

        p>
        Also, during the election, I was talking with a young person who had  not registered to vote.  I mentioned to her that I was headed to  Worcester for  the Patrick/Murray/Clinton rally and she asked me if Hilary Clinton had been the “first woman President”. 

        <

        p>
        If young people are going to be motivated to participate in their community and their government, they had better know some of the basics.

        • than have taken a civics class, apparently.

          <

          p>
          I didn’t even know civics was an elective, I’m pretty sure most people took it in my school system.  But hey.

            • with spaceships and guns.  Cool!  I was pissed that the woo-hoo song from the commercial wasn’t actually in the movie.

              • Between Kirk and Picard?  I was always a Kirk guy until one day I was watching Lost.  On that show, a character named Boone was trying to explain to a character named Locke what the phrase “red shirt” meant in Star Trek terms, and he said:

                <

                p>
                “Well, on every episode the main guys, Kirk, Spock and McCoy would beam down to a planet accompanied by a random crew member or ensign wearing a red uniform.  And every single time, it would be the guy in the red uniform that would buy it.”

                <

                p>
                To which Locke responds, “Sounds like a piss-poor Captain.”

                <

                p>
                And I thought, “Oh my god, he’s right!”

              • How was that ever explained, anyway.

                <

                p>
                I thought I was a big Trek fan as I watched TNG along with my other geeky roomates.

                <

                p>
                Then, after TNG ended, I tried watching each of the other series  (the original excepted; I enjoy that for camp value alone) and was bored to tears.  After awhile, I realized I was a Patrick Stewart fan more than a TRek fan.

                <

                p>
                All these years later, my wife and I occassionally linger on TNG on TV at night, and I can always recall the entire episode within three lines of dialogue.

                <

                p>
                “Oh crap, it’s a Troi episode.  She inexplicably falls in love with this smarmy jackass who is also secretly telepathic and acts as a hired negotiator…

                <

                p>
                Oh, this is the episode that it you watch, “Darmok at Tanagra” will make sense to you.

                <

                p>
                This is the episode where the’re playing cards and the Enterprise explodes before the credits even roll, and then that happens again 4 more times.

                <

                p>
                Etc.

                • the episode where Picard gets knocked out by a mysterious probe and in his mind relives an entire life on a planet that was destroyed centuries ago.  That one still gets me choked up, mostly because Patrick Stewart is such a freakin’ awesome actor.

                • Pale imitations at best.  TNG really nailed it.  Once they hit their stride at about halfway through the second season, it was years of nonstop success (well, occasional stops, but relatively infrequent).  It was one of the best series ever to hit the small screen, IMHO.

                • I tried, as I really wanted to like those shows.  Unfortunately, I found them to be soporific.

        • blaming high school teachers for the ignorance of those two individuals, are you? 

          <

          p>
          I know we get blamed for a lot, and we might be responsible for some catastrophic blight currently loosed upon the world, but let’s be real.  People are responsible for educating themselves on some issues, like who Hillary Clinton is and who is eligible for state employment. 

          • In the gutter, like we used to lern about sex, until sex education was made mandatory?

            <

            p>
            Don’t you think just as many people are likely to vote as have sex?  Where is the mandatory instruction?

            • Don’t you think just as many people are likely to vote as have sex?

              <

              p>
              In fact, I bet that way more people on this site voted this month than had sex.;P

            • Listed somewhere on some history teacher’s agenda is to make sure every kid knows who Hillary Clinton is? 

              <

              p>
              You’re not making any sense.  I sincerely appreciate your desire to fix the general public’s ignorance about a lot of things, but teachers are not responsible for everything and the kitchen sink.

              <

              p>
              There are a lot more important things for kids to know than who Hillary Clinton is or who qualifies for state employment.  This discussion is veering off into the absurd. 

              <

              p>
              There are many young people who do take the time to read a newspaper during the day.  I provide multiple free copies of two newspapers in my room for my directed studies.  Newspapers are all over the school.  Kids do look at them.  Really, they do.

              <

              p>
              Lastly, your gutter reference is insulting to young people everywhere.  If they don’t learn it in high school, they have to learn it in the “gutter”?  That’s preposterous and noncontributory. 

