What does it mean to me?

I've been reading a great deal about new learning environments and mulling over the possibilities of different methods and perhaps even different modes of educational thought.

I'm wondering, at the moment, about how I can convince my students that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, in general, is worthwhile for them to study. Yeah, the spill about being an educated citizen and protecting freedom is fun to say, but what impact does that really have on average students--or any students?

What does it mean to me, anyway? I cherish the freedom that I have in this country, and I know that by and large those freedoms are protected by the ideas in the Constitution. But these ideas are so abstract. I could talk to the students about wearing an armband to class, and allow them to see that they do have some rights. But, they really aren't that interested in protest. I could discuss with them the limits of the freedom of the press, but they aren't publishing much on their own; so they're not that concerned with libel and slander. I could talk with them about the establishment and free exercise clauses, but religious freedom's not really on the top of the list these days... cynical, I know.

Unfortunately, maybe the 2nd and 4th amendments will draw some interest. Maybe guns and searches and seizures are more of a reality to many of the students than free speech and petition of government. We could talk about the 10th amendment, but even the Feds ignore that one these days.

I suppose I've gone on a bit more of a rant than I first intended. The ultimate goal is to determine how to intrigue the students. I really want them to want to learn about their government. I want them to want to know about their rights; not just for a test. Woe is me. Back to the whiny teacher mantra....

Congressman

I've been fuming all day because of the comments made yesterday by my congressman. The "Honorable Patrick T. McHenry." He and some of the other cronies out running for reelection soon were stumping on their "Operation Offsets." Clever name, eh? I understand the principle: we owe a bunch of money, especially with Katrina and Rita, and we need to figure out some way to pay for these expenses. But McHenry called for the end of public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now I have personal affection for PBS. My son--who is 20 months old--can count to 23 or so, because of the Count and Elmo and all his friends on Sesame Street. And maybe Sesame Street could be picked up by a competitive network in the free market, but what about Ken Burns? broadway performances such as Les Miserables? What about NOVA?

I'm a fairly principled conservative on most issues. I don't like my tax money being spent for worthless things. But slashing PBS? That would save me... wait... that's right a whopping $2.70 a year. Then there's $990 billion dollar budget that we passed. McHenry's vote: AYE. Then there's the pork laden Transportation bill. McHenry's vote: AYE. And the pork laden Energy Bill. McHenry's vote. AYE.

So, please, congressman, don't stand on your stump and rant about principled conservative spending, when your record clearly shows that it's all for political gain. I know that you dislike Bill Moyers and BBC; I don't particularly agree with their points of view either. But I can handle the elevated discourse. I prefer the elevated discourse, to the ratings driven talking head shows: like when McHenry was on Hardball defending that old time Conservative principle of government intervention in state affairs. Remember Terry Schiavo? Sarcasm noted.

I'm sick and tired of demigogues controlling the political process. The American people--at least some of us--can handle honest debate. I realize that things aren't as black and white as we would all prefer. But I am intelligent enough to handle big issues. I look forward to McHenry's response to my emails.

john q.

Don't be afraid to punt!

Maybe this is inspired by being at the Panther game Sunday, or the turnover prone Chargers...

Yesterday, I ended first period quite frustrated. We've spent 3 weeks now on the roots of American government (historic, philosophic, events, etc), and very few of my students are "getting it." I've used different methods such as lecture, question based learning, guided reading, journaling, standard discussion, etc., and not much was working. We've had some really productive class periods, but the assessments were falling short. So, today I remembered the advice I got from Dr. Eastman a few years ago: "Sometimes you gotta drop back and punt."

So we came screeching to a halt today. I typed up 30 why questions--why do we value limited government? being the first. I realized two things.

1) Many of the students don't have a grasp of the questions. For so long--too long--they've been taught memorization of facts and facts alone. They are accustomed to answering questions in a few sentences (that may be generous) and being able to find those sentences very close to the bold word in the text. And so today, all I wanted was for them to learn the questions. Not to regurgitate them later, but to begin to develop an understanding of what they are being asked.

2) They know that they value limited government. They may not know that it is "limited government" that they value--which is an argument for factual learning as well. But they don't want the police to barge in their houses at night and arrest them and hold them prisoner for an indefinite time. But they are not able to communicate these ideas very well. My brother and his compadres http://topics.typepad.com/pondering/ talk quite a bit about New Literacy and it is obvious--painfully sometimes--that many students don't have a grasp of new or old literacy. I'm developing as an educator, but still lack in many areas... we'll see how these next few days pan out.

Here we go raleigh...

The subject is a Widespread Panic reference. FYI. Whew. 2 supreme court vacancies, immigration?, Hurricane Katrina fallout, Iraqi Elections and Constitution ratification... Should be a crazy fall.

Not to mention the playoff bound Broncos. Too many Blue and Oranges for one night. No, I didn't name my son after a beer. The brewer, people, the brewer.

ihl
dt

Locke, Hobbes, and Disaster...

I've been preparing this afternoon for the upcoming lesson on the philosophy behind the creation of the American government. Whether I can engage the kids on such heady matters is yet to be determined, but I always enjoy some good philosophical reading. Within the subject matter, of course, is the Social Contract theory. I've been reading excerpts from Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatises.


All the while I've been keeping up with the madness that is New Orleans. The contrast between the political philosophers mentioned above seems to be playing itself out in real time in the streets of that ravaged city. Locke took a friendly view of the State of Nature: claiming that in Nature we would all live relatively peacefully because of the Law of Nature which lends a moral compass (paraphrased loosely). I can see this particular viewpoint in the thousands and tens of thousands who left with no civil authority are taking their own flat bottomed boats and going out on search and rescue missions, who are looking out for neighbors in many cases before they consider their own well being...

And then there's Hobbes version. The two both agree on the necessity of a Social Contract to form some sort of civil government--but I'll leave that for my lucky students tomorrow--, but their vision of the State of Nature are quite contradictory. Hobbes sees an all out war as the original Nature. One in which every man is warring with every man. One in which the chaos is so tremendous that people begin to long for some sort of authority.... But this version of the State of Nature is also present in the Big Easy. (not such a fitting name anymore) The thugs that are raping and carjacking and killing and looting--yeah I can accept the difference between stealing food and water and even clothing. Ones who shoot at helicopters that are attempting to evacuate people from hospitals. It seems that Hobbes was right. And so was Locke.

What causes these differences? The desperation argument only takes me so far. I can't move with that cause into the reports of gang rape and senseless murder. Can anyone help me out on this one?

dt