Herbert J. Gans is an eminent sociologist who taught at Columbia University for many years. He was born in Germany in 1927 and left for the United States in 1938, becoming a citizen in 1945. He shared this article about the importance of political education because he thought it would be of interest to the blog’s readers.
See the pdf here.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane Thank you–I will read this article later today. However, as I write, the White House spokesperson is equating the justice due the dreamers with “emotion.” And we cannot let emotion drive our decisions. Will it never stop.
CBK,
How low can Trump go?
It frightens me to speculate
dianeravitch About Trump’s treatment of the Dreamers, here’s the odd thing:
Trump is giving Congress 6 months to come up with something new. But in fact, and from my understanding of why Obama didn’t go through Congress earlier, the R-Congress wouldn’t do ANYTHING that Obama wanted, on principle; and so he turned to “signing” documents to do what was right and humane for these kids (and lots of other things).
And so ODDLY, maybe R-Congress will do something also right and humane in their 6 months–but NOW precisely because it’s “not Obama.” Some R’s are already complaining. And I’m hitting my head on the wall.
Putting innocent young people at grave risk–I would say that that is just about as low as it gets. But you are right, someone who would do this? What evil is he not capable of? Sickening.
Cancelling DACA is criminal. A crime against humanity, announced with a gleeful smirk today by our chief law enforcement officer. I can just hear Mr. Trump: “OK, Jeff. You want this so much? You get to announce it.”
With this DACA decision, President Trump is making the lives of innocent children and young people a bargaining chip. This, evidently, is the Art of the Deal. Bargain with the lives of children
Now, the question is, will our press call him out on that?
WHERE IS THE FREAKING OUTRAGE??!!??!!!?!!!?!!?
Will our press call him out? The questions assumes that we have a functioning press establishment. I would say we do not. But that’s just me.
GregB
I think you know the answer to that.
But pick a topic because my head is spinning . And perhaps the people are not as ignorant as we think.
Want to discuss the Skills Shortage , Perhaps we can discuss the Robots vs trade, or even the effects of immigration . Granted that many Americans receive bennifits from the use of cheaper labor at home and abroad . . But there is a group of people that is put into competition on the educated and lower ends of the wage scale. Aggregate economic growth means nothing when your job has been lost. .Lets talk public schools,or testing lets not! . By the way how many times have you heard Harvey and GLOBAL WARMING on the networks in the same sentence. No less an explanation. In the Democratic Primary were all candidate treated the same by the cable media. In fact did the Orange ass not get wall to wall coverage to boost ratings and revenue. Were there not 22 pieces that were anti Sanders in one day. In the Washington Post.
I am not saying that Trump and the Republicans were the right choice, in the economic interest of many who voted for them . What alternative were the Democrats offering . Do you think Sanders ran against Hillary . He had zero expectation when he announced that the Socialist Jew from Brooklyn ( I can say that ) was going to be at all competitive . He ran as the anti Obama to highlight the wrong direction the party was heading in hoping the media coverage would highlight issues. He got none for months. .
So perhaps we could teach politics, how many here can say they were happy with the choices they had . I’m not even happy with the Republicrat congressman in my district.. I had little alternative there either. Do politicians promise unattainable goals . Or are they too timid to make change.we can believe in.
You make an important point, GregB. News staffs have been cut to the bone because of competition from “free” sources. Investigative staffs are pretty much history, and the major news sources are now aggregators, and a lot of what they link to originated as PR–stories put out and then not examined in order to create particular spin.
The Watergate investigation took almost two years.
Related to inadequacy of the press comments above. I just watched Wolf Blitzer talking to the head of the National Weather Service about Hurricane Irma and—I don’t mean to make light of it—it went a lot like this:
Amazing what passes for a journalist these days.
What about this headline in the NYT? Can’t get much worse than this:
The Fix: Rush Limbaugh’s dangerous suggestion that Hurricane Irma is fake news
There could be serious consequences to President Trump’s ceaseless effort to lower trust in institutions such as the government and the press.
By Callum Borchers •
Thank you for this.
A book every concerned American should read is: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
See more at: The Spirit Level | The Equality Trust https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
“The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, the book highlights the “pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption”. It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.”