              <

              p> 

          •   Not at all – quite the opposite.  I think that good teachers can help kids learn about the world around them in a way that relates to their everyday life, as well teaching them about history, math, science, etc. 

            <

            p>
            Of course people are responsible for educating themselves, about many things, but I had some outstanding teachers who sparked my interest in history, politics and literature and encouraged me to continue learning on my own.

            <

            p>
            I can’t imagine how you got the idea from my post that I was blaming teachers!  I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same side when it comes to teachers.

            <

            p>

    • Students should learn the historical reasons for why we have 3 co-equal branches of government.  Students should learn the reasons for why Bill of Rights guarantees us those rights.  And the historical reasons, especially, for the 14th Amendment–because (Southern) States were violating (black) citizens’ Federally-guaranteed rights.

      <

      p>
      It might help them understand why many people see the President and Vice President to be disrespectful of the Constitution and their oaths to preserve it.

      • is certainly the place for what you describe, but making the material live and breathe requires a crosscurricular and interdisciplinary approach.  I, as an English teacher, for example, bring a different point of view to the “history” through seminal literature.  How did the transcendentalists view the role of government?  Religion?  Citizen?  What does Thoreau teach us about civil disobedience?  About the responsibilities of citizenship?  What does Whitman say to us about individual value?  Common identity?  How do the works of these people influence the thinkers of today?  Of who we are as a people?  These ideas inform students attitudes towards the structural government you describe.  As well, these ideas form their attitudes about contemporary issues and events, about elections, social issues, economic issues, and world issues. 

        <

        p>
        So while I agree that the history classroom is intrinsically necessary for “civics” as we’re commonly talking about it, making that instruction come alive involves more stakeholders than seems obvious. 

        <

        p> 

  5. I like the idea of kids knowing civics. 

    <

    p>
    I don’t love the idea, however, of mandating another course.  Competing against nothing, everyone loves civics. 

    <

    p>
    But if you were going to require A SINGLE subject of all grads, would it be:

    <

    p>
    1. Mastery of basic health

    <

    p>
    2. Understanding of any sort of music produced earlier than, say, 1990

    <

    p>
    3. Basic personal finance knowledge before the credit card companies and mortgage brokers “teach them”

    <

    p>
    4. Media literacy — the notion that the first Google hit might not actually be a legit source, or that the Globe is owned by a company that is supposed to make a profit (though it fails!), or even, PP, the theory of liberal media bias! 

    <

    p>
    5. Geography.  Two thirds of kids can’t find Iran, Iraq, Israel on a map. 

    <

    p>
    6.

    <

    p>
    PP, civics class is a worthy proposition, I’d expect you to know the right place to advocate – your local school. 

    • Especially, location of state rep. districts!  (see the Timmy picks Jimmy thread)

      <

      p>
      But, seriously, Peter’s post is food for thought.  How is this an UNfunded mandate?  Students are at school (compulsory education) and the taxpayers are supporting their education whether it is cooking or civics?

      • Any new course is either a substitution (instead of X, we will now teach Y) or an add-on. 

        <

        p>
        If add-on, a teacher must be paid to teach it, no?  I.e., in a high school with a senior class of 300, you’d have 12 sections of 25 kids taking “12th grade Civics starring Peter P.” 

        <

        p>
        In most schools, that’s 3 full-time teachers. 

        <

        p>
        If substitution, then something now offered must be cut to free up those teachers.  Either you could nix, say, “World History,” or lower the math requirements from 4 years to 3 years, or trim the electives, or whatever. 

    • You can work media literacy into civics to an extent, at least do a short section on it…

      <

      p>
      and the rest of those are things people are bound to figure out in their normal lives, either the easy way or the hard way.  However, after school there’s no incentive to learn the difference between the branches of gov’t.

    • The death knell of newspapers is often exaggerated.

      <

      p>
      Papers have taken a beating in the stock market because they no longer generate the profit margins they once used to.

      <

      p>
      Newspapers used to generate profit margins above 30%, and thus made incredible investments. Today, the profit margins at papers like the Globe are a mere 17%. Lower than before, yes, but certainly not money losing enterprises.

