BF2S Forums At what age is it Ok for kids to learn about Politics in school?

It really depends where you're from. Teaching politics over here would lead to even more hours wasted a week. If someone is interested in a non core subject there's lots of resources available to research it.

I know a 34 year old who still votes for a certain political party just because her parents did.  Whenever I try to engage her about issues, she gets mad because she can't defend her beliefs.  It's not limited to young kids just out of school, nor limited to one side of the aisle.

Edit: 
I chalk it up to whether or not a person has a desire to be a part of the political process in a thoughtful way.  Being taught politics in school wouldn't necessarily provide that motivation to engage and form beliefs based off of logical conclusions vs someone else's opinion.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-14 09:35:59)

Pug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I know a 34 year old who still votes for a certain political party just because her parents did.  Whenever I try to engage her about issues, she gets mad because she can't defend her beliefs.  It's not limited to young kids just out of school, nor limited to one side of the aisle.

I personally don't have a problem if people are voting based on traditional lines like above.  Preferred? No, but I can see why people would do it.  There's an argument to be made that the individual is happy with the politics of the family, because the family is happy with their lifestyle.  You don't need to put any more logic into it if that's your rationality for the way you vote.

Now is that right?  Maybe not for you, but it works fine for others.

It's still pretty ignorant though.

Jackabo wrote:

Polotics is confusing and worrying stuff. Kids don't need to be confused and worried at the age of 10

It is if it's proportional representation you're trying to teach them! Half the adults in Ireland don't understand it never mind the kids.

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

But you need to teach them the tools to understand those positions.

That's just logic and critical thinking...which is covered elsewhere in the curriculum. There's no reason to have it specific to politics. Otherwise, you fall into the trap Pug so eloquently described.

You must admit that most kids that vote for their first time don't know a shit about it, and they vote a candidate because their parents voted him, not because they agree with the proposals.  That is pretty dangerous to say the least.

From my experience, younger people tend to have more knowledge about political candidates than middle-aged people and also seem to care more about voting.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-14 14:20:24)

Stingray24 wrote:

I know a 34 year old who still votes for a certain political party just because her parents did.  Whenever I try to engage her about issues, she gets mad because she can't defend her beliefs.  It's not limited to young kids just out of school, nor limited to one side of the aisle.

Edit: 
I chalk it up to whether or not a person has a desire to be a part of the political process in a thoughtful way.  Being taught politics in school wouldn't necessarily provide that motivation to engage and form beliefs based off of logical conclusions vs someone else's opinion.

It can actually be hard to get out of that habit. My parents have always been so outspoken about their politics that for years I felt that I couldn't go against anything they said (at least openly) due to the fact they would get so mad they wouldn't talk to me about it. They would act like I was just being rebellious and/or band-wagonish and blow me off.

Finally, about 10 years ago (Sure I was just 18 at the time, not 34) I decided to start researching my politics heavily in order to actually be able to logically and precisely state my opinions on candidates/parties/etc.
My parents are the type to forward every propaganda email they have ever received (when it favors their candidate) on to everyone in their address book in order to "persuade" people into making the "right decision." Unfortunately, 75% of the time, those propaganda emails are false, or based on false "facts." When I started putting together logical, fact driven responses to their emails/statements, it, at first, pissed them off... Royaly.

Now here we are, 2008 elections coming up, and they are actually coming to me for advice on candidates. They know I have researched every factoid, vote, and statement when it comes to most of the candidates. They asked me who I plan on voting for and why, and I told them. They asked me why I didn't like the other people running, and I told them. Now they plan on voting the same way I do, and yet I still have to correct their propaganda emails that are in FAVOR of the candidate I am backing... lol... (At least I'm for truth and don't just spin the propaganda when it suits me I guess...lol)

Doing graduate work..."design two lessons for the same subject. One using direct instruction and one using indirect instruction."

I chose the topic of Cold War political systems. "SOC.6.2.12.EconET.3.b - [Performance Expectation] - Compare the characteristics of capitalism, socialism, and communism to determine why each system emerged and its success in leading to economic growth and stability."

So I will have the kids identify which system the U.S. used and which system the Soviet Union used. Students then must identify one positive outcome and one negative outcome of communism in the Soviet Union. Students then must identify one positive outcome and one negative outcome of capitalism in the U.S.

Is this Critical Race Theory? Is it liberal indoctrination to teach that the Soviet Union wasn't all bad and that the U.S. wasn't all good? Is it conservative indoctrination to only talk about the bad things the Soviet Union did? Is it tone deaf to talk up the accomplishments of capitalism to a bunch of poor minorities? How would many Americans feel if somebody told their kid that they could live a just as fulfilled life under a socialist system as they do in a capitalist system?

In Paradise Lost, while leading Adam and Eve out of Paradise, the archangel Michael tells them that even though they are leaving paradise they can live a happy and fulfilled life if they follow 7 tenets: obedience, faith, virtue, patience, temperance, love, and charity.

This having learnt, thou hast attained the sum
Of Wisdom; hope no higher, though all the Stars
Thou knew’st by name, and all th’ ethereal Powers,
All secrets of the deep, all Nature’s works,
Or works of God in Heav’n, Air, Earth, or Sea,
And all riches of this World enjoy’dst,
And all the rule, one Empire: only add
Deeds to thy knowledge answerable, add Faith,
Add Virtue, Patience, Temperance, add Love,
By name to come called Charity, the soul
Of all the rest: then wilt though not be loth
To leave this Paradise, but shalt possess
A paradise within thee, happier far.

Would it be liberal indoctrination to tell the kids that despite whatever is going on in the country, they could live happy and productive lives if they practice the 7 virtues? If you removed any references to the Bible and taught about the 7 virtues, how many Christian Conservatives would accuse you of being a social justice warrior?

Serious political science and civics classes are probably a waste on most high school students, on whom critical thinking and quality of argumentation are not high priorities. The teachers who would be doing this teaching are probably barely better themselves. I'll never forget the one civics teacher who liked to pick out only the students with opposing viewpoints, and then harass them for the duration. No lessons learned, no minds changed.

It was pretty much bullying. In facial/body language, tone of voice, and manner of address. I've seen teachers happily engage because the class is. Seen ones who were just tough and treated everyone equally like dirt. This guy was either chasing some obscure personal gratification, or clout with the more like-minded bunch of late teens who were barely paying attention to the back and forth anyway. Could've had a bad time in school himself so decided to perpetuate the cycle.

Electives cost money.  So much money is spent keeping disruptive and dangerous kids in schools. Exhausting. Can't do fun stuff.

I watch these teacher training videos from nice white suburban high schools and just think

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Electives cost money.  So much money is spent keeping disruptive and dangerous kids in schools. Exhausting. Can't do fun stuff.

I watch these teacher training videos from nice white suburban high schools and just think

I had a science elective out in a portable building with little budget and no equipment. The teacher seemed apologetic about the whole thing, and we basically just filled time with a lot of theory. Good practice maybe for kids who went on to college to become scientists with little budget and little equipment. Football way more important, in high school and in college!

People wanted it that way. Have to give the voters what they want.

Reminds me of a funny story I read recently.

In the year 2001, North Bergen illegally removed a Green Acres-funded softball field in James J. Braddock North Hudson Park and placed pre-K trailers there as a temporary fix to the overcrowding problem in the schools. Some 20 years later, despite repeated demands by the DEP and promises by the district to remove the trailers, North Bergen is trying to make the pre-K location inside the North Bergen High School football complex at the park permanent.

I can't blame people for opposing the construction of new schools. These are just not their kids.

The amount of money American schools spend on 'sports' is insane.