Not long ago we attended a lecture on teaching the Constitution by one of the book's authors. The Forward of the book was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Essays were written by essayists, pertinent to the subject of 8 chapters. The book's authors encourage readers that they need not be a lawyer or a constitutional scholar to teach constitutional history in the classroom.
However, teachers are already struggling to educate today's children to read, write, and do math. They may feel overwhelmed to be expected to pick up a 436-page book to learn how to teach kids about the Constitution, as important as they know it is. High School Students in Kansas are expected to pass a test on the constitution in order to graduate, and they may take the test as many times as it takes to pass. I fear that memorizing test questions is not really teaching students about the American Constitution.
With many young Americans claiming to prefer Russian laws verses our American Constitution, Kansas lawmakers were understandably concerned. They required that in addition to testing students about the Constitution, they also be prepared for knowledge of Russian Laws. Unfortunately, a few questions on a test are not going to fix those problems.
| A new possibility? |
I believe that if this nation is to survive, teaching students about our constitution is just as important as reading, writing and arithmetic. Many people see AI as a means of making our lives easier. I see it as a reason for us to get smarter.
Teachers have made it clear that they are already struggling to teach all of their students enough to succeed with a basic education. Many teachers cannot see any room for an additional task. I understand their feelings, but it seems to me that it is more important than ever that we find a way to teach children the importance of our constitution. I have an idea to ponder.
Many years ago, when I was teaching in New England, on Wednesday afternoon, students who wanted to attend religious class in their church were excused from school an hour early. Students whose parents did not wish their children to be dismissed for religious training used the hour for study hall or other activities. Why couldn't teaching the constitution for one hour at the close of the day, one day a week, be part of the school day. If that was done from the time kids started school, a smaller burden could be placed on teachers. The Constitution weekly programs could be prepared by constitutional scholars, freeing teacher from intensive research. The scholars would not insert political bias, and if the teaching plan was consistent throughout the nation, children whose parents moved would be receiving the same education when they moved to a new school. If it was a program for public and private schools, without exception, America could have an educated population without bias and misinformation. President Washington's concern about the problem of political parties would be considerably reduced. One hour a week, or perhaps a shorter time for younger students, for sixteen years of education, uniform across the nation, whether in Private or Public schools, with unbiased learning about the Constitution, would be good for the kids, teachers, and ultimately for the nation. It's just a thought, but it might work, free from the bias of politics and without burdening teachers with preparing lessons.
It's just a thought, but if the politics were removed, and teachers were relieved from having to prepare the lessons, perhaps the nation could benefit from an educated population with a reduction of political bias. It's just a thought!