      <

      p>
      Don’t be fooled – the Globe isn’t a big pot of bleeding red ink!

    • Indeed, I would blow up the whole them-based, skip around social studies and replace it with history, georgraphy, physics, etc.

  6. I’m leaving this discussion as school starts early, but I want to make sure people are not being mislead by this diary or discussion. 

    <

    p>
    Please update your diary to indicate that civics IS taught in Massachusetts public high schools as it seems to me that people are coming away from your proposal thinking there’s a giant hole to fill in the curriculum when there isn’t.

    <

    p>

    • …and it is taught in some places.  It CAN be taught anywhere.

      <

      p>
      Your exposition on the Transcendentalists shows that you GET it.  You are, however, the exception in most school systems.

      <

      p>
      My preference is to eliminate an elective semester – not a full year, just a semester.  As you hae pointed out, there are tools to hand – let’s be certain they are utilized.

  7. I dislike unfunded state mandates so I’d try a different route, something like asking for $5 million for a pilot program for 100 teachers to teach and/or coordinate civics/community service.  Part of the course includes trip to the state house to meet state rep and state senator, testify at legislative hearing, attend school committee meeting, make a comment at public comment section of meeting, plus some other form of community service. 

    <

    p>
    This type of approach taps into several of Deval’s themes — encouraging civic involvement, teaching the whole child, and adding teachers to school systems to help with class size issues.  It also provides incentives for legislators who get to meet, guide and try to impress children of voters (or soon-to-be voters).  It also can generate positive PR through the community service which may create support for a larger program.

  8. You can petition your local school board to offer any class you choose:

    <

    p>

    CHAPTER 71. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

    Chapter 71: Section 13. Requested courses; school committee approval

    Section 13. In every public school having not less than one hundred and fifty pupils, any course not included in the regular curriculum shall be taught if the parents or guardians of not less than thirty pupils or of a number of pupils equivalent to five per cent of the pupil enrollment in the high school, whichever is less, request in writing the teaching thereof; provided that said request is made and said enrollment is completed before the preceding August first; provided, further, a qualified teacher is available to teach the course; and provided, further, that the approval and implementation of said course is voted by two-thirds or more of the full membership of the school committee. The teaching of any course as provided by this section may be discontinued if the enrollment of pupils falls below fifteen. Such courses as may be taught under this section shall be given the same academic credit necessary for a high school diploma as is given to similar courses taught in said public high school, provided that the school committee shall make a determination as to the credit equivalency of such course prior to its being offered.

    • But how many DO?  As more then a unit?  Or essay contest?

      <

      p>
      Throughout the Civic Engagement thread, the one idea that EVERYBODY seemed excited about was the reintroduction of civics.  One person wanted to let 16 year olds vote – based on WHAT?  They can’t sign contracts, drive, pay taxes – but they can select leaders?  Based upon what criteria, other than popularity, the celebritization I referred to?

      <

      p>
      Iris – think of all the things we HAVE chosen to require.  And ask yourself – how many of them will be used by each and every student the way a knowledge of government can be?

      <

      p>
      Dweir – if it isn’t a requirement, how can we guarantee that all students will be equally exposed, be given the same tools for thought and consideration of voting?

      <

      p>
      This is too important to be left to the AP kids, the college track students, the gifted and talented, the born organizers who will learn this anyway – we need to reawaken true ENGAGEMENT, in all students.

      • but I’d also urge you to think back to high school. You said earlier somewhere that you didn’t like math. In what way did requiring math engage you to learn more? It made you learn the material, yes, but did you get engaged? It seems to me that to “reawaken true engagement” it is necessary to know the basics of government, but not sufficient, whereas in a course like math it’s sufficient to just know the material – there’s no need to get excited.

        <

        p>
        What we’re talking about, it seems to me, is more than just learning the basics of three branches of government etc. I can easily imagine a totally uninspired teacher going over an old textbook on how a bill becomes a law, while still fulfilling your proposed bill.

