Those Pesky Founding Fathers

Who Were Those Guys Anyway???


For the last couple of years, I have found more frequently that students are entering my class with some pretty heavy preconceived notions concerning government and politics. These opinions seem to be on the extreme ends of the political continuum...that is to say the kids have an unusually conservative or liberal bent prior to walking into my door. Have you also noticed this?

Class discussions that once were based on readings and lectures now become tainted with partisan politics. It seems that the confrontational banter of the more extreme televised pundits has worked itself down to the level of teen audiences and is creating a red/blue divide in the classroom. I feel like Rip Van Winkle; I fell asleep one day and when I awoke the world was a strange new political place.

The advent of President Obama's election and the rise of Sarah Palin as the populist icon of conservative America seems to be the fuel for this fire. I suppose it is only natural that as the nation moves towards moderate liberalism on one hand and grassroots conservativism on the other that the kids will be pulled into the fray. What is interesting in my classroom discussion when we deviate into these ideological detours is that the students all claim that they have the Founding Fathers on their side. Those pesky Founders!

What is precipitating this blog is that for the last couple of years I have felt compelled to interrupt my scheduled lesson plans to return to the very first unit on underpinnings and have a further discussion on the Founding Fathers. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on who these people were and what were their intentions. The deeper into the course I travel with the students the more the Founders seem to intervene. Why is this? I have a theory.

Most American like to believe that our nation was founded by a marvelous group of like minded individual. Some how we have glorified the Founders as intellectual giants, courageous in their opposition to tyranny and self sacrificing in their march toward a democratic government. While this may or may not be true, what was true was the Founders were a factious lot representing many diverse elements of the former 13 colonies. The wealthy landed, the indentured, the small shopkeepers and the yeoman farmer all had their representatives as did the western settlers, the southern plantation owners, and the urban shipping commercial interests.

I don't reject the idea that the Founders were a unique collection of men unmatched in history. I do reject the notion that they had much in common with each other ideologically, economically, or politically. Madison had good reason to fear factions...they were everywhere particularly among the nation's leaders.

On the other hand, which group of Founders do we want to point to? Only four of those who signed the Declaration of Independence also signed the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Are the grass root revolutionaries such as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry to be put in the same category with later politicos such as John Jay and James Madison? Some how I doubt Sarah Palin looks to Alexander Hamilton, the father of big government, as her role model.

The practical side of today's conversation is that maybe I need to take more time at the start of the year and clarify some of these issues. I have always spent considerable time on ideologies and political beliefs; however, in the highly charged political society we now find ourselves in it might be beneficial and save time in the long run if more time is spent initially on topics like the Founders and their philosophies. I am sure thinking that will be the case on my next go around in APGOPO.

The Iron Triangle

Teaching the Triangle

I forget the year, but I remember the deafening groan heard nationwide when the Iron Triangle appeared on the Free Response section of the APGOPO Exam. Students and teachers alike were first amazed this was on the test and then dismayed that so little time had been collectively spent teaching and learning the concept. In fact, students who were using the John Q. Wilson book had never heard of the Iron Triangle unless it was a topic of their their teachers lectures. The concept is covered in a different manner with different nomenclature by Wilson.

I have always been big on teaching the Iron Triangle concept. I understand that many college professors will argue that it is over simplistic (true), demonstrates a Pollyanna approach to law making (true), and can be even misleading if not taught correctly (also true). Yet I cling to this model of law making for high school students for several simple reasons. First, it does graphically demonstrate the necessity of all three entities needed in creating good legislation. The simplicity of the Triangle is its strength. Students can relate the inter-governmental relationship between sub-committees, the departments of the bureaucracy, and the clients for whom laws are crafted. While over simplified, it is something they will remember for years.

Second, I strongly believe the Iron Triangle is a perfect way for us to bring some relevancy to the topic by incorporating current events into this topic. Since I am in Kansas, I always first demonstrate the Triangle to the students using an Agricultural scenario. The Congressional Committee is the Agricultural Committee, the bureaucracy is obviously the Department of Agriculture, and the client/interest group is the farmer across the street from our school as well as the Kansas Wheat Grower, the Farm Bureau, giant end users such as General Mills. My bill usually concerns wheat subsidies which allow us to discuss the fact that Kansas receives more government grants and aid than it actually pays in taxes. The kids can understand these concepts even though none of them actually live on a farm.

For the last couple of years my second example has been the highly controversial Air Force Tanker program. Since Wichita's economy is highly tied into Boeing Military Aircraft the tanker program is salient for the students. Many of my kids have unemployed aircraft builders in their family or neighborhood. Discussing current (and recent past) events on this issue and tying it to the Iron Triangle makes tons of sense to everyone. It sure brings the level of interest in a rather dull topic up in a hurry. It also gives us a chance to explore as a class what happens when the Iron Triangle goes wrong.

