Matthew Green runs KQED’s News Education Project, a new online resource for educators and the general public to help explain the news. The project lives at kqed.org/lowdown.
The sequester is now in effect. Some of the key spending cuts will be in areas of air traffic, early childhood education, health, food safety, environmental services, recreation, criminal justice, research, and defense. What area will affect you, your family, community, and/or the country the most and why?
Introduction
Late Friday evening, President Obama signed an order required by law that set in motion the automatic, government-wide spending cuts known as the sequester. While it won’t lead to across the board tax hikes – as the fiscal cliff threatened to do – it will result in sweeping cuts to government services that millions of Americans rely on.
What is going to happen? More than $85 billion in automatic across-the-board spending cuts to military and domestic programs over the next seven months ($42.7 billion from each). Of course, there is some dispute over the extent of the damage, and a number of conservative groups – particularly those advocating for smaller government – argue that the impacts are grossly exaggerated as a political scare tactic. While seemingly large, they say the cuts are still but a tiny percentage of the federal budget – a mere 2.3 percent.
However, a series of independent analyses have made clear that these cuts will exact a pretty large toll throughout the country. An article in the Texas Tribune illustrates the extent of various cuts in each state, as well as the impact per person. Generally speaking, the sequester is expected to stunt America’s already sluggish economic recovery by reducing our growth (in terms of GDP) and killing approximately one million jobs over the next two years, according to estimates by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
More than one out of five high school students in California drop out of school. Answer one or more of these questions: What do you think is the biggest reason why so many students don't make it to graduation? Do you know of someone who dropped out? What do you think was the cause?
Introduction
More than 20 percent of California high school students drop out of school before graduation, according to 2009 state education data. That's a lot of students! To get a sense of just how many, imagine sitting in your math class and counting out every fifth student sitting in class with you. In a class of 30, that would be six students.
Of course, 20 percent is just the average dropout rate in California. Some schools have a much lower rate, but for others, it's much, much higher. And in many cases, it's low-income areas with large minority student populations that have some of the highest dropout rates.
For instance, in 2009 more than one third of California's African American public high school students didn't graduate. That's far above the rate for any other ethnic group. Hispanics had the second highest rate, at 27 percent, according to the state's data.
The dropout rate differences between school districts also varied greatly. In Oakland, for instance, the dropout rate in 2009 was 40 percent, one of the highest in the state (up from 28 percent the previous year). But directly across the bridge in San Francisco, the rate was only 9 percent (down from 18 percent in 2008).
The President’s Cabinet is a team of advisors who have run an executive department and have specific expertise in a certain area. The Secretary of State, for instance, advises the president on foreign policy, the Secretary of Defense oversees the military, and the Secretary of the Treasury handles economic policy.
So, if you were to apply to be in the President’s Cabinet, what position would you be best suited for and why? Or what other cabinet positions do you think should be included?
Introduction
Good news! There may be some solid job openings in the President’s administration - although you’re not likely to find them posted on Craigslist.
As President Obama gets ready to begin his second term in the White House, there will be some turnover his Cabinet. The presidential Cabinet is a group that consists of the vice president and 15 executive department heads who have the job of advising the president and helping to run the executive branch of government. The Cabinet usually meets at least once a week. A good description of these 15 positions is listed at PBS News Hour Extra.
It’s pretty common for a re-elected president to rearrange part of his Cabinet in advance of his second term (although it’s not always clear whether departing Cabinet members chose to leave or were told to). Each Cabinet member is nominated by the president, but most have to be confirmed by a majority vote of the U.S. Senate.
So far, the major shakeups include:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stepping down. Senator John Kerry has been nominated by the President to replace her.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is leaving. Jack Lew, who is currently the president’s Chief of Staff, has been nominated to replace him.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will step down. Chuck Hagel, the former Senator from Nebraska, Republican, has been nominated to replace him.
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, the first Latina to serve in a Cabinet, just announced she is stepping down. It’s unclear yet who will replace her.
Do I Have a Right? - a game about Constitutional rights by iCivics.org
Are you interested in integrating some engaging, interactive and informative online resources to augment your students learning experience in Social Studies? Here are three great ways to incorporate world geography, Constitutional rights, and U.S. Policy in the Middle East through gaming, cartoons, and interactive media.
10 Ways to Teach About Geography (New York Times Learning Network)
The NY Times Learning Network does an excellent job in curating The NY Times’ multimedia content and suggesting great activities and applications for use in the classroom with direct alignment to Common Core State Standards. This particular lesson is a fascinating step-by-step approach to teaching students about world geography and demographics.
“Do I have a Right?” – an interactive game exploring Constitutional rights (icivics.org)
Among the handful of creative games produced by iCivics.org, “Do I have a right?” is a really interesting approach to exploring which rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Participants step into the shoes of a lawyer and hear legal complaints from clients, and must then decide if the case should be brought to court.
U.S. Policy in the Middle East: Analyzing Political Cartoons (choices.org)
The Choices Program presents an interesting lesson on exploring U.S. political involvement in the Middle East through the lens of political cartoons. The lesson emphasizes media literacy and the techniques used by cartoonists to express political opinion.
PBS LearningMedia has a wealth of free media resources for engaging students. Here are 3 resources for teaching about critical moments in United States history.
The president we now refer to as “The Great Emancipator” was not always so steadfast in his opposition to the institution of slavery. His views on the issue evolved dramatically during the course of the Civil War, and by the time Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation and fought for the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, his stance had undergone significant transformation.
This lesson is an excellent way of examining instances in which political leaders have dramatically shifted their positions on major issues – for either moral or political reasons – and in doing so, have altered the course of history.
Suggestions for classroom use:
Discuss: What are the major factors that led to Lincoln’s change in position on slavery?
Current connections: Are there any major issues that President Obama or other recent presidents/lawmakers have changed their positions on? What led to them doing so?
Reflect: If you were elected to public office, do you think there any major issues that you could be convinced to shift your position on (i.e. same-sex marriage, death penalty, etc.)?
The effort to achieve racial integration in the nation’s public schools was a long, hard-fought battle. Although legally, the issue was decided by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the fight to actually implement the law on the ground, particularly in areas of the South most opposed to it, raged on for years afterwards. This video and lesson is an excellent way of studying this period of conflict opened the door to America’s Civil Rights Era.
Suggestions for classroom use:
Discuss: On what Constitutional grounds did the Supreme Court overturn the concept of “separate but equal?"
Current connections: What are some issues in the news today that Americans are deeply and passionately divided on?
Reflect: What is the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education? Has the battle to defeat school segregation been successful, or does it still exist today?
The tragedy of September 11 had a significant impact on U.S. immigration policies. The tragedy sparked fears of foreign enemies causing harm to Americans, and led to stricter immigration enforcement, tightened border security, and increased incidences of deportations. May of these impacts are still felt today. Some say these changes were justified and have increased the nation’s security. Opponents, however, argue that the stricter policies have led to major civil rights violations and done little to make America any safer. This lesson is a good lens through which to study how major