        <

        p>
        As has been pointed out, many schools do require this information in their history classes and some electives. It seems to me that instead of working to require civics we can work to fund better and more enrichment courses on government and civic life. We can, in our local communities, bring in engaging speakers to class, and also engage kids in experiential learning in their area as well as use other tools and methods to make a spark.

        <

        p>
        I know this seems like an intangible, but if what you’re after is “reengagement,” then maybe we need to define that more concretely and I can be a little tangible.

        <

        p>
        I do agree, however, with your last line. It’s way too important to be left to the superstars.

        • First, the uninspired teacher needs to go to the farm.

          <

          p>
          Second, I am reading in this discussion that there is tremendous agreement on the need for civic education and engagement in a lively experiential manner. 

          <

          p>
          Those details can be tweaked at the local level, but certainly need instruction from the state level to provide a framework and consistency within and between districts.

          <

          p>
          I am also reading a couple of posts that suggest throwing $$$ at the problem/issue.  Again, the job is supposed to be happening now.  What would be useful is to determine why some classes or districts have engagement and others don’t…maybe some incentives for teachers to create exciting engagement opportunities.  That could possibly be done through the teacher’s individual professional development plan and district improvement plans focused on these issues.  How will that happen?  Systemic change with the grassroots pushing the agenda with the Legislature, DOE and local school boards, administrators, teachers associations etc….

      • Mandating a class will not make kids engage.  Essay contests are worthless.  And I don’t know what you mean by a “unit,” but let’s be real.  Without the context I described, we’re talking about a couple units of instruction and that’s it. 

        <

        p>
        The goal is engagement.  It takes more than mandatory (repetetive) instruction on the nuts and bolts of American representational democracy to get kids to engage.  Again, I’ll say the only way to get a majority of students engaged is through authentic learning.

        <

        p>
        Once more, the sort of approach I advocated in my other post works because I see it and live it every day.  Kids love to take classes on contemporary issues, issues on which they feel some authority and have real exposure.  We have a class like this at my high school, taught by another teacher, and the kids flock to it.  This combined with co-curriculars advised by excited faculty and a dedication to contextual learning in both history and English, and you will accomplish the goal. 

        <

        p>
        Go ahead and file your legislation, but I’m telling you that you will not realize the result you want, and we’ll still be having this conversation in five years.

        <

        p> 

        • If the nuts and bolts are done well.  Maybe this boilsdown to the same old education debate:  bad teacher/good teacher, union proponents and skeptics.

          <

          p>
          You can’t make people engage.  All you can do is give them the tools to do it, so that the very few that choose to do it, can.

          • The nuts and bolts are part of the Massachusetts History and Social Studies Curriculum Frameworks and are taught in US History II courses in public high schools around the commonwealth already. 

  9. I just found this page – I don’t know whether it’s still current, but it appears to show what many Mass. high schools or school districts believe they are doing to educate students about government.  (Scroll to the bottom for an explanation of the “Q’s” topping each column in the spread sheet.)

    <

    p>
    http://www.nheon.org…

    <

    p>
    Civics education (and the desire for more civic engagement for young people) was the dominant issue when I served on the platform committee for the Dem. State Committee a few years ago. 

      • Came up with some individual Charter School programs, and this in the DOE web site –

        <

        p>

        The fifth section, Commonly Taught Subtopics Related to Core Knowledge in United States and World History, Geography, Economics, and Civics and Government, offers, for the convenience of teachers and curriculum planners, a selection of additional and commonly taught particulars related to the Core Knowledge topics presented above, and aligned with the PreK-12 order of instruction. These will suggest important specific events, issues, ideas, and personalities that may be chosen to engage students in reaching the desired Learning Standards.

        <

        p>
        I would like to see Civics as more than a ‘commonly taught sub-topic’.

  10. Mandating a class entitled “Civics,” you should approach the principal or vice principal or social studies dept. chair of your local high school.  Ask about U.S. History II, which is where U.S. government is taught.  Ask if the teachers would like your help as a volunteer to bring in local representatives of government to answer the student’s questions.  Or perhaps there is something else you could do, such as chaperone a visit to a town meeting.  Or perhaps the teacher has a good idea that you have not thought of.

