This is not really a new article I published originally it on Gather a few weeks ago and even longer ago on my own website http://www.this-is-my-place.com/ I am republishing to bring attention to what appears to have become a serious challenge to the health of our democracy: more and more of our citizen seem to lack knowledge of how our government and political system works. I suspect this may contribute to both the divisivness that threatens our nation and the increasingly lower turnouts at the polls.
I first became aware of this problem almost three decades ago when when my babysitter, who had just recently attained the age of 18 and was in college came me to both confused and embarrassed because it wasn't until she began considering fulfilling her responsibilities as a citizen and voter that she realized she did not possess even the most basic knowledge needed to make an informed decision. As a starting point, she wanted to know the difference the offices and duties of the President of the United States, a United States Senator, and a Congressman!
Upon questioning why she lacked that knowledge, I discovered that courses such as Civics and U.S. Government, both of which I was required to take to graduate from high school had never even been offered even as an electives.
After she left it occurred to me that the differences in our educational offerings might have been a matter of geographical location, and called a nephew who had attended the same school system as I had. He wasn't sure what civics was, but his parents had insisted that he take the U.S. Government course that had been offered as an elective to college prep students! What does that say to students who aren't going on to college?
Civics for those who are not familiar with that subject, started with an overview the basic forms of government relative to the ultimate source of authority: a democracy , an autocracy, an oligarchy; their sub forms, the differences between them and how they could sometimes overlap. Finally it got down to the structures that may exist within our own nation down to the local level. In summery it provided the students with a familiarity with the governmental structures they might encounter in this nation, the degree of participation that might be expected of a member of the electorate, and it provided the basic knowledge of other government forms and structures that we might need to better understand issues, that might affect our decisions as members of the electorate.
In contrast U.S. Government dealt in greater detail with the various branches of governments at the federal level and the array of bodies and agencies that existed within each, their hierarchical structures and how they might interact with state and local governments.
These courses combined helped prepare us to become participants in a democracy and fulfill our responsibilities as citizens and members of the electorate.
My baby-sitter was intelligent enough to know she should end her ignorance and was willing to admit that ignorance to the person she felt best equipped to end it. How many other newly eligible voters would be bothered enough to admit their ignorance and try to end it? How many would not even register to vote or if they bothered registering would not vote? How many would enter the voting booth without the foggiest idea of what they were really doing?
How can people be expected to become good citizens and vote intelligently when they haven't even been taught the basics about the structure of our government, the levels of government and the different forms that may exist at the local level? I pose this question for anybody who may think the courses I have mentioned are not necessary. For the rest of us it is rhetorical.
Beyond the three "R's" the most important thing an educational system in a democracy can teach our children is what democracy is about, and provide them the knowledge they need to become good citizens. Like the three "R"'s some parents can an will see to it that the child at least learn the essential but we owe it to ourselves, our communities and our nation to insure that children whose parents either can't teach their children about these subjects, or who have parents who don't care, have the opportunity to learn about them so they can become responsible participants in our democracy.
If you also think our schools should be teaching these subjects, contact your local high school to see if they are being taught. If they aren't being taught contact your school board and demand that they be included in the high school curriculum for all students. Beyond that I suggest you contact your state level legislators and senators and demand the passing of a state law that requires they be taught in all high schools in the state.


Comments: 24
Aside from my pointing out some of those cuts here, the only cut that attracted much attention were the cuts in geography and that only aroused interest when our children began scoring so miserably when their knowledge of these subjects was compared to that of children from other countries. I suspect other courses that were available to me and even mandated that I take are no longer available to many student unless they go on to college; among them are ancient history, world history, and more geographically oriented modern history courses.
Educating our children is a community responsibilty because as a community and nation we cannot rely on parents to teach their child what they were never taught. Until we accept the fact that not all parents know what to teach their children, are equipped to teach them our children, communities and nation will suffer the consequences.
first you'd have to teach the TEACHERS how to think for themselves and we can't have THAT!!!
