Some of you will already be aware of this story. I thought at the time that it was just a storm in a teacup — a group of teachers devise a spectacularly inappropriate assignment, some parents complain (I was shown some of the emails; they were annoyed but good-humoured), and the principal and District act promptly to stop the assignment. The local press make a meal of it because…well, its suddenly turned cold and there’s not a lot going on. The spokesperson for the teachers comes off as naïve, but not ill-willed. Ann Althouse, oddly, uses the case as a reason to suspect that the District does not have its act together — an odd conclusion to draw from a single instance in which it does the right thing effectively and immediately.
But then, yesterday, the local left-of-center paper published an extraordinary editorial defending the assignment. IF you read the NBC and Cap Times stories carefully you’ll see that their descriptions of the assignment differ. The NBC reporter showed me the assignment, and I have to admit that I did not take notes, but I definitely drew the implication that immediate withdrawal was demanded: the letter certainly said that if peace had not been achieved within 12 days the letter would be sent again.
The Cap Times editorial is wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to begin.
Suppose you have a pedagogically worthwhile assignment. How could it be right to exempt those children whose parents object? Suppose you were tryign to give children a lesson in civic engagement. How does having them send letters on a matter they have very little comprehension of to people who will at best write condescending replies ignoring their demands help to engage them? Is it right to imply to students aged 8-9 that it only takes the level of information, thought, and emotional maturity that an 8-9 year old has to be a responsible engager in public matters? Shouldn’t we encourage them to think that a responsible citizen gathers enough information and experience to make a well-considered judgment before making demands on their fellow-citizens (and non-citizens)?
Of course, the right-wing ranters the Cap Times refer to argue in bad faith. They are cheerful about having our schools indocrinate students through the Pledge of Allegiance, and many of them see History not as an exercise in impartial consideration of evidence about causes and effects, but as a kind of mythology class in which we tailor our instruction to produce right-thinking patriots. But how do we argue against them about that, if we have endorsed schools recruiting 3rd graders (8-9 year olds) into partisan political action?
{ 43 comments }
Seth Finkelstein 11.27.05 at 9:07 pm
I found the actual assignment, on this site:
http://madisonfreedomfighter.blogspot.com/2005/11/madison-3rd-grade-class-asked-to-write.htm
It’s a small image, but can be read (if barely) at double-size.
Neil 11.27.05 at 10:14 pm
The link Seth gave doesn’t work. Here’s a better one:
http://madisonfreedomfighter.blogspot.com/
It’s actually innocuous. All the kids were asked to do was to write letters that ‘press for peace’. Now, surely that’s something we can all agree on? GWB should be prepared to endorse the call. Nowhere does it say – nor, I think, does it imply – that the way to peace is (say) withdrawal of coalition troops. I think that it was taken by its initiators to be a call on all sides to refrain from violence.
Colin Danby 11.27.05 at 10:26 pm
Agreed, Harry.
And there should be a moratorium on that silly Margaret Mead quote (it’s 3/4 of the way down the scanned assignment).
Colin Danby 11.27.05 at 10:35 pm
Maybe you and I would agree, Neil, but suppose you were 8 years old and favored widening the war? Why, more generally, is politics being presented to kids in this treacly, sentimentalized way?
harry b 11.27.05 at 10:36 pm
Thanks for linking to the assignment. It seems less partisan than it did at first glance, but not less pedagogically wierd. First, urging X “to press for peace” will be understood by most of the third graders as implying that X is not already pressing for peace, especially when it comes to the President etc. Second “If the war has not ended by the 12 day then we shall start the whole sequence over again” suggests that they intend to spend the rest of the year writing these letters every day, or that they are going to abandon it despite their failure. Here’s why I (wrongly, but not eccentrically) intrepeted it as implying demand for immediate withdrawal: the teachers cannot possibly believe, and certainly should not be encouraging the students to believe, that the war will end in 12 days *except* through immediate US withdrawal (and no sensible person could think that would end the war either, it would just alter the cast of characters a bit). At best, wholly misconceived.
Maynard Handley 11.27.05 at 10:51 pm
”
And Brighouse says using the teaching position to influence students on a political issue like this, is wrong.
”
An interesting statement. I assume the same goes if we change the sentence to “And Brighouse says using the teaching position to influence students on a RELIGIOUS issue like this, is wrong.”