    <

    p>
    You might be surprised at what is already going on.

    <

    p>
    But one of the biggest mistakes a person can make in civic engagement is to barge into someone else’s territory.  You want to work with the people at your local schools, and not start the conversation in such a way as to imply they haven’t been doing their job all these years. 

    <

    p>
    Read lightiris’ and GoldsteinGoldWild’s suggestions.

    <

    p>
    And remember how Deval Patrick won this:  he went to people in town meetings and listened to their concerns, to what they were already doing, and what they wanted done.

    • Joel – if nothing is filed, the matter will not be considered.  A bill can be amended and changed to take people’s concerns and good ideas into consideration almost infinitely.  Some bills leave as laws, with nothing but the title from the original filing.

      <

      p>
      I offred this as a challange to the Civic Engagement team – taking the one idea that every poster liked.  It is their choice if they merely want to hold circular discussion groups ad infinitum, as is certainly their perrogative.  The machinery of government is largely reactive, not prospective the way you describe the Patrick M.O. to date. 

      <

      p>
      That’s what knowing the rules of the game does – it lets you accomplish your goals.  Right now, I’ve recounted ballots with a GOP rep. candidate, and Gabrielli written in for Governor.  I’ve talked to people who don’t understand that some matters are a Federal responsibility, and not subject to state action, and had to sit through town meeting articles that say we (just our town?) will withdraw from Iraq.  I would respectfully suggest that the knowledge of how to operate the levers of government is lost, except to a governing class which seeks to dominate us.

      <

      p>
      We have no rulebooks, we have no scorecards – and we wonder why spectators aren’t buying tickets to the game.

  11. Peter’s proposal is excellent and, best of all, it’s vote ready.

    <

    p>
    I’ll not beat this horse again. However, you have to make sure that discussion of taxes in all their forms are part of the course.

    <

    p>
    Since way back in pre-Revolutionary times, the mention of taxes has riled the citizenry like nothing else. Citizens need to understand the basic forms of taxation and how the burdens of taxes are shared.

  12. to mandatory teaching of civics. Why not cut out some of the mandatory history to make room? A lot of kids sleep through that, anyway, and teaching how the government works is more relevant. Incidentally, history was always my favorite class but I was well aware that most kids felt otherwise.

    <

    p>
    Bottom line–civics relates to an important reponsibility that everyone has as a citizen. If anything should be mandatory (beyond reading/writing/basic math), that should be it. Making it “elective” is like making innoculations elective. Incidentally, I never had a civics class in high school because I was apparently among those considered too intelligent–only voc-ed kids took civics when I went to school.

  13. A post on social science education in K-12 and I’m late to the party!  I don’t want to repeat too much, but I will make the following points.

    <

    p>

    • Senior year is meaningless. Anything taught senior year will be absorbed only enough to get through the class and avoid the preferred college from revoking its acceptance. Few people are passionate about what’s going on inside the classroom at this point in their lives.
    • “Mandatory” is also meaningless.  What has meaning is “tested on the MCAS.”  Otherwise, the material will be taught and learned in a half-hearted way as the decks are cleared in the curriculum to get the best teachers teaching the best year on the MCAS material.  If civics is not on the MCAs, it will be consigned to a period when students are coming off testing in social science and focusing on math and ELA.  Case in point — world history.  It is not on any MCAS so it is the stepchild of the academic curriculum.
    • Civics cannot be taught in history class.  The current curriculum for USI includes about 3-4 weeks on how the government works.  This is according to the Constitution circa 1790.  Not  real life.  Nothing significant on federalism and political parties.
    • Additional civics are expected to be amended to this knowledge.  I know of a town that does US History I in grade 8, and US History II in grade 11.  Insane, but these students are expected to contextualize recent amendments within the constitution they learn about over 1,000 days pervious.
    • The other place civics “appears” is at the tail end of USII.  I’ve yet to meet a techer that got all the way to the end of that curriculum — most run out of time at the opening of the Cold War.  They don’t get to Vietnam, Watergate, or Iran-Contra (which is why today’s youth are vague on those subjects), much less civics today.
    • The curriculum frameworks treat world and American history as discrete parts.  Thus too few students never fully realize that the French supported us in the Revolution because they hated the British or that the civil rights movement partially succeeded because fighting it made us look bad in the eyes of African countries we were courting during the Cold War to name two examples.