Ed,
Excellent book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#/media/File:2014_Gini_Index_World_Map,_income_inequality_distribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg
I would like to call attention to one passage in Dr. Gans’s article:
“[I]f President Trump continues to govern in behalf of the business community and the donor class and fails to deliver on his job creation and other economic promises, the working- and lower-middle-class voters who helped to elect him may be ready to turn to politics–and even without a political education.”
Almost all Presidents since Truman saw steep declines in their job approval ratings in the second halves of their terms of office (however long those were). The exceptions were Clinton and Reagan, and to a lesser extent, Obama and Eisenhower. The rest dropped precipitously.
Mr. Trump’s approval rating has already hit a(n) historical low, at a time in the Presidential term when almost all his predecessors were basking in the highest approval ratings they were going to see. This should his policy people pause.
Since when is a vibrant, dynamic, capitalist economy supposed to be “fair”? Only a socialist enterprise is “fair”.
You live unfairness too much, Charles.
You can’t play any sport on the assumption that “everyone cheats”
Please explain your antagonism, not only to the concept of “fair” but also to what is a “socialist enterprise”. Thanks, Duane
I have nothing against “fair play”, and “fairness”. What I am alluding to, is that in a capitalist economy, there is an inherent un-fairness.
Alexander Graham Bell beat Elisha Gray to the patent office by only a few hours. Bell got the patent, and Gray got nothing. Is that fair? Since they both invented the telephone, should they have split the royalties?
Streaming video has put Blockbuster video rental stores out of business. Is that fair?
I lived in a socialist county. Everything there is rationed, so that everyone gets a fair share. The People’s Republic of Mozambique is a train-wreck.
In a capitalist enterprise (economy), there will always be winners and losers.
Charles,
The point of a just society is to level the chances for children so that none will be losers.
We don’t accept your premise that unfairness must be tolerated.
Having winners and losers is not necessarily unfair. If everyone is playing by the same rules on a level playing field, everyone has the same opportunity to win or lose. (Life doesn’t have to be that way, but that’s a whole different discussion.) The problem with capitalism, at least as it currently exists in this country (and, for that matter, has always existed), is that the system rewards cheating so that not everyone is playing by the same rules. Bell and Gray had the same chances to get to the patent office. But if Gray had been denied the patent because, say, he was black or poor or something else beyond his control, that would be unfair. If Bell had taken advantage of unfair wealth or power and, say, bribed the police to have Gray arrested on the way to the patent office, that would be unfair. But today’s “winners” are only winning because they are white and powerful and because they are cheating to get to the patent office first.
The most remembered part of the Declaration of Independence—which a consensus of constitutional scholars would agree is the conscience of the Constitution—is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” What is mostly forgotten is the concluding sentence, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Taken together, do these statements not imply a notion of fairness, whether one has nothing against or one does?
Charles
You bring up a good point . What is this patent thing.? I know it is in the constitution something about the congress shall … … . But how is that capitalism . Is that not the government interfering in free markets to pick huuuge !!!!!!!!!!!! winners. So if government can pick winners, . even to the extent of that anti market crew negotiating with our trade partners , to redistribute wealth to bill Gates and Merck …. …. Is that not re-distributive policy Socialism . See patents as doggy dog . I see putting American workers in competition with the lowest paid labor in the world as doggy dog.
Speaking of that low paid country are they not the fastest growing economy in the world. A planned economy with a hybrid form of corporate governance where government owns controlling shares of every company. Are they in shambles as they are about to surpass us , as the worlds largest economy . Which just by their population the should.
“Rigged” Dean Baker its free .
GregB, there you go again, confusing people with facts.
Thanks, Bob. As John Quincy’s dad said “Facts are stubborn things…”
As Trump would say, “Facts are malleable things.”
There are times when I regret being agnostic. In fact, I’m kind of pulling for some form of reincarnation/karma. I just hope I’m around when you come back as a poor black kid. Then we’ll talk about “fair”.
Well said, Dienne
Alternatively, I’m pretty good with Christianity too, at least as Christ actually taught it. If that’s the case, I hope I’m around to watch you herded with the goats at the final reckoning. What have you done for (to?) the least of these My brethren?