I’d be more willing to get worked up about this if those frothing at the mouth on the subject were willing to condemn, unequivocally such issues as ID/Creationism, the “under god” portion of the pledge of allegiance, and the various bogus ways in which Christianity and Christmas get snuck into school (all, of course, aided, abetted and encouraged) from the ten commandments through christmas pageants through “voluntary” silent prayers.
Yarrow 11.27.05 at 10:54 pm
Here is the text of the letter:
Dear parents,
The Frank Allis third grade will be writing letters to encourage an end to the war in Iraq. The letter writing will teach civic responsibility, a social studies standard, while providing an authentic opportunity to improve composition and handwriting. Here is an outline of the project:
Letter 1: To parents, outlining the project and requesting 10 postage stamps and 12 envelopes.
Letter 2: To other students at our school, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 3: To other 3rd graders at schools within our district, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 4: To other 3rd graders within our county, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 5: To other 3rd graders within our state, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 6: To 3rd graders in other states, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 7: To 3rd graders in other countries, urging them to join our press for peace.
Letter 8: To our state’s senators in Washington, urging them to press for peace.
Letter 9: To our state’s representatives in the House, urging them to press for peace.
Letter 10: To the president of the United States, urging him to press for peace.
Letter 11: To the secretary of the United Nations, urging him to press for peace.
Letter 12: To the media, telling them about our letters so far, and urging their audience to press for peace.
If the war has not ended by the 12th day, then we will start the whole sequence over again, writing to students in middle school, high school, and college. To paraphrase Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of interested individuals can change the world – indeed, they are the only ones who ever have.”
Yarrow 11.27.05 at 10:56 pm
Oops… Here are the last paragraphs:
Please send 10 postage stamps (or $3.60) and twelve envelopes to school with your child so that we can begin this important assignment. Thank you.
(If you would prefer that your child not participate in this assignment, please indicate here [ ] and an alternative assignment will be given.)
Thank you for your support. The third grade staff:
[Ten signatures]
Jay 11.27.05 at 10:59 pm
The assignment’s purpose was to write letters meant to “encourage an end to the war in Iraq.†I don’t think it is uncontroversial, as Harry says, that this wording clearly falls on one side of currently competing political values- implying a policy of immediate withdrawal. I also agree with the suggestion that 3rd graders shouldn’t be learning about civic participation through abstract and complex issues that are cognitively inaccessible to an 8 year old. Unless the assignment’s goal was to present civic participation as a simple algorithmic task of sending a handful of letters to various locations, absent genuine understanding and conviction concerning the letter’s message, the teachers’ proposal seems deeply misguided.
harry b 11.27.05 at 10:59 pm
Maynard,
never assume that reported speech which is not directly quoted is exactly as it was said. I’ve condemned the Pledge of Allegiance, not just the “Under God” bit. You can easily find out my views about religion in public schools; sure, I think it is wrong, not just for public schools, but for private schools to, to attempt to recruit children into religious outlooks, without engaging their reason and developing their critical faculties. If you read my post I’m a bit surprised that you have any doubts about this. How, exactly, does someone who criticises indoctrination into religious beliefs get a hearing if they endorse recruitment into political campaigning. At age 8. Oh, and I wasn’t frothing at the mouth, I was asked to comment, and did so. Not about ID or relgion, but about this — I’ll say what I think if asked about ID (its an intellectual fraud, more scandalous and damaging in my view than creationism, though no more or less false).
Seth Finkelstein 11.27.05 at 11:06 pm
Oops, typo, there should have been an l (el) at the end of that URL above, sorry (@#$% small comment box).
I’d assume the Cap Times just wants to give the put-upon teachers some rhetorical cover, rather than joining a pile-on from rant radio.
Seth Finkelstein 11.27.05 at 11:27 pm
Regarding: “How, exactly, does someone who criticises indoctrination into religious beliefs get a hearing if they endorse recruitment into political campaigning.”
I suspect this sort of assumed overarching consistency only matters much to liberal intellectuals (and a certain strain of Libertarian). I really, really, doubt that anyone who favors indoctrination into religious beliefs will be all that impressed if you also vigorously beat-up on an assigment from a few misguided elementary-school teachers. But I could certainly be wrong – many politicians think it does help, but maybe less for reasons of lack of supposed intellectual contradiction, and more for emotional appeal.