    <

    p>
    In care you’re curious, below I’ve reproduced the most common social studies curriculum grades 7-12 (they do world geography in 6).  On the right is my ideal  )WH means world history, US means US History, U-W means what I call “America in the World” to get over the last point I made:

    GradeStd. CurriculumProposed

    7WH to Fall of RomeWH  to Fall of Rome
    8WH Fall of Rome-EnlightWH Fall of Rome-Explorers
    9WH Enlight-presentU-W Expl.-US Civil War
    10US to Civil WarU-W Cong. of Vienna-WWII
    11 (half 1)US Civil War-today IU-W WWII-present
    11 (half 2)US Civil War-today IIUS Civics

    • Senior year is meaningless. Anything taught senior year will be absorbed only enough to get through the class and avoid the preferred college from revoking its acceptance. Few people are passionate about what’s going on inside the classroom at this point in their lives.

      <

      p>
      Disagree vehemently.  I teach senior electives.  The beauty of senior electives is these kids self-sort according to personal interest.  They are also free of the pressures of MCAS as are their teachers, so the ability to really cultivate an organic and creative classroom is completely unfettered.  They have an innate interest in the world around them, both locally, nationall, and internationally.  Indeed, my Public Speaking class’s favorite thing to do between speeches was watch the gubernatorial debates.  The Contemporary Issues class all wrapped up at the moment in the Invisible Children issue.  They are mature (as high school students go) and ready to engage when properly challenged and taught.  You are absolutely wrong on this point, Sabutai. 

      <

      p>

      Otherwise, the material will be taught and learned in a half-hearted way as the decks are cleared in the curriculum to get the best teachers teaching the best year on the MCAS material.  If civics is not on the MCAs, it will be consigned to a period when students are coming off testing in social science and focusing on math and ELA.  Case in point — world history.  It is not on any MCAS so it is the stepchild of the academic curriculum.

      <

      p>
      Again, I disagree.  I don’t what high school you’re teaching in, but it bears absolutely NO resemblence to the high school I teach in, so your broad-brush claim of “half-hearted” teaching and learning is specious and unfair.  Everyone wants the seniors because they DO engage, they are willing to explore and reach, and they are excited about entering the “real world.”  If your teachers only half-heartedly approach anything non-MCAS related, your school, candidly, must suck. 

      <

      p>
      As well, all of our history teachers teach freshmen, sophomores, and juniors.  Decks aren’t cleared in my school for particular teachers, so, again, your broad-brush is a little too broad.  Those teachers, in all subjects, who aren’t up to snuff get a little “remediation” from admin and the department chair. 

      <

      p>
      Is there no excitement about teaching in your school?  Don’t your colleagues like what they do? 

      • First of all, I don’t have the chance to teach self-selecting students — I teach all students, and frankly I thought the whole point of this discussion was how all students should take civics, not the ones who are already plugged into the process.  I teach in a middle school.

        <

        p>
        Secondly, you teach in a utopia unlike any school I’ve seen or heard of in Massachusetts.  I’ve yet to see one operate as you describe where everyone is fair-minded and enthusiastic.  If you teach in a school where the stars aren’t aligned for the MCAS-intsenive areas, you teach in a charmed place.  Don’t ever leave.

        <

        p>
        And thirdly, you have no right to the presumptuousness that allows you to consigning my entire school’s staff because you misunderstood most of what I said.  I utterly reject your attempt to smear myself and my colleagues.  Shame.

        • Thank you. 

          <

          p>
          Where in my post did I say “everyone is fair-minded and enthusiastic”?  I said “everyone” wants the seniors. 

          <

          p>
          Nowhere in my post did I “consign” your “entire school’s staff” to anything.  YOU are the one who described the teaching in your school as “half-hearted,” not me.  You are the one who stated that because “world history”  is not on an MCAS test, “it is the stepchild of the academic curriculum.”  Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement.  The fact is, you smeared them, not me. 

