I want to preface this with the fact that my family has been involved in deep political discussion around me and with me for as long as I remember. Politics was never a taboo subject for us and discussions of this sort were daily conversation topics and became common knowledge by the time I entered elementary school. That said, the way my school presented political information was my first memory of politics and looking back now, I feel that it negatively affected my outlook on some aspects of politics today and it remains in conflict with the way it should be taught.
In first grade (2004), all students were given a small pamphlet titled "Weekly Reader" which would bring up some topics on world events. One particular edition covered the Bush v. Kerry election and summed up the article with an opportunity for students to "cast their votes" for one of the candidates. The flaw in this was that it presented the candidates only in the way they interact with children and focused on their personalities alone. While I would stand that presenting intricate policy issues to first graders is largely unnecessary, it does conflict with the idea that election decisions should be made on more substantive elements as opposed to solely being inoffensive. Rather, I believe it would have been more effective to present how elections work using the presidential elections as an example to follow for a classroom exercise. The result which did occur, was one in which I value non-conflict above other values in situations which may need debate. For example, I avoid debating people who I feel are worth having a serious discussion with because I want to avoid conflict. It is also worthy to note that while I no longer have this mindset, I used to value personality in politics over policy.
Changing the value of what a person looks for in the political process is something I feel very strongly about. Teaching students a more valid way of thinking about the political process has the possibility of translating into more informed adults. Valuing this above vapid platitudes is one important step in creating a better political environment.
In first grade (2004), all students were given a small pamphlet titled "Weekly Reader" which would bring up some topics on world events. One particular edition covered the Bush v. Kerry election and summed up the article with an opportunity for students to "cast their votes" for one of the candidates. The flaw in this was that it presented the candidates only in the way they interact with children and focused on their personalities alone. While I would stand that presenting intricate policy issues to first graders is largely unnecessary, it does conflict with the idea that election decisions should be made on more substantive elements as opposed to solely being inoffensive. Rather, I believe it would have been more effective to present how elections work using the presidential elections as an example to follow for a classroom exercise. The result which did occur, was one in which I value non-conflict above other values in situations which may need debate. For example, I avoid debating people who I feel are worth having a serious discussion with because I want to avoid conflict. It is also worthy to note that while I no longer have this mindset, I used to value personality in politics over policy.
Changing the value of what a person looks for in the political process is something I feel very strongly about. Teaching students a more valid way of thinking about the political process has the possibility of translating into more informed adults. Valuing this above vapid platitudes is one important step in creating a better political environment.
Comments
Post a Comment