Maynard Handley 11.28.05 at 12:02 am
Harry,
I was not criticizing you. I was criticizing the various right-wing nuts who had jumped all over this.
To quote from another part of the story:
“Already, local, conservative–radio-talk–show hosts have picked up on the third graders’ assignment.”
abb1 11.28.05 at 5:00 am
Seems to me that an 8 year old clearly has enough comprehension to know that an unprovoked attack by a strong on a weak is not a good thing and needs to be stopped. This would be a well-considered judgment, as far as I am concerned.
I am not sute that waiting until the children are properly brainwashed by twisted justifications invented by the high priests of the society is a more appropriate thing to do.
Brett Bellmore 11.28.05 at 7:04 am
Yes, and at least some 8 year olds will understand that the teacher is stronger than them, and that being forced to take part in a political campaign in the guise of school work is a kind of attack.
This sort of thing contributes to the declining repuation of the teaching profession. They have got to grasp that children are NOT being given into their grasp so that they can be used to advance the teacher’s personal politics.
harry b 11.28.05 at 7:25 am
maynard — thanks for that response — I may not have been frothing at the mouth, but was clearly being oversensitive (or over-touchy, or something) when reading your comment!
Seth, I don’t know. In a small community like this some degree of consistency does matter. The Cap Times, for example, is well known for its views, and irritated readers cite inconsistencies reasonably often. In fact, I’m less worried about inconsistency than wrongness. It seems to me that the editorialist simply hasn’t thought this through with any kind of rigour (I have a strong suspicion, btw, that the editorialist is a particular person, one whom I know and like a good deal). My cocnern is much more with talking to other people on the left and “bringing them into line” — certainly that is who my critical letter is addressed to (which I imagine they’ll publish).
abb1 11.28.05 at 7:38 am
Brett, there is politics and politics. Advocating for ending this war doesn’t seem any more controversial than, say, writing letters against slavery in Sudan.
Jim_L 11.28.05 at 8:34 am
Ha, ha, Harry. Is this the CT item that confirms the rule, or have you just not received this month’s memo of approved topics?
Ann Althouse 11.28.05 at 8:55 am
Here’s why what I wrote isn’t odd, as I’ve posted on my blog today:
What can you infer from a single incident? In this case, you have five teachers who got together and planned something without anyone figuring out what the problem was and one of them continuing to assert that it is not a controversial issue. How did these teachers arrive at such a mindset? From living and working in a particular environment, I would assume. Oh, but the system “does the right thing effectively and immediately,” Crooked Timber says. Not really, The response only came because parents got mad. If a letter describing the assignment had not been sent to the parents, would anything have happened? What evidence do we have that the school district’s policy has any mechanism of enforcement? I think the fact that the teachers thought what they were doing is fine strongly suggests that the policy is not ingrained in the practice of teaching in the district.
Chris Bertram 11.28.05 at 9:16 am
The response only came because parents got mad. If a letter describing the assignment had not been sent to the parents, would anything have happened? What evidence do we have that the school district’s policy has any mechanism of enforcement?
I’m rather remote from events, and I don’t have a clear picture of the sequence. But it seems to me that if the school district’s policies are generally known and if parents are routinely informed of what it going on, and if they are listened to and responded to, etc. etc., then ipso facto the school district’s policy does have “a mechanism of enforcement”. (Assuming that is that by “a mechanism of enforcement” is meant just a normally reliable means by which we ensure that a policy is adhered to.)
Ann Althouse 11.28.05 at 10:29 am
Chris, my point is that the teachers imagined what they were doing was good. How could they have believed that if the school district actually took its policy seriously? It’s not much of a policy if nothing is done unless someone on the outside complains. That seems to be more of a policy of responding to grievances. There should be an internalized, routine understanding about what is right and wrong here.
harry b 11.28.05 at 10:33 am
Ann, that’s certainly a problem; the US inclination to use complaint/litigation rather than inspection as the central enforcement mechanism is definitely non-ideal. Are you proposing that every classroom assignment should be examined and approved by the District? Taxpayers aren’t willing to pay for that sort of monitoring, and conservative complaints about excessive bureaucracy would be fuelled. There is, certainly, a problem with the faux autonomy given to teachers (more, I would add, at the middle and high school levels than at the elementary level). Parental monitoring and complaint is remarkably effective, as long as the school has a critical mass of parents who are attentive and confident enough to make themselves heard. Schools without such parents face much deeper problems than the odd wrongheaded assignment (though I’d cheerfully devise and propose various mechanisms to reduce the probability of such things occuring — but routine District, or even Principal, review of classroom assignments would not be one).