          <

          p>
          I am not the one who needs to calm down, you are.  Worthless, indeed. 

          • And I’d do it again.  Trying to convert my generalizations into leveling accusations about my school is worthless.  It’s taking a policy or academic discussion and making it personal. 

            <

            p>
            I’m not singling out any particular school and it is tendentious to claim that I was.  You can argue with my generalizations because I didn’t employ weasel words such as “usually” and “in my own experience”  If you want to argue with what I said, that’s great, but if you want to turn it on my colleagues, I will always object.

            <

            p>
            Let’s do some fine parsing.

            <

            p>
            That is what I was referring in my comment about everyone being fair-minded:

            <

            p>
            “Decks aren’t cleared in my school for particular teachers, so, again, your broad-brush is a little too broad.  Those teachers, in all subjects, who aren’t up to snuff get a little ‘remediation’ from admin and the department chair. “

            <

            p>
            That is nearly unheard of in any school workplace I’ve knowledge of.  You don’t have any burnouts at all?  Nobody working off a reputation, off being a coach, near retirement, loved but past their prime, or something else?  Nobody gets special treatment in your school, where all teachers in all subjects get remediation on an equal basis?  Wow.  Elysium.

            <

            p>
            I never described any school’s teaching as half-hearted.  I stated a general principle which governs DOE planning of the curriculum!  They put stuff on the MCAS because it’s the important stuff — knowing full well that which is not on the MCAS will be treated with less gravity by the district and students.  Have a beer with someone from the DOE after a session and they’ll tell you this for heaven’s sake! 

            <

            p>
            About this senior thing, I am convinced you must have at least heard of “senior slide” or “senior slack”.  I doubt that I exist in some parallel universe where people felt after 11 years of hard work, after being accepted into college, while occupied with graduation, prom, getting out early, and intense activities or work, that students feel it is okay to let things ease up a bit in the acedemic department.

            <

            p>
            These are kids, not robots, and they work hard when they feel a need, most of ’em, and they ease off when they don’t feel a need.  Not acknowledging that students care more and work harder in grade 9-11 than 12 is akin not acknowledging that pro athletes care more and work harder in the playoffs before their contract is up than they do during the preseason after the contract is signed.

            <

            p>
            LightIris, I have always considered yo ua sober commentator, and always respected you through our disagreements — as in the primary.  You still are one of the top reasons why I am trying to be as open-minded about Deval as I can.  And if you want to discuss education, I’d be glad to do so.  But don’t find ways to drag my hard-workin’ colleagues into this.

            • your willingness to deem another’s good-faith responses as “worthless” tells me quiet a bit about you. 

              <

              p>
              You seem to view my comments as malicious and my experience, apparently in your experience, wrong and illegitimate.

              <

              p>

              These are kids, not robots, and they work hard when they feel a need, most of ’em, and they ease off when they don’t feel a need.  Not acknowledging that students care more and work harder in grade 9-11 than 12 is akin not acknowledging that pro athletes care more and work harder in the playoffs before their contract is up than they do during the preseason after the contract is signed.

              <

              p>
              Where did I DENY that kids ease off?  Where?  You have a penchant for substituting your words and ideas for mine.  I never denied that kids slack off.  You take one comment, that seniors are often engaged for reasons other students are not, and you turn that into a categorical denial of senioritis.  I could go through this entire post and pick out the mischaracterizations and straw-men, but I have neither the time nor the inclination. 

              <

              p>
              Thanks, too, for the explanation about student behavior and all the other ways I seem to not be lucid about what’s going on around me.  I would never have known. 

              <

              p>
              We’re talking past one another.  You have your experiences, and, I have mine, but you seem hell-bent on substituting your legitimate experiences for my, apparently, illegitimate ones.  Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. 

              <

              p>
              You are in no position to delegitimize, qualify, or tear down my experiences.  What you find “unheard of” in “any workplace” is does not disqualify my experiences.  We’re done.

              <

              p> 

    • in 3 states with high stakes tests on math, I can tell you that the threat of MCAS (or WASL or TAAS) did not make students see quadratic equations or solid geometry as vital or engaging topics.