Finally, using the Iron Triangle model does allow us to ask the question: "What could possibility be wrong with this system?" (See the 2003 AP question) It seldom takes long for my kids to look at the triangle on the board and understand that PAC money could "buy" votes for committee members, that the Bureaucracy and the Interest Groups might not see eye to eye and cause conflict on the information Congress received as feedback, and that Committee oversight might cause a conflict of interest when the Bureaucracy was supplying information to the committee. I seldom have to pull these concepts out of the kids...as they look at the board they become rather obvious.

While I seriously doubt the Free Response portion of the test will ever have an Iron Triangle question again, I still maintain this is an important concept to work on. I encourage you to seek out good local examples for your presentation on the Iron Triangle. Or, as the nation follows the Health Care Reform bills as they pass through House and Senate these can become the focus of your lecture.

It was once said that two thing you don't want to watch being made are laws and sausage. As a born and bread Wisconsin boy I saw a lot of sausage made as a kid, and it wasn't all that bad. Watching laws being made can be down right exciting. You can call me "old school," but that doesn't necessarily mean "bad school"!

Teaching the House of Representatives

A Daunting Task Involving Much More Than a List of Terms

This week I will begin to start the teaching of the institutions of our national government to my AP class. This is always a daunting task knowing that a large percentage of the AP Exam will be centered on these institutions. The multiple choice questions don't worry me so much. Based on released exams from the past, many of the questions on the multiple choice section dealing with the institutions of government seem to be definition in nature...that is to say, if the kids know what a sub-committee is, they will be able to figure out the answer to the question. This isn't true of the Free Response portion of the exam, however.

If you look at the questions on the Free Response portion of the AP Exam, these often involve so much more than just knowing the vocabulary. The folks at AP don't expect the kids just to understand the structure of the House or Senate, or the roles of the Congressmen in committees, or the influence of interest groups in the legislative process. The questions posed to the students will often involve the juxtaposition of their understanding of Congress with one of the other branches of government.

This means that our job in preparing the students for the exam (and indeed for a life long understanding of the government) involves making sure that they understand the links between the House and Senate and the White House, the Federal Bureaucracy, and the Courts. This means that topics such as Committee and Sub-Committee interaction with the White House staff and Executive Offices need to be discussed. It means that the Iron Triangle needs to be thoroughly understood. And it also means that the tailoring of legislation to withstand judicial scrutiny must be become a topic of inquiry. These and many, many topics need to be touched upon.

It has taken me the better part of 40 years to get a good handle on Congress and its interaction. I don't find it surprising that they say it takes a freshman Representative his/her entire first term just to understand their jobs. And yet, we are pushing our students to get a solid insight on this complex issue in just the two or three weeks we have to dedicate to the topic. Daunting!!!

I do not believe that the textbooks or even Hippocampus can fully do the job of making the connections for the kids. That is why I believe the most important thing we can do for them is to get them following the news and really getting connected with all stories dealing with Congress. Right now we have the Health Care bills that are getting great press. The news stories in the weekly magazines and the newspapers are a tremendous source of real world examples of the inner workings of Congress. As the press is following Committee hearings, interest groups both pro and con on health reform, and the debates within the chambers of the House and Senate we can find many real world examples to help the students really get a grasp on the complexity of our legislative process. At the moment in history, the controversy of health care reform has given the congressional process a transparency seldom afforded. Take advantage of this wonderful teaching tool and bring the real world into your lesson plans.

Elections Can Be Confusing!!

Helping Our Students Make Sense of Elections

As adults who have watched countless election cycles come and go, we have a pretty good idea about the processes and mechanics of the campaign cycles. We also are able to differentiate between the elections that are simultaneously occurring. What I have discovered in my quarter of a century of working with kids is that this whole political circus that we call elections is a very confusing mess to them!!! We never should forget we are working with 17 and 18 year olds who maybe paid a little attention to the last election, but who completely ignored any previous election that happened in their lifetime. Remember, these guys were only 13 during the Bush/Kerry election and 9 years old during Bush/Gore contest. They don't have a lot of experience to work with here.

To make this worse, many of our textbooks approach the topic of elections in a very unified way. That is to say, the texts lump together the process of presidential and congressional elections and present the topics of finance, polling, campaigning, voter behavior and so on together. When the students finish reading the chapters they have a pretty fair picture, but it is blurred on the edges.

For example, in an essay on Presidential financing, I always have students want to enter into a protracted discussion on PACs. Fine, but PACs should really be discussed in congressional elections since their influence in presidential elections is less vital. On the other hand, in essays on congressional elections I will have students discuss targeting messages to certain groups which can be very relevant in Presidential politics, but much less relevant in House elections, especially in geographically small districts that are somewhat homogeneous. While these mistakes are minor in our our classrooms, on an AP Exam, they can become disastrous leading to low scores on Free Response Questions or incorrectly answered Multiple Choice Questions.