As to the environment — one of the reasons I posted this was to prompt discussion of what is and is not appropriate. The teachers lives in an environment in which, indeed, indoctrination is approved of — what else is the Pledge of Allegiance, or the “daily act of patriotic observance”. Most of the current history textbooks in the district contain a good deal of indoctrinatory propaganda (read Boorstin’s textbooks, eg). I think there is, in fact, something like a consensus between right and left that it is ok to use History to indoctrinate children in patriotic sentiment. It is also widely held that it is ok for parents to indoctrinate their children in religious and political views (at least to the extent that this assignment was indoctrinatory). I think all these attitudes are wrong, and would like to prompt a wider debate about what is, and what is not, ok, in teaching children.
Anyway, tell me if I’m misunderstanding you.
jonk 11.28.05 at 11:36 am
Harry, I wonder if the assignment is really “wholly misconceived” taking into account the 12-day cycle you tie your assessment to. I would imagine that the teachers do not believe that 12 days of letter writing will end the war in Iraq (nor that it will happen on any other 12-day cycle). Instead it would be reasonable to assume that this lesson might have been planned to engage the efficacy of something like letter writing, how connections are made and communities of interest are formed, and generally raise the question of citizenship. That the teachers designed the assingment with an opt-out possibility would seem to indicate they are more astute than they otherwise let on (denying that it is a political assignment.)
On your critique of the Cap Times being wholly off, I don’t understand that either. I thought their most salient point was in critiqueing the teachers for being too specific in their pinning this project to Iraq, instead of merely pressing for peace. You continue by raising the issue of having a “pedagogically worthwhile assignment” and questioning the seemingly astute decision of the teachers to allow parents to opt out – to me it seems wrong to assume that some assignment can be pedagogically worthwhile to every student, and thus basing a critique on that hyper-critical.
Further, to asume that third grade students do not have capabilities to civically engage seems wrong to me. Let’s assume they have an issue of interest, why shouldn’t they write letters to people? Should we confine them to merely praising Count Chocula and Lucky the Leprechaun? I was teaching third graders two years ago, one day walking through the Rockefeller Empire State Plaza another teacher was telling me the story of a peace walk that was to finish in the government buildings of said Rockefeller Plaza, the group was not allowed to enter the buildings because of their political signage. Moments later we realize a student had dropped off the group and was sitting in the corridor writing on a sheet of paper. After about a minute she pops up and hangs a sign around her neck that says ‘PEACE NOW’ and continues walking with a very self-satisfied look on her face. Point is, there are plenty of kids who understand more than many adults give them credit for, and some of these understandings are political.
Assuredly any classroom or workplace assignment can be critiqued for any number of reasons, it is telling that a peace-positive assignment such as this has attracted criticism. Clearly the message we are to take away from this kerfuffle is that the schools should not attempt to work for social change. Worse yet, as the critique seemed to work against the teacher playing naive, that we are to believe that the schools are not in the business of socially indoctrinating youth.
Slocum 11.28.05 at 12:07 pm
The teachers lives in an environment in which, indeed, indoctrination is approved of—what else is the Pledge of Allegiance, or the “daily act of patriotic observanceâ€. Most of the current history textbooks in the district contain a good deal of indoctrinatory propaganda (read Boorstin’s textbooks, eg).