Amen
Capitalism is not a governmental system, it’s economic. Capitalism can function in an authoritarian communist state such as China, in Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile. Even Hitler allowed the German corporations to do as they pleased as long as they played ball with the Nazis. Capitalism is amoral and apolitical.
Wish I could have stated it that succinctly. I’m trying now to convince myself that envy ain’t such a bad thing after all.
What is the function of government if not determining “who gets what when and how. ” .= Economics .
Some body is making that decision that is Politics. . They are setting the rules of the game.
Why can I as a worker decide that my boss is abusive and is not fairly compensating us workers . Who is going to stop us from just taking over the means of production . No need to answer that . But what if instead my fellow workers and I, decide to urge other workers not to go to work with their employer who supplies my employer be cause it is in our mutual interest. Can I do that . Answer it. if you can..
Or we have laws in this country that say we have to pay our debts. I do not know why, Government insists on that, but they do.. . If we don’t we can be brought to court and forced to pay those debts or forced to go into Bankruptcy, . Having a court decide who gets our assets even our homes. . Of Course that is not what happened when CitiBank could not pay its debts . Citi got a taxpayer check for 350 billion .
Then they got to name almost every one in the Obama cabinet and W.H. . .
There are no economic laws it is not a science . Politics (government) is who determines who gets what when and how . Write any rules you want there are none.
The author actually simply recommended folks fight for a fairER economy– & probably does not share your literal, black/white definition of “fair” as a pie divided into equal pieces [your definition of a social enterprise, I gather].
Gans’ description of ‘unfairER’: “Capitalism has always been hard on the poor, but now it is increasingly so for the working and middle classes as well. Today’s global economy sheds good jobs while creating too many bad jobs, that is, poorly paid and insecure ones. Although the long period of wage stagnation may be ending for some, the below-median-income population and even some above-the-median earners are still living from paycheck to paycheck, as the rich get richer.”
A capitalist society in which [wiki stats:] — “the gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%”, “The average employee “needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour”, “95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started” — can hardly be described as “vibrant” and “dynamic”.
Civics and politics are not taught well, hardly taught, or not taught at almost all public schools K-12. There are robust exceptions, but it is generally not part of the curriculum. Teaching about civics and the political system is not quite the same thing as teaching history.
Intentionally done by the government? It’s interesting that RttT was all about “College and Career Readiness” but it rarely mentioned being a civic participant who will be able to participate effectively in a democracy in order to up hold it, grow it, and protect it.
The GOP and Democrats have abandoned the people and continue to try very hard to dumb them down. It does not take much, but it can still be overcome by the people, and it is is to some extent, little by little.
Obama, Reagan, and GW Bush were the worst things to happen to public education. May they rot and become pulverized under the sun . . .
“The GOP and Democrats have abandoned the people and continue to try very hard to dumb them down. It does not take much, but it can still be overcome by the people, and it is is to some extent, little by little.”
True that. But in order to overcome, the people have to be educated, specifically about education. How do you educate an uneducated population about education?
The actor, Richard Dreyfuss, has set up an initiative, to spur the teaching of civics in public schools. See
https://thedreyfussinitiative.org/
I was involved
It was not doing much
Charles,
You have said this repeatedly
I still find it hard to believe that civics and politics are not popular in public schools. I remember civics class as one of my favorites. We had mock elections, and gave candidate speeches. I would love to see a comeback!
RE: Civics: Is this really true? While I’m aware it has suffered in some regards due to the CCSS emphasis on math/eng, Social Studies is still a regular part of elem, midsch & hisch curriculum. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong), the US sys of democracy, the mechanics of passing a law etc. are still taught a couple of times during those yrs, & contrasted to other types of govts during the course of ancient & contemporary world history. Seems to me there is ample opportunity to bring the facts to life w/narrative, current events, role-play etc.
Teaching politics isn’t too far afield. “What are the means available to citizens to get their voices heard/ influence passage of laws/ correct abuses of the law?” is a Q that could be posed & role-played while studying any form of govt.
Anecdote: best politics lesson I ever got was from my 7th-gr Soc Stud teacher in 1960. She had an 8-wk-or-so unit on learning the meaning of the terms “liberal”/”conservative”. After various readings to help grasp the concepts, she had us study news issues as covered by a whole spectrum of periodicals (Time, Newsweek, The New Republic & others) & try to figure out their editorial slant.