This is not a liberal-conservative issue.
I've known liberals and conservatives over the years and the one thing on which they both agree is that they want their kids to have a good education at all costs. Liberals may not have as much money on average as conservatives to pay for education but there is no difference in their desire for the best for their children.
I notice our colleges still are capable of turning out rocket scientists, doctors and lawyers so its there if the students want to learn, regardless of the politics of the professor. I had a couple of professors in college in the fifties who could peak through a keyhole with both eyes and I never knew what their politics was and didn't care. I've had other, very good professors and I still didn't learn their politics as I still didn't care!
This is very disturbing. I will definitely find out where basic civics classes are being taught in Seattle, and where they aren't -- and start agitating for them where they aren't being taught.
To me that would be: Education For Sane Community Life= Good Global/Natural Cititzenship.
Natural citizenship? That's not a typo - didn't she mean NATIONAL citizenship?
No, she did not.
The laws of Nature must be learned first. Truth. Then our human beingness can also figure out whether to accept or reject various human law overlays.
GLOBAL NATURAL LAW CIVICS. How 'bout that?
great stuff. as a 58 year old woman who has been very recently affected and assaulted by the actions of both parties-i have in the process of simplfying my life taken a new approach to choosing.
i don't reccommend my methods.
at this age, i have reduced it to-what kind of mail will i get if i pick this party.
R=meetings in nice hotels with private bathrooms
D=bieng outside, with bugs and sun and porta-potties and lots of dirty feet sticking out of sandles
I'm getting old and i want be able to be civic without squatting.
the end
Thank you for your support, but don't blame stupidity on the lack of formal education.
One of the most knowledgeable and well educated people I have ever know never got past eighth grade. My own daughter dropped out of high school, got her GED and went on to graduate with highest honors from a leading university.
One of the most tragic facts (and indictments of our seconday education system) to emerge from our dropout statistics is the disproportionant number of highly intelligent students who drop out because they are not being intellectually challanged. A dropout who goes on to get his or her GED had rank better than fifty percent of high schools grads on the GED tests to get that GED.
No amount of formal education can make up of for the desire to learn. It is quite possible that someone who had only gotten a GED is more intelligent and more knowledgable than our current President on a variety of subjects and is more than qualified to judge him. For that matter any citizen is entitled to judge him regardless of their level of education. Bush is after all an elected official of United States government.
As much as I am reluctant to admit it, I for one think Spiro Agnew had a valid point with his remark about effette intellectual snobs. I know my own experiences with a couple of employess who got their Master's from what is reputed to be one of America's top business schools lead me to require proof of the ability to function in real world a work environment before I would ever hire another graduate of that Ivy League University.
Same goes for history: if it's going to teach the full truth, objectively, then it won't be allowed. Can't teach about the fact that this continent was already occupied when Europeans arrived, because they leads to the question, "What happened to the original occupants?" Teaching the truth about that strips away the "patriotic" lie about how the US is the greatest country on the planet and in history, and that it _NEVER_ has or does wrong.
The problem is the same we see today with so-called Republicas: their party is more important than everything else -- Constitution, rule of law, democracy, country. As example, torture is a war crime ("enhanced interrogation techniques" is the same euphemism as used by the Nazis); and as it is prohibited also by our Constitution, it cannot be made legal by Congress, Executive, or even both together with the approval of the Judiciary. Yet how many so-called Republicans support and defend the use of torture, wholly ignoring the facts concerning it?
How many of us put political party, and its "winning" at all costs, before the health and well-being of the country? How many of us defend the blatantly illegal so long as it is our party is doing it? How many of us in our own lives "cut corners" -- ethical and legal -- for advantage, or "efficiency"? Who are we then to criticize others for doing the same?