The pledge notwithstanding, the dominant trend in U.S. textbooks is not toward indoctrination but toward bland, PC inoffensiveness. Diane Ravitch has written extensively on the topic. See, for example:
http://cgood.org/schools-reading-other-booklist-4.html
U.S. public schools are nothing if not controversy averse–from the school district’s perspective, generating such controversy and negative publicity is THE sin here, and that would be as true in a ‘dark red’ district as in a ‘deep blue’ one like Madison.
beatrix 11.28.05 at 12:15 pm
This assignment is pernicious precisely because children are capable of civic engagement and thinking about politics. The problem here is that the assignment tells the kids what to think. That’s the opposite of participatory democracy. If the kids had been assigned to write letters on an issue of importance to them, and given some information and research assistance in choosing a position and deciding what to say about it, then you’d actually be educating them in the tools of democracy. But in the assignment as it was framed, no matter how well-intentioned the teachers may have actually believed that they were, the children were being educated to be good little totalitarian citizens. The assignment instructs them to think what the teacher tells them to think, to write letters telling others to think the same thing, and to keep writing ’em until all the others give up and assume the prescribed position! Is that really the kind of “social change” anybody wants the schools to encourage?
Also, I want to know what an “inauthentic” opportunity to improve composition and handwriting would look like.
harry b 11.28.05 at 12:23 pm
I agree with Ravich about the trend, and that it is pretty awful (unless it leads to teachers abandoning the books and reading real history books instead). Still Boorstin sells a lot of books, and I can testify that he is still used extensively (perhaps because once the school has the books it is reluctant to give them up, however bad, till they fall apart!).
Slocum 11.28.05 at 12:40 pm
Still Boorstin sells a lot of books, and I can testify that he is still used extensively (perhaps because once the school has the books it is reluctant to give them up, however bad, till they fall apart!).
I’m not familiar with Boorstin’s history texts, but if they are widely used I’d assume that it would be because the political ‘indoctrination’ is mild enough not to have raised the ire of either right or left pressure groups. His works, in any case, do not seem to have been the subject of any intense curriculum battles like we’ve seen for ‘whole language’ reading instruction or ‘constructivist’ mathematics (it is odd, isn’t it, that the most intense, political-charged battles have not been over political subjects like history but rather apolitical ones like reading and math).
In any case, where are Boorstin’s books used as school texts? And what sort of indoctrination do they include?
a 11.28.05 at 12:47 pm
“It is also widely held that it is ok for parents to indoctrinate their children in religious and political views (at least to the extent that this assignment was indoctrinatory). I think all these attitudes are wrong…”
What? It’s wrong for parents to teach their political and religious values to their children?
Tracy W 11.28.05 at 2:27 pm
It’s bad policy advice too. “Press for peace” is too vague. Bombing Hiroshima could have been described as “pressing for peace”, as could refusing to declare war on Germany over the invasion of Czechslovakia.
If you’re going to write letters to various people, recommend something more specific – “withdraw our troops from Iraq” or “send more troops to Iraq”.
(Of course I think a project expecting kids to engage in a letter-writing campaign over a pre-determined political objective is a very bad assignment regardless of how specific your recommendation is.)
save_the_rustbelt 11.28.05 at 2:48 pm
8 years old?
They barely know how to read and write ( and some won’t learn by the time they get to my college class).
Let kids be kids, teach them to read , please!!!!
Dan Simon 11.28.05 at 2:51 pm
The pledge notwithstanding, the dominant trend in U.S. textbooks is not toward indoctrination but toward bland, PC inoffensiveness.
….As well it should be. If the public education system is to retain public support (which it has barely clung to in America in any event, given the powerful strain of anti-intellectualism in the culture), then it must restrict itself to teaching only completely uncontroversial material. Those who argue otherwise are simply opening the door to an even worse result–a kind of educational cacaphony in which the propagation of nonsense displaces, and ends up swamping, genuine education. It’s much easier, after all, for parents to supply children with material they’ve missed than to try to disabuse them of falsehoods they’ve unwittingly absorbed.
Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution is an essential cornerstone of modern biology, and that “intelligent design” and its ilk have no place in a science class. But I would rather teach my children about evolution myself, with no help from public schools, than have them subjected to ID or similar pseudoscience in the classroom. Likewise, while I consider an understanding of current events and politics an important part of any child’s education, I’d rather the schools leave current events alone entirely than risk a repeat of the Madison experience in my neighborhood.