Depends on where you are, Bethree. In my state, social studies has been tossed from elementary, and shortened in middle school, in favor of teaching ONLY math, reading and writing. Many Title 1 schools in my state now demand that ONLY these three areas are taught.
Wow, Threatened, that is terrible! You are in Utah, I think?
I hope others will chime in too.
A nearby district here in CA has jettisoned social studies and science in K-5. I think this is pretty common. ELA and math are the only subjects that count these days and they eat up most of the day in many places.
Yes, I am in Utah, and from talking to teachers, getting rid of elementary social studies is pretty common in several large districts in the state.
Thanks for the feedback, I guess things are worse than I thought, at least in Utah & California. And I wish this were widely known in the nation: that elem-level Soc Stud & Science have been jettisoned from [how many?] public school district curricula?!?
A direct result [presumably] of state stds/assessment accountability regimes?
Or… is this a result of Evangelical et al political pressure groups that fear the state will try to impose some ‘partisan’ view of history & some non-Evangelical view of science? & thus the state in a paroxysm of political correctness punts Soc Stud & Sci to midsch or hisch [where teachers are left to fight the clock to get kids up to speed on the basics]– or worse: are they planning [ultimately] to give kids hs diplomas w/o ANY history/ civics/ sci?!
Good lord.
It just occurred to me as I was reading the last comment that in Germany they don’t use the terms “civics” or “civic education.” They use the term politische Bildung, which means, wait for it, political education. Must be why Gans uses it.
At the Gymnasium (college prep) level, it is much more in depth and comprehensive than here. I had a friend who taught in Munich and we used to share information on how we approached our classes. He said that the most emotional reaction he got out of his students—which was the same every year and in every class—was when they saw a picture in their textbook showing American students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Their universal reaction was always, “That’s what the Nazis did!” They found it disturbing that students in the U.S. began their day with a pledge, especially when, the younger they were, they had little if any idea about the principles the Pledge was supposed to convey.
It strikes me that this is akin to the furor about the national anthem at sporting events. Admittedly anecdotal, I have personally found that those who are most outraged generally have the scantest knowledge about our nation’s constitutional principles and history (kind of like the whole monuments thing). What they call national pride, I would call jingoism. And even more fundamentally, why do we even have the playing of the national anthem before sporting events? What in the world do they have to do with national pride? As far as I know, the U.S. and Canada (probably in response to American habits) are the only nations that play a national anthem before regular sporting events. The only times national anthems are played are when national teams or athletes are represented (as we are familiar with in the Olympics). If we have to have ceremonies like this, I would prefer reflections on civic education, i.e., political education. [Personally, I recite neither the Pledge nor the national anthem in public. I stand quietly, but I meditate and think about parts of the Constitution. And I really don’t like the “Star Spangled Banner’s” implied glorification of militarism nor the ignored verse praising the virtues of slavery. If we have to have a national anthem, why not something like “American, the Beautiful” or “This Land Is Your Land”? That’s probably a consequence of my German Americanness.]
As I was writing this, I was reminded of a passage in Fred Kaplan’s biography of John Quincy Adams: “Admiral Stephen Decatur’s widely publicized toast in 1816, ‘our country, right or wrong,’ struck Adams as not only discordant but immoral.” [As Adams saw it,] “My toast would be, may our country be always successful, but whether successful or otherwise always right. I disclaim as unsound all patriotism incompatible with the principles of eternal justice.” He was saying our duties toward each other about more than arguing about how patriotic we should be, which is really about jingoism and do not demonstrate respect and love for our nation’s ideals. I think that sums up what Gans writes about the importance of political education.
“…each other are about more than…”
This is to GregB:
Quote: “And I really don’t like the “Star Spangled Banner’s” implied glorification of militarism nor the ignored verse praising the virtues of slavery. If we have to have a national anthem, why not something like “American, the Beautiful” or “This Land Is Your Land”?”
As a retired music teacher, I agree totally with you. The “rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air”…good grief. There is nothing beautiful about glorifying someone being killed. [I now think about the bombs bursting in the Middle East. Killing is never wonderful.]
It is also extremely difficult to sing. I’m all in favor of changing.
I completely agree with you Carol. The verse you cite always makes me shudder, especially when people sing it with gusto. And please excuse the typo on “America the Beautiful.”