      <

      p>
      Putting Civics on the MCAS will not necessarily engage students–and lightiris is right about seniors exhibiting a little more gusto for their studies.  I’ve seen that.

      • The MCAS thing isn’t for the students — it’s for the administration.  In curriculum work, the MCAS strands get the most attention, and the rest is hurried through.  If something such as Civics isn’t on the MCAS, the curriculum, methods, and teachers are not subject to the same scrutiny.  Classrooms are where the work and the joy of a school occurs, but it is in the meeting rooms that the school is run.  This is what happens in the meeting rooms.

        <

        p>
        Seniors have tons of gusto, becuase they love what they’re doing — after dozens have dropped out and most aren’t taking this or that elective.  I was talking about reaching all citizens, not just the ones who choose to be reached.

  14. The above posts are full of wonderful ideas about how to engage young people. However, I can’t help but wonder if any of the posts are from young people still in high school?

    <

    p>
    Additionally, does anyone know if there are any young people (14-24 give or take a few years) on the Patrick/Murray Civic Engagement Working Group?

    <

    p>
    In addition to suggesting ideas that would affect them, we should try to include (engage) them in the process. In Boston, and I am sure this is true across the state, there are a number of organizations that empower and organize young people-Hyde Square Task Force(HSTF), Teen Empowerment, Roxbury Environmental Empowerment Project/ACE, Project HIP-HOP to name a few. I am sure some of their youth organizers would love to participate on a number of the working groups. Also, there is a group of young people in Cambridge who either have already or are in the process of trying to lower the voting age for municipal elections. And a few years ago YOs from the HSTF lowered the voting age to 16 for the neighborhood council AND got the council to add two youth reps. These young people are the experts on how to build social capital among youth and create social change in our communities.

    <

    p>
    I will certainly forward the local civic engagement working group meeting to these young people.

  15. A few preliminary responses:
    — the fact that civics exists in the curriculum doesn’t mean much if it’s an elective
    — at least in my experience, senior year classes on civics, current events, and post-WW2 history are often fluff classes taken by kids who just want to fill out the rest of their schedules so they can graduate
    — does anyone have information on what the current civics curriculum actually entails?  (my lack of info on this means that my point #2 below might contain ideas that are already in the curriculum)

    <

    p>
    And then two key points:

    <

    p>
    1.  I agree 100% that we need to educate and to empower ALL students, not just those who elect to study civics.  When we speak of the decline in voting turnout, the real problem is not just that only 50-60% of us vote; it’s that it’s by and large the same 50-60% every time.  Add in the dismal data regarding people’s knowledge of government, their representatives, and current events, and it’s abundantly clear that the health of our democracy is quite poor.  Yet this is nothing new.  The real question is whether we’re finally going to do anything about it — other than talk.  The simple act of specifically mandating some sort of civics course, rather than including it among the possibilities by which students can satisfy their social studies requirement, would be a concrete step in the right direction.  Republicans and Democrats alike speak of promoting democracy, and it’s high time we started doing so right here at home.

    <

    p>
    2.  The crucial element for any civics curriculum should be hands-on experience.  Someone asked whether any high school students were posting to this thread; no one has responded, perhaps not too surprisingly.  Well why not have kids break into groups and start their own politics blogs?  Have everyone learn to become critical consumers of media, write letters to the editor, write letters to their representatives, and attend and participate in town meeting or schoolboard meetings.  And perhaps most importantly, have a model congress or model town council program where each student writes a bill, and all of the bills are debated in committee and before a larger mock legislature; this is the sort of program available to the top students, in Boys/Girls State, etc., and it should be basic education for everyone, not just the honor roll kids.  In other words, take everything that all of us here reading and posting know how to do — from proposing and drafting a bill like Peter did, to contacting and working with a legislator, to volunteering for a campaign or a cause, to writing and debating persuasively, etc. — and have the students do the same things. 

    <

    p>
    No, we cannot mandate engagement.  But we can mandate the education of the tools of engagement and empowerment, and that would be a massive step forward.

Archives