Is Our Children Learning... politics?

Format for printing
Submitted by Captin Sarcastic on Fri, 2009-09-04 13:12.

The recent controversy about the scheduled Presidential address to our nation's elementary school children prompted me to look into just what we are teaching our children about politics. My K12 experience in school from the late 60's to the late 70's was that of hero-making of all former Presidents as well as the President who currently held the office, but we were also taught ideology, through a historical lens in elementary school, and through current events in high school. The differences between party ideologies was taught, discussed, and debated, from both sides, even in elementary school. I think this gave me a good grounding to develop my own personal philosophy, but also gave me respect for opinions that I did not agree, and more importantly, that good people can disagree, and both can have valid points. The political environment today is polarized almost to the point of violence, and I believe this is caused by ignorance of opposing arguments, where opposing arguments are replaced with caricatured strawmen of the persons who hold opposing opinions. This caricaturization has the same effect that the American view of the Japanese people (and vice versa) which served to demonize the enemy, and more significantly, dehumanize the enemy, making their lives, or taking their lives, and insignificant act. This became brutally apparent when a women confined to a wheelchair was heckled because of her point of view at a healthcare reform townhall meeting. When this woman described her situation of being unable to walk as a result of two incurable diseases, she was greeted with sarcastic "Awww's" from opposing members, clearly, her existence as a human being was undermined in the minds of these people simply because of her opinions.

My youngest child has just completed his elementary education this past June, and not did the class every teach or discuss ideology or differing political opinions, and the teachers have made it clear that these topics are taboo in school, best left to parents to teach for fear of offending parents by introducing viewpoints different than there own. This is in my opinion a very easy decision, and also a cowardly, academically dishonest decision.

Parents are ultimately in the best position best position to shape their child's ideology, but since most people barely understand their own arguments, and have no clue about the genuine points of opposing arguments, they are in a terrible position to teach what a political discussion should really be, rational discussion about the relative merits of opposing arguments.

I suggest that every elementary school student be exposed to proponets of various realistic ideologies, and the class, led by the teacher, discussed the relative merits and learns to debate political thought in a thoughful manner, and identify and discourage logical fallacies in arguments.

If we continue down the road we are traveling, a civil war, complete with shooting and atrocities, may not be as far away as we once believed. So as to avoid being too hyperbolic, I do still believe that such a conflict is still a long way off.

Captin Sarcastic's blog »

K-6

#7449 On Fri, 2009 09 04 20:30 ka1igu1a said,

At that age, I think i might of been more interested in debating the relative merits of Marvel vs DC comics than the relative merits of socialism vs a market economy or worrying about the finer points of Socratic debate...just an observation from the cheap seats...

login or register to post comments

not really so polarized

#7458 On Sun, 2009 09 06 11:00 adam ricketson said,

I think the apparent of polarization is limited to a small portion of the population -- the 5% or so who are fanatical supporters of each major party. Even this could be a big problem if it includes the leadership -- but I don't know whether the leaders really are polarized of whether they are just rousing the rabble as part of political maneuver.

Political junkies tend to loose perspective and forget that many Americans don't care about elections, and of those who do care, most don't have strong feelings about the parties.

login or register to post comments

5% percent are fanatical supporters?

#7463 On Sun, 2009 09 06 20:03 N Whittemore said,

I think this is a gross underestimation. There is a fundamental problem in that far too many people on both sides adhere to their sides arguments without really understanding them. To ask them what they believe and why they believe it, the response is typically something along the lines of "it's just common sense". If it was so common, everyone would think the same way. Since they go through life believing without understanding, changing their mind with reason becomes impossible because reason was never a part of it. Then there are those that resort to mocking and ridiculing opposite points of view simply because they can't form a cohernet argument. This is a symptom of fanatical support which unfortunately I would argue is closer to 25% to 30% of each side or maybe even higher.

login or register to post comments

5% of American population, not 5% of each side

#7473 On Mon, 2009 09 07 20:43 adam ricketson said,

This is a symptom of fanatical support which unfortunately I would argue is closer to 25% to 30% of each side or maybe even higher.

I'm not sure that we disagree over the numbers, just over what is the relevant population. Anyway, here's my total breakdown of the American population:

  • 5% are fanatical Dems
  • 5% are fanatical Reps
  • 10% are partisan Dems
  • 10% are partisan Reps
  • 20% are engaged but non-partisan
  • 50% are minimally or non-engaged

"non-partisan" here means that the voters don't identify strongly with the party. They may "lean" one way or another in their voting patterns, but they feel no party loyalty.

"partisans" are loyal to particular parties, but generally appreciate that reasonable people can support the other party.

"fanatical partisans" suspect that the members of other parties must have a mental problem.

So yeah, about 1/3 of each side is fanatical, but the parties are just a fraction of America.

login or register to post comments

on politics in schools

#7459 On Sun, 2009 09 06 11:16 adam ricketson said,

I think that there are a number of reasons that we want to keep teachers from discussing politics in too much depth. First, many teachers do not have the intellectual abilities to fairly present political ideas -- especially ideas of people who they disagree with.

