A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, November 17, 2017

DEBATE TWO: TAX INCENTIVE STRATEGY

The end has come.  Well, the end of this blog’s effort to report on the writer’s development, in real time, of a unit of study.  The unit is designed to be instructed as the last unit of an American government course.  That makes it an instructional plan suitable for high school seniors.  In addition, the unit is slotted as the last unit of the course.  This last factor placed one or two constraints on its options.
          The developer, at this point, would like to emphasize once again, that his effort was in real time.  That means each entry was thought of as the blog reported his progress.  As a result, and upon reflection, he would have done somethings different.  The main change he would implement is that he would not have two debates.  What he would do instead is offer the two proposals that the students are debating and ask students if they would add to the list.  Then the class would, through some discussion, decide which one topic they would formally debate.
          The advantage of this latter approach would be two-fold.  First, the students, for the topic chosen, would have sufficient time to debate it.  This would include more time for follow-up discussion over the issue.  Second, this would allow a more responsible development of the skill:  determining what is worthwhile debating.  As such, students, it is assumed, would have more buy-in to the concern motivating the debate.  Oh well.
          Now for the last lesson plan.
LESSON ON DEBATING QUESTION TWO:  SHOULD A STATE UTILIZE A TAX INCENTIVE STRATEGY?
Objective:  Given the instructional content of this unit of study, the student will viably fulfill his/her role in a debate.  This activity is to be evaluated by the ability of the student to synthesize and logically apply the information the unit presented vis-à-vis the proposal under debate.
Lesson steps:
          Pre-lesson.  The teacher rearranges the seats of the classroom in a suitable configuration.  The arrangement should allow the two debate teams to be in the front of the class in the form of a panel arrangement with a gap between the two teams.  A third panel arrangement, facing the debaters, is set up for the interrogators.  The rest of the class members take up the rest of the class space, behind the interrogators.
(Same day)
1.     Teacher reminds students that the class period is to have the second of two debates.  He/she reminds them why the seats are as they are and asks the students to take the appropriate seats given their role in the debate.  He/she collects student assignment (might take role based on these papers).  As this is taking place, the teacher takes role and handles other administrative items.  (five minutes)
2.     The teacher states, for the benefit of the class, the final version of the debate proposal.  Also, the teacher points out that the debate is not really an opportunity for back and forth arguments – previous class discussions gave students ample opportunity for that.  Time is “short” and students’ presentations need to be to the point and that is all.  (moments)
3.     The affirmative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)
4.     The negative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)
5.     The interrogators meet to decide what questions they will ask of which side and in what order.  (three minutes)
6.     Interrogators ask their questions and affirmative or negative debaters either answer the question or take it for further consideration.  (seven minutes)
7.     Both debate side members meet within their group and decide final rebuttal statements.  (five minutes)
8.     Negative side makes their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)
9.     Affirmative makes their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)
10. Interrogators meet and decide which side wins and formulate a rationale for their decision.  (five minutes)
11. Simultaneous to #10, members of both debating sides meet within their group to organize the contents of a letter to a public figure.
12. Interrogators announce the winning side and the reasons for their decision. (three minutes)
13. Teacher tells students, the participants of the day’s debate, that as their assignment for the next period is to finish their letters.  The interrogators are to convert the content of their rationale into letter form and address it to the public figure identified earlier.  (one minute)
Post-script.
As indicated by the time allotments, time is tight and the activity needs to be conscious of this fact.  In that vein, experience might indicate that this activity needs to be over two days.  If so, the teacher can eliminate one of the previous lessons or limit the plan to only one debate (choose which proposal he/she wants to “do”) to be done over two class periods.
Assignment:
Students, who participated in the day’s debate, within their groups, finish the letter that advocates the position of their group.
Post unit:  Teacher collects any assignment papers that are outstanding.  Also supervises the mailing of one letter to the pre-identified public official.