GregB
Because of the Red scare of the 40-50s some Unions adopted the practice of saying the pledge when starting membership meetings. Much like Bellamy’s original purpose in writing the pledge. Few in the audience would appreciate that it was written by a socialist as an in your face effort to claim loyalty to his country .
Of course you know things have gotten totally out of hand when a Holiday party starts with the pledge or the national anthem. And those of course who are pushing it ,are clueless as to the history nor the values we would ‘like to think’ the Nation represents .
Democrats support this blatant ed run around basic labor rights by charter schools:
“Poznyakov/Shutterstock
In May 2016, teachers at International High School (IHS)—a charter school in New Orleans—voted 26-18 in favor of forming a union. Yet more than a year later, school administrators are still refusing to bargain, insisting that the teachers do not fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. (There is no statewide collective bargaining law for public school teachers in Louisiana.) In February 2017, the NLRB voted 2-1 against IHS’s challenge, concluding that the teachers are indeed private workers under their purview rather than public employees.
Yet IHS, still refusing to bargain, is now taking its case to the Fifth Circuit—the first time a federal appellate court will rule on such a challenge. The outcome of this suit could affect labor law for charter teachers not only at IHS, but throughout all the Fifth Circuit states—Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.”
The Democratic Party supports this. It’s just shameful. They’re making it impossible for these teachers to organize.
How can Democrats stand up and insist they support labor rights when they fund and applaud this blatant denial of basic labor rights by charter schools? They should be ashamed.
http://prospect.org/article/charter-schools-insist-our-teachers-are-public-employees-or-private-employees-whichever
DFER, the Center for American Progress, New America Foundation and the Urban Institute, all pretend to be on the political left. Just like their funders, they hide from the shame that they should feel.
Thank you, Chiara, for sharing this.
Who said Democrats support Labor rights. Lip service is easy . They had an opportunity in 09 .
The Wall was such a colossally stupid idea that even a Congress controlled by his own party wasn’t going to give it to him. Most drugs come in through legal ports of entry. The Wall will affect only a small portion of the trafficking, and there are easy work-arounds. EVERYONE knows these things except Mr. Trump’s most loyal trumpeteers.
And the RAISE [sic] Act–well, economists and business organizations all know that it will actually DECREASE jobs for American’s citizens, and especially so for the low-skilled ones. And even the dumbest of our Congresspeople and Senators have had that explained to them by their aides: “With due respect, Congressman, let me explain to you the ‘lump of labor fallacy.'” Among economists, there’s a consensus that the RAISE Act will not increase jobs for working people or for anyone else but will have precisely the opposite effect.
So, the only way Trump was going to get his Wall and his RAISE Act was to hold hostage a lot of young people and children. And that’s what he has decided to do–to hold young people and children hostage, to BARGAIN WITH THEIR LIVES.
That, it seems, is what “The Art of the Deal” means. He’s not going to sign a DACA fix that doesn’t include his wall and the RAISE Act, and his spokesperson just made that very clear in her news conference.
How low can our politics go? I don’t know. Mr. Trump keeps plumbing new depths.
I have tried. I have really, really tried to give this man the benefit of the doubt. I know, I know, trust me . . . but this latest action is the most revolting thing in our politics since the Japanese interment camps.
Bargaining with the lives of children and young people . . .
a new moral and ethical low. Congrats, Mr. President, on having racked up another superlative to put on the trophy shelf next to having achieved the lowest approval rating in modern history at this stage in a Presidential term of office.
Mr. Trump–you’re a marketing-savvy kinda guy? You know a good slogan when you hear one–something that pithily and memorably encapsulates a lotta stuff. Why don’t you just lump together your support for the Wall and for the RAISE Act and your cancelling of DACA and whatever other depredations you have planned under one catchy, memorable umbrella title like, say, “The I Fear Brown People Acts of 2017”?
RE: the Wall– hey, maybe that was Trump’s “hyuge infrastructure plan.” Like the Great Wall of China: not really a ‘great’ wall (full of discontinuities), just a great way to put a bunch of jobless people to work at very low wages creating at best a political symbol, using the hype to distract from the continued underfunding of critical national infrastructure.
