[Note: If
the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped
by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings. The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View
of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).
Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has
affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools. Part of that influence is how the discipline
helps guide civics textbook writers.]
This posting picks up this blog’s look at a set of efforts by
a prominent civics textbook, Magruder’s (2013 edition), to encourage
students to become more engaged with the governance and politics in their local
communities. The last posting looked at
two forms of engagement: writing letters
to the editor and volunteering. This
posting looks at other forms. As a
reminder, those efforts are presented as a series of inserts entitled Citizenship
101 which are situated as stand-alone entries at various points within the
book.
As such, these short entries lack prominence. That includes the next described insert, working
on political campaigns. So, for example, that insert does not offer
any motivational language.
In addition, the tone is light-hearted, but there is no description of
what campaign workers experience. One
senses the author of the insert assumes that a student who reads it already
wants to work on a campaign or any campaign.
As
with the other inserts, this one has a list of suggested steps one follows to be
so engaged. The first is to “Get to know
the candidate.” This step is taken
before a student would give any consideration as to why he/she would want to work
on a campaign in the first place. Then,
curiously enough, the second step is “Choose a Candidate.” It is hard to see the logic of this
progression.
The
last two steps are straightforward:
“Find out about volunteer opportunities” and “Choose a task.” The steps, though, are perfunctory with
little information or enthusiasm for what type of activities the steps entail. For example, here is a portion of the text
describing an activity, “Find out about volunteer opportunities”:
Political
campaigns offer a wide range of volunteer opportunities. A candidate may be looking for people to go
door-to-door to seek support. The
campaign may need people to host or even just attend events. Most campaigns need people to make phone
calls or send out mailings of campaign literature. Campaigns also appreciate financial
contributions.[1]
Perhaps cynically, one might ask: After reading this information, would a
student just want to run out and get involved?
Would that student just get tingly all over with the possibility of
doing something as exciting as working to get someone elected, someone he/she believes
will help lead to make a better community, city, state, nation? Not exactly?
More seriously, would a student get a good sense of what it means to
work on a campaign?
Sorry
for the cynicism but it’s just that campaign work is a chance to learn some
important lessons about politics and an opportunity to work with like-minded
people who might turn out to become lifelong friends. As with the book’s treatment of volunteering,
described in the last posting, couldn’t there also be some case studies of
young people working on campaigns. Or,
could there be quotes from campaign professionals about what all is analyzed
during a campaign and the importance of campaign workers?
To
be honest, the text does have more insightful information in its main text
about voters and voter behavior. There
is a section dedicated to explaining why people don’t vote. All of this can be useful in campaign work,
but the tie-in is not built into the explanations. And an inexperienced young person would
likely need such descriptions not only to get excited, but to just get a handle
on what it means to work on a campaign.
There
is a question in a section review (page 178) that asks: “How do factors such as income and level of
education impact rates of voter participation? … Why do you think this is the
case?”[2] Magruder’s
claims these are critical thinking questions.
This writer is underwhelmed. How
about using the text to ask: From what
you know about why people don’t vote, how can a political campaign encourage
reluctant people to vote? And/or, which
political party would be more inclined to encourage high voter turnout? Why?
This
last question would have students look up and analyze the following: which voters are likely to vote; which party
is likely to win low turnout elections; which party is likely to win high
turnout elections? Is it good for society
to have high turnout elections? Why/why
not? These questions, as opposed to what
Magruder’s offers, demonstrate what
it means to solicit critical thinking among students.
As
with the other inserts already reviewed, the judgement here is that Magruder’s could do a lot more with this
insert on volunteering in political campaigns.
In terms of motivation, the text basically takes the view that students
either have the motivation to work on a campaign or they don’t. By using only minimal language of
encouragement to get students involved or to promote social capital,[3]
one is left with language not being very motivational or exciting.
The
remaining inserts this review looked at are:
“political roots and attitudes,” “voting,” and “writing to public
officials.” The most interesting of
these is “political roots and attitudes,” the most useful is “writing to public
officials,” and the most disturbing is “voting.” None of them, with the exception of one, give
what this writer deems to be incorrect information, and they all are
straightforward efforts to convey information.
None of them attempt to encourage the activity highlighted.
The
“political roots” insert was found to be interesting because it has students
construct an opinion poll questionnaire on one of three issues: national debt,
environment, or the economy. While not
making any effort to review what opinions are currently voiced by citizens or
pundits concerning these issues or by localizing the issue, the insert seems to
assume the student has some previously held beliefs and biases. The concern is more about how to determine
what classmates might feel about the chosen issue.
The
information does not include any list of dos and don’ts about how to write an
opinion questionnaire, other than to use neutral language. Perhaps a teacher using the insert can
“springboard” to having students research the techniques that professionals use
and find effective in such efforts.
The
one disturbing bit of “information” found in any of the three inserts is in the
“voting” insert. There, voting is
described as a privilege, not a right.
While voting is not a natural right, it is a civil right – a right
created by law. When one considers the
sacrifices African Americans, women, and, in some countries, non-propertied
workpeople made to be allowed to vote, referring to voting as a privilege is a
bit disheartening. Hopefully, there is
no sinister motive in using this language.
The
insert dedicated to writing to a public official is the most useful. It gives good advice about how to structure a
letter or email that a constituent might write to be effective. In so doing, the tone immediately becomes
more encouraging. It even mentions how
politicians are more influenced by a voter who writes, considering the effort
such an activity entails, than other forms of communication.
That
is, given that a voter is willing to go to that length, he or she is probably
someone who is willing to encourage others to hold similar opinions to his or
hers. That possibility translates into a
group of voters, who, in turn, might be persuaded to vote in a certain way in
the next election. Result: the politician’s future success in keeping his/her
job might be affected by such letter writers.
Overall,
though, the effects of these inserts mirror those previously reviewed. In terms of encouraging communal
participation or social capital, the inserts are woefully lacking. With those inserts covered, this blog’s
review will next look at how Magruder’s and Glencoe’s describe
and explain a governmental program, Social Security.
[Note: This entry is being posted while serious
disruptions are occurring in a good number of the nation’s cities. This writer wants to express his concerns
both for the family of George Floyd and for the legitimate protesters being
caught up in the trying events their protest has encountered.]
[1] William McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston,
MA: Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013), 141.
[2] Ibid., 178.
[3] Reminder,
social
capital is a societal quality characterized by
having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations,
and a social environment of trust and cooperation. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The
Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster, 2000).
No comments:
Post a Comment