And that does it.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

DEBATE ONE: RIGHT-TO-WORK

Then there were two.  In this current effort, this blog has been, in real time, reporting on the development of a unit of study.  The unit is for an American government course.  It is the last unit of the course and designed to be presented over two weeks of instruction.  The topic of the unit is foreign trade and how that trade has affected the availability of jobs in the US.  This posting will present the plans for the ninth lesson.  This is the penultimate lesson of the unit.
          To this point students have been preparing to engage in one of two debates.  In this day’s lesson, students conduct the first of the two debates.  The debates are over whether the students’ state government should engage in one of two activities that are meant to lure manufacturing jobs to the state’s economy.  The first activity (in the form of a proposal), and the one this lesson will debate, is:
The government of this state should rely on a “right-to-work” status the state either currently has or should begin the process to attain (changing its laws to acquire the status) to lure manufacturing activity to the state.
The exact wording of the proposal might vary from this initial expression in that it would be subject to a negotiated point of stasis.[1]
          Before getting to the lesson plan, the developer wants to focus on the role of the interrogators.  The reader is reminded that there are three participating roles in a debate:  affirmative debaters, negative debaters, and interrogators.  The roles of affirmative debaters and negative debaters is straight forward:  one side argues for the proposal and other argues against the proposal.  The interrogators, on the other hand, fill several functions.
They ask questions of the debaters, they judge the debate to determine the winner, they provide a rationale for their decision, and, in the case of this debate, they are to write a letter to a chosen public figure to advocate the winning position of the debate.  The developer suggests that that figure be the governor of the state.  This will constitute the action component in this unit.[2]
LESSON ON DEBATING QUESTION ONE:  SHOULD A STATE UTILIZE A RIGHT-TO-WORK STATUS?
Objective:  Given the instructional content of this unit of study, the student will viably fulfill his/her role in a debate.  This activity is to be evaluated by the ability of the student to synthesize and logically apply the information the unit presented to the proposal under debate.
Lesson steps:
          Pre-lesson.  The teacher arranges the seats of the classroom in a suitable configuration.  The arrangement should allow the two debate teams to be in the front of the class in the form of a panel arrangement with a gap between the two teams.  A third panel arrangement, facing the debaters, is set up for the interrogators.  The rest of the class take up the rest of the class space, behind the interrogators.
(Same day)
1.     Teacher reminds students that the class period is to have the first of two debates.  He/she points out why the seats are as they are and asks the students to take the appropriate seats given their role in the debate.  As this is taking place, the teacher takes role and handles other administrative items.  (five minutes)
2.     The teacher states, for the benefit of the class, the final version of the debate proposal.  Also, the teacher points out that the debate is not really an opportunity for back and forth arguments – previous class discussions gave students ample opportunity for that.  Time is “short” and students’ presentations need to be to the point and that is all.  (moments)
3.     The affirmative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)
4.     The negative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)
5.     The interrogators meet to decide what questions they will ask of which side and in what order.  (three minutes)
6.     Interrogators ask their questions and affirmative or negative debaters either answer the question or take it for further consideration.  (seven minutes)
7.     Both debate side members meet within their group and decide final rebuttal statements.  (five minutes)
8.     Negative side make their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)
9.     Affirmative make their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)
10. Interrogators meet and decide which side wins and formulate a rationale for their decision.  (five minutes)
11. Simultaneous to #10, members of both debating sides meet within their group to organize the contents of a letter to a public figure.
12. Interrogators announce the winning side and the reasons for their decision. (three minutes)
13. Teacher tells students, the participants of the day’s debate, that as their assignment for the next period is to finish their letters.  The interrogators are to convert the content of their rationale into letter form and address it to the public figure identified earlier.  (one minute)
Post-script:  As indicated by the time allotments, time is tight and the activity needs to be conscious of this fact.  In that vein, experience might indicate that this activity needs to be over two days.  If so, the teacher can eliminate one of the previous lessons or limit the plan to only one debate (choose which proposal he/she wants to “do”) to be done over two class periods.
Assignment:
Students, who participated in the day’s debate, within their groups, finish the letter that advocates the position of their group.
          Then, there is one…



[1] Point of stasis is a negotiated statement that both sides agree to debate.  This usually is a more nuanced statement then is initially provided by the sponsor of the debate and allows the debate to avoid debating upon what is already agreed.

[2] Admittedly, this action is not very extensive given the other alternatives this blog has identified as possible actions students could take.  Logistically, given that this is the last unit of the course, with either final or mid-year exams in the offing, a more limited action component was deemed to be prudent.