My point here is simple. We need to separate presidential and congressional elections and create lessons, essays, and assignments that will focus on each topic individually. In my classes I intentionally and specifically tell the students, "this week we are working on congressional elections!" Everything for that week to totally focused only on House and Senate elections. We have class discussions, look at the Hippocampus lecture on Congressional Elections, watch Robert Redford's The Candidate, and write essays only on congressional elections. The next week I proclaim Presidential election week and we follow suit. During discussions I always am very careful to delineate congressional vs. presidential politics. (See the blog I use with my own students on this topic: Vix's APGOPO Heights High School)

Now, the experienced viewers are saying to themselves "ah, duh!"; and rightfully so. Most of us who have been around for a while have realized just how confusing the whole election process really is for kids. We have answered student questions time and again that should seem obvious, but in fact really are not. So for you who are just getting into the teaching of government and elections, take heed from us old timers. Never assume the kids understand a thing about the process. Explain every teaching point in fine detail. For while us older, more experienced adults have watched, participated, and voted in many election cycles, for the youngsters in our class, we are awakening them to a whole new and confusing world.

Political Parties...Teaching Controversy

A Funny Thing Happened in Class This Year...

Teaching the Political Party unit in APGOPO is usually a great deal of fun. By the time students are seniors they have become aware of the political environment in the nation and many of them watch the pundits on Fox or CNN or Comedy Central and have entered the earliest stages of forming a political philosophy. This can make for a very fun class discussion on political parties...but it can also lead to controversy that can be fraught with land mines for a teacher.

With this in mind, I try to always begin a unit on political parties with a couple of class rules firmly entrenched. First, we are discussing politics and all discussion should be done as the Founding Fathers intended..with civil discourse as the basic rule. I like to relate the story of Jefferson/Adams to the students. While these two towers of the early republic differed on almost all subjects of government, their respect and admiration for each other resulted in civility that should become the model for all Americans.

Second, all statements of political philosophy must be backed up with factual evidence...we are after all Political Scientist. The science aspect has its traditions back to Francis Bacon who would argue that observation and experimentation are necessary to understand a theory. Thus in my classes if students want to expound a theory they must produce the facts. Mindlessly repeating babble from televised "experts" is not allowed.

OK, with these rules I have an activity I like to do in class. I divide the class into two groups (after giving a very brief explanation of the political continuum) based on party affiliation. Typically my classes break 50/50 Republican and Democrat, or at least near enough to do the activity. Once we are split, I ask each group to produce a large poster (I give them a 3 foot by 3 foot sheet of butcher block paper) with their concept of what their Party stands for (a) socially, (b) politically, (c) economically, and (d) Constitutionally. They are not allowed to use books or Internet...this is just an activity to see how accurate they understand their Party's core beliefs.

Once this is done each group presents to the other and then the posters are hung in the room. during the presentations I allow questioning and a free flow of ideas to happen. Step two involves some real work. Each group is then charged to view the most current (2008) platform of their Party and to tear that platform down, summarize it, and present the summary to the other group. In the process of the presentations, we compare the assumptions of the group on the Parties core beliefs to the reality of the Party's Platform. (Republican Platform Democratic Platform)

On any given year I find that intuitively the students' perceptions are fairly accurate and that while there are always a few surprises in the discrepancy between assumed Party issue positions and the reality of these positions, these tend to be minor. What happens, however, is that in the process of relating Party lines to each other, the students come to understand that while the means to achieving the end may differ somewhat, both Parties have common goals. In other words, the students are able to understand that the Parties gravitate toward moderation and that the extreme views often shouted the loudest in the media are not the core values of their respective Party.

Several things happen in this exercise. First, students learn to discuss political ideologies and philosophies with civility. Second, students better understand the Party that they believe best reflects their own budding ideologies. The former is a valuable lesson for not only the class, but also for entering life. The latter can either entrench a student in their early ideology and party identification or it can challenge them to reevaluate the values they thought they held.

This year I did have a problem that never occurred before. In one of my classes I ended up with 95% of the class claiming to be of one party, leaving only a couple of students to shoulder the work in the other party. What was interesting was that after the first day, several of the student in the major party came to me and asked it they could switch groups. While one issue drove them initially to one party, the more careful study of the platform demonstrated to them that the other party's umbrella was more inviting.

Here is a fun twist on this project...make the groups look at the Platform of the opposing party and then make the presentations. The results end up very similar, but it puts a new light on the process. The bottom line in teaching the political parties is to embrace the controversy while encouraging the civility.