Second, there is a widespread perception that teachers have a political bias (due to the influence of teacher's unions on the Democratic Party), and are willing to politicize their role to advance an agenda (e.g. more funding for schools).

Other than that, I did get some exposure to political philosophy, both in high school and in college. However, there is no clear mapping of ideas between academic/theoretical political philosophy and the day-to-day political alliances. Even worse, much of the political philosophy cirriculum focuses on classical political philosophy-- these ideas have some relevance to modern debates, but it is often pretty indirect.

Another problem with saying "Dems believe this, Reps believe that"  is that the parties are not cohesive ideological groups. Presenting them as simple ideological alliances would itself be a sort of ideological sugar-coating on the dirt of real politics -- ignoring self-serving politicians and special interest groups. It would also ignore the complex process by which political groups form and individuals come to identify with such groups.

Anyway, it may be possible to introduce some basic political science and philosophy into the K12 curriculum without directly addressing modern political alliances. Heck, it would be nice if kids were taught a little bit of basic economics.

Given all the things that schools need to be teaching their students, it may be best if modern politics were handled by outside organizations...like the League of Women Voters or something like Project Vote Smart.

login or register to post comments

There is the sticky problem of history

#7465 On Sun, 2009 09 06 22:45 missliberties said,

History should be fascinating, but can be politicized. We hear this constant refrain from the right that education has become 'liberal indoctrination'.

For example, what would you teach in a high school history class about the Great Depression, and the New Deal?

login or register to post comments

High school and the Great Depression...

#7466 On Mon, 2009 09 07 03:10 N Whittemore said,

Here is the interesting thing. High School students are almost universally taught that it was government that ended the depression. Yet some modern analysts think government policies may have increased the duration of the depression. "government policies in the 1930s prevented the U.S. economy from recovering." http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

The problem is often that if a particular perspective does not offend the instructor's sensibilities, another side is not addressed. An Inconvenient Truth is frequently shown in schools now. How often do you think a counter perspective is shown.

One junior high school student in Tuscon was shown a video about how the Republicans stole the election in 2004. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/105792.php

The bias is out there. If there is no encouragement to explore and question with the idea of truly going where the facts lead, then it is indoctrination.

login or register to post comments

You make my point

#7468 On Mon, 2009 09 07 09:25 missliberties said,

If a history teacher utters the words New Deal, it automatically triggers two perspectives, which are unquestionably political.

Should school teachers just avoid the subject altogether? Teach both views? State some facts and leave out others?

Should the Civil War undergo the same ritual of offering a counter perspective that some feel Lincoln was wrong?

Some folks think that Hitler didn't want to go to War. Should that be a counterperspective.

Should the history of the 9/11 attacks, include a reading of the Aug. 6th Presidential Daily Brief, which some would say is politicizing history. Still the fact is there.

This is what I mean when I say history is political. Trying to satisfy all sides that you are teaching history objectively would be nigh impossible.

login or register to post comments

What would Socrates do?

#7469 On Mon, 2009 09 07 14:21 N Whittemore said,

There needs to be a far greater element of teaching people to think and critically examine the facts and far less emphasis on understanding the facts as historians have interpreted. Question everything.

BTW, I never understood in school why no one said anything about how Abraham Lincoln violated the state's right to sucede. A counter-point is absolutely necessary. I think the system tries to fit a lot of content in at the cost of critical examination. Plus the system is designed to cycle the same core data every 2-3 years as opposed to covering something well and moving on.

Nice exchange.

login or register to post comments

study something in depth

#7474 On Mon, 2009 09 07 20:52 adam ricketson said,

In high school, I had a year dedicated to each of American, European, and World history. We also had "civics" our senior year. It felt like we rushed through everything -- and we still didn't have time to cover anything past WWII. (I used to think we had just run out of time, but perhaps the teachers intentionally steered away from recent history due to its partisan interpretations).

Anyway, we didn't have time to learn multiple views about any issue because we spend so much time just learning the basic facts, which came clothed in the mainstream establishment story.

I like your point about focusing on critical examination. Maybe kids just need to spend more time studying. Or perhaps with modern research tools (like Google), they can learn to gather the basic facts that are relevant to what they are studying, and spend more time examining alternative perspectives.

I wish.

login or register to post comments

A bigger problem

#7464 On Sun, 2009 09 06 20:12 N Whittemore said,

Even if politics are not discussed, they are being lived out. For example, if a fight occurs on the playground, and the one that was not the aggressor defends himself, he is often subject to the same penalty as the aggressor. The lesson? Do nothing for yourself. Let authority take care of your well-being.
This problem is aggravated since there is little teaching on exploring different perspectives and logic. The present day educational institutions of the US have become like the medieval Catholic Church that persecuted science. It does not matter what is true, only what they want you to believe.

login or register to post comments