I wish Gans had looked at some of the state requirements for something approximating political education; realistically called civics and government.
Here are some facts of the matter.
“Thirty-seven states require students to demonstrate proficiency through assessment in civics or social studies. … Every state includes civic learning or social studies in its standards or curriculum. Twenty states provide curriculum support and forty-eight states include civic learning as a strand in their standards. Dec 12, 2016 50-State Comparison: Civic Education Policies” https://www.ecs.org/citizenship-education-policies/
In other word anything approximating what Gans might want is a thin strand in social studies.”
If you want to see how one state addresses politics— you won’t find much in Tennessee’s 2017 draft of the social studies standards. “Covering every topic” is a primary concern, literally, and perhaps metaphorically as well.
Tennessee requires that students complete a half-credit course in Civic and Government in order to graduate from high school. The discussion of UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND CIVICS begins on page 178. Teachers will need to work hard to make the standards come alive and make sense. https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/sbe/attachments/Standards_SRC_Revisions_4 4_FINAL.pdf
There is something else happening.
In Cincinnati, the Charles Dater Foundation is offering teacher workshops and other resources for a program called “Democracy and Me.” I have been hearing the ad on my car radio every day. Today, I explored the website.
The website has links to local workshops for teachers and pull down menus for links to programs and resources. Democracy and Me offers “curated” resources from NPR and local public radio (e.g., City Council races) My first impression is that this is on-line news service geared toward teachers who focuus studies on current events (if these studies are still around).
Under programs, the website directs users to credible sites, including the Library of Congress digital materials and some prepared by the Federal Courts.
However, under “Resources, I discovered the website is also functioning as a marketing service for several for-profit “learning management systems”—aka data vacuum system. One is called Socrative and it is all about real time adfaptive testing, https://www.socrative.com
Another is a content aggregator that is supposed to develop reading skills. It is called “Newsela…an Instructional Content Platform to fit perfectly into how your district already works. Integrate with Google Classroom, Canvas, Clever and more.”
I found no concern for privacy issues. Newsela is basically an on-line content aggregator for materials that some unknown team-members select for conventional school subjects and grade levels. Algorithms for “reading difficulty,” and yes, echoes of the Common Core, are in play.
The worst part of the Democracy and Me website was a link to a puff piece with Campbell Brown portrayed as if a legitimate journalist. http://the1a.org/shows/2017-08-28/the-news-and-your-newsfeed
I’s like to know if Democracy and Me is a national NPR program that enlists local stations and local non-profit sponsors that also, as here, pulls in local print and television news. In any case, Democracy and Me is tailor made for people who think that resources like these are perfect for “personalized learning.” No surprise, one of the linka at “resources” takes you to the national social studies standards.
Gans is right: we need to teach politics –in a neutral, even-handed fashion. Few of my seventh graders really know what Republicans and Democrats stand for. Citizens need to know more than how to pass a bill. There’s a lot more to political literacy than that. If they don’t get this knowledge in school, they may never get it, or only get it from Russian bots on the Internet.
Unfortunately the new trend in social studies education in CA is to not transmit information at all, but rather to set up situations in which kids can do “inquiry learning”. I gather this is what the influential constructivism adherents at UC Berkeley and Davis desire. The process becomes an end in itself. Whether the kids actually acquire valid knowledge is not important.
Thank you, Ponderosa, for your unceasing efforts to get this point about knowledge across. The concept of “working knowledge” is a key one. Typically, one has to have specific knowledge to get something done–knowledge of what the writer assumed you already know, for example, in order to read with comprehension. Also, it’s really dumb to throw out the notion of schools as places where older people hand off to younger people what they know and care about in art, music, history, philosophy, science, literature, and, yes, politics–that is (to use a term that has strangely fallen into desuetude), culture.
Bob Shepherd Shame on us. Social studies, history, and civics are more than knowledge of this or that. They are the kinds of knowledge that underpin and will inform how a person thinks in terms of their own political ground and situation.
Because we live in a democracy, it’s a failure of the institutions’ vested responsibility as education in that democracy NOT to pass down that kind of education to our future citizens–precisely because only then can they have the best chance of keeping what they have, and what our founders passed down to us.
“their own political ground”–what a fertile phrase that is! poetic, powerful, awaiting germination and flowering
Preach it!