Largely it comes down to the fact that ignorant bigots interfere in education in order to push their favorite personal bigtry into the curriculum, and fight against topics being in the curriculum because they haven't a clue what "education" and "teaching" means, but nonetheless believe that they are experts in both. For such illiterates teaching _about_ a topic is equivalent to teaching that one _be_ that. So we can't have a course that objectively teaches _about_ all forms of gov't because that would include teaching _about_ "communism" and "socialism" -- which are "dirty words" to those who rely upon political party to do their "thinking" for them.
How many hate "communism" -- but don't know anything factual about it? How many swallow the lie that the New Deal and Social Security are "socialism" -- but haven't a clue about any of those?
How many know sufficient history to know that the US was and is _not_ "based on Chritianity"? How many swallow that lie without question? How many are able to challenge it with facts? When they are told there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, can thy point to the language in the Constitution which proves there is?
Isn't it always, though, ultimately someone else's fault? And how many who "home school" their children are themselves qualified to teach anyone anything that is actually objective and inclusive of all facts, not only those the parent approves?
Democracy is responsibility." -- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Isn't it always, Ms. LeHane, someone else's fault? Why not just encourage everyone to drop out and then get their GED? After all, it eliminates having to learn "all that stuff" in which you see no value -- being an expert in education and teaching as you are.
Attacking education and learning and "elites" is anti-intellectual -- and precisely the means used to undermine education, competence in complex fields, and to -- bingo! -- "dumb down" education to a level which no longer intimidates the lowest common denominator.
The first problem is parents who know it all despite having learned nothing at all except to reject education when it is greater than their own. Attacking "elites" is simply an effort to get everyone else down to one's own level instead of making the more difficult effort to achieve something of consequence oneself. So we get attacks on "Ivy League" colleges by individuals who've never been to college, and know nothing about what a college education entails. And that teaches one's children that a GED is every bit as good as a full high school education.
And then Mc. LeHane's daughter allegedly graduated with honors from an unnamed university. I'll believe that when the univesrsity is named -- so long as it isn't an "Ivy League" college or university, which we already "know" are useless as result of our having no experience whatsoever with such.
To a limited degree you are probably right, which is why the moderates and centrists, of this nation, who I believe are in the majority must end their silence and stop letting both the left and right wing exemists dominate our political discourse.
First you attack the right-wing and now you attack me on a personal level and virtually accuse me of lying. I am not about reveal anything on the Internet that would allow you the verify my veracity regarding the truth of my daughter academic achievements.
As for Ivy League colleges and universities you may not have any experience with them, but just because you lack such experience does not qualify you to attribute that lack to all of us.
I wasn't suggesting those who obtain a formal education should not be trusted, I was criticizing the elitists who assume they are more knowledgeable and better educated that someone than someone with lower degree or or no degree, and are therefore entitled to tell those lower beings what they should believe how to live their lives. The end of formal education is not the end of ability to learn, and more intelligent of us spend the rest of our lives acquiring knowledge without the guidance of a teacher we consider superior to our humble selves.
Agnew was a buffoon, a criminal, a fraud and a hypocrite in my opinion, but the doesn't mean he was totally lacking in any redeeming qualities and that every word from his mouth was a lie.
As for spelling, you shouldn't talk. You even misspelled my last name at one point in your second comment and at another point misspelled the abbreviation Ms. As for my own spelling, I admit to being a technocrat who is dependant on spell checkers and when a spell checker fails I am not inclined to verify that it caught all my errors. It probably wouldn't be much use anyhow, being human, I tend to see what I think I typed.
To be truthful about it I am beginning to suspect that you are a left-wing-nut who has no respect for the opinions of anyone is right of far left and that in my opinion makes you as responsible for the partisan state of our political system as the right-wing-nuts some of whom are registered Democrats.
Nice Reminder. I think schools should teach civics and a financial awareness class (checkbook balancing, life insurance options, investing basics, compound interest, home budgeting, credit card evils, etc.) . JUST those two classes would make us a much more independent and aware citizenry.