Of course, America is the land of the imperial Supreme Court–a place where democracy is something one pays lip service to, while looking for the most effective non-democratic means to shove one’s own will down everyone else’s throat. It’s not surprising, then, that most people see the school system as a perfectly appropriate vehicle for their own agendas–without stopping to consider what happens if their vehicle gets hijacked by their most feared opponents.
alice 11.28.05 at 3:10 pm
One problem of “press for peace” is that it is meaningless, except it isn’t just that , it’s meaningful in an Orwellian way. I doubt if the kids have enough background to evaluate the situation even crudely, but they are being encouraged to feel good if they hold to a sentiment.
That these sentiments are meaningless is shown by the fact that 30 years of “environmental awareness” resulted in bigger houses and vehicles, that they are Orwellian is seen in that many of these seem people thought themselves blameless in that they attacked the sinister forces *really* responsible.
The right engages in the same sort of nonsense, indeed we have examples of sympathetic magic where the right really believes that ungood thoughts on Iraq, the economy and everything else cause problems.
But all of this is detrimental to the building of mines.
At some point these kids need to see a reality where the awfulness of Dresden and Hiroshima are seen and also the awfulness of the concentration camps, the Japanese invasion of China and all the rest and to see there is no simple answer.
They need to see the beauty of Gandhi and the half million butchered after his death along with King and the riots.
Soul tearing complexity.
Probably not third grade stuff.
abb1 11.28.05 at 4:24 pm
There’s no complexity in the Iraq war. Nor in Hiroshima.
Talk about Orwellian.
Maynard Handley 11.28.05 at 5:54 pm
”
What? It’s wrong for parents to teach their political and religious values to their children?
”
How does this teaching proceed? If it consists of “We are xyz party people, right or wrong” or “God said this, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar”, then damn straight it’s wrong. The fact that most of the world does it doesn’t change that.
Children are exceptionally gullible beings. The appropriate way to handle that is to teach them to think critically, then expose them to a wide variety of opinions. There are precious few political and religious indoctrinations that work that way.
Brett Bellmore 11.28.05 at 7:36 pm
“Advocating for ending this war doesn’t seem any more controversial than, say, writing letters against slavery in Sudan.”
Are you actually delusional enough to believe that?
dearieme 11.28.05 at 7:46 pm
But the purpose of a public education system is to indoctrinate. Otherwise schools would be private businesses, or charities or whatever.
y81 11.28.05 at 8:31 pm
I’m really intrigued by the idea that it is wrong for parents to indoctrinate their children into their political and religious views. How would that work? Would you just smile blandly when the child hits you, hits his younger sister, tells the little black child in the playground to get out, because only white people are allowed in the sandbox etc. Or is there some distinction being drawn here between moral versus political and religious views? Because that distinction will require a lot of work to defend.
Of course, there are some other answers. One could discipline the child without reference to right and wrong, I suppose, simply stating that this or that conduct annoys me, and that I am the (arbitrary and despotic) ruler of (your) universe. I would like to meet the person with the personality that could pull that off. Maybe there are some other answers I’m not thinking of right off.
Really, I don’t mean to be argumentative. I’d like to see the idea explained and fleshed out.
harry b 11.28.05 at 8:46 pm
y81 and a — I’m afraid I’m going to make a move I often do, and promise a proper post on the subject when I’m ready — I do promise that I’ll do so using y81’s questions as a framework, but its going to take me awhile to get round to it (just because of pressure of work, and my own vain desire to write it right, as it were).
djw 11.29.05 at 12:50 am
I’m looking forward to it, Harry; my intuition is that I’ll probably agree pretty strongly, but I can’t quite see the way to answer y81’s questions.
a 11.29.05 at 1:15 am
“Children are exceptionally gullible beings. The appropriate way to handle that is to teach them to think critically, then expose them to a wide variety of opinions.”
No Santa Claus in your house, I guess.
abb1 11.29.05 at 6:10 am
Yeah, Brett, I am delusional, me and 90% of the world. You and the rest 10% are sane.
Brett Bellmore 11.29.05 at 7:15 am
Rather higher than 10% in the country where that teacher works, I expect…
james 11.29.05 at 6:40 pm
In response to post #31: The US politic is not anti-intellectual. What is being displayed is a conflict between those with mostly educational knowledge vs. those with mostly practical experience. Currently the views of those with “real world†success in a specific area are given more weight. This division is best summed up by an American cliché. “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teachâ€.
Comments on this entry are closed.