CBK and Bob: Folks like DeVos, the Kochs and our Dear Leader would pervert your wonderful comment into “their owned political ground.”
Oh, they will get it allright, Ponderosa. Political awareness sets in as soon as you’re on your own financially, trying to get a job or a loan or just doing your taxes. I have watched my own sons ‘getting it’, after working hard to gain ed & skills via college, then trying to find work, & ending up in multiple gigs, none of which provide benefits– then doing their taxes for the first couple of yrs. and so going into the cash underground for a few yrs, but then aging out of parental healthcare at 26. & learning that you can’t get Obamacare unless you make X minimum income, learning to skirt the law as ‘independent contractors’ cuz there’s no other way. What they have learned is to be very cynical, & to imagine they will perhaps have to migrate to Canada, eventually.
What do Republicans and Democrats stand for? I guess that lack of understanding is something I share with your seventh graders.
I like Gans’ suggestion for ‘casual instruction’ of adults in civics via TV/plays/ et al media. He says we would need a liberal govt for that to happen… But from my observation, it’s been happening in spades, for years! There seems to be a huge US appetite for seeing our laws played out in narratives, as they apply to police investigation of crime & fraud, forensic evidence, court trials & appeals, imprisonment & parole.
Consider only the 27-yr airing of Law&Order & its spinoffs (one of which is still creating new episodes. Or the fascination w/forensic evidence via the various CIS series & Forensic Files. Even a sally into military justice w/JAG & the long-running NCIS (& its spinoffs). There’s ‘American Greed’ for fraud cases, & 48 Hrs for kidnapped/ missing et al cases, & many smaller police-case shows hosted by retired investigators on cable channels devoted to that sort of thing. ALL of these shows focus on ‘innocent until proven guilty’, what’s evidence & what’s just hearsay, what’s a case for a hearing/ judge vs a case for jury, should a case be heard in family court or youth tried as an adult, & shows often explore finer points of jury verdicts, jury tampering, suborning perjury, whether & how a confession may have been coerced, et al.
Millennials have been watching a number of shows & dramatic series exploring the dark side of the justice system. And they have been a major audience for the recent dramatic series recounting the OJ trial (that occurred in their youth). Perhaps all of us have tuned in to portions of OJ’s recent parole hearings/ release.
And America’s lopsided no of incarcerated is reflected in a growing no of reality & dramatic shows focusing on what life is like ‘inside’. And America’s lopsided no of ordinary folks accosted by police for any reason whatever are increasingly addressed in reality shows like ‘Cops’.
None of the above are pure politics, tho pondering them will surely give rise to political awareness. For pure political ‘casual adult education’, West Wing had a huge audience, & there have been premium-TV dramatic series w/large followings, like Homeland and House of Cards.
Bottom-line: I think Gans underestimates what appears to me to be a vast US interest (as measured by TV viewership) in how the US system of laws operates in our lives as regards criminal & civil crime, & shows are beginning to extend into the area where the justice system touches on– if not me, the guy down the block. It is not much of a stretch to imagine shows focused on ‘my’ issues & how I might address them w/n the civic sphere.
There are definitely new kinds of literacies developing. The young people I know don’t read a lot of books. Having gotten enormous pleasure and instruction from them for many years, I, of course, consider this tragic. However, they are not stupid. They are gleaners of the electronic landscape, and they glean quite a lot.
From a philosophical perspective, I’m not sure a majority of people see a fair economy as a virtue that requires effort to maintain. Some people assume it exists by nature just as the sun rises. Many people champion a casino or lottery economy as fine. Let wealth flow by chance untied to exacting rules and measures of fair effort and work. Does society function in that state? Today, society seems to be teetering on the ethical foundation that was part and parcel fifty years ago, but has been largely abandoned.
Is exacting economic fairness a shared cultural value? Attempts to promote this value are often met with, “life isn’t fair”, “winners play for it, suckers pay for it”, etc. Television has the apprentice and shark tank, but where is the show where contestants ply their ideas to make the tax code more fair and equitable?
The ethical foundation of economic fairness may have eroded over the last fifty years. Some people seem to champion a lottery or random economy. Instead of Shark Tank, where’s the show where contestants ply their ideas to make the tax code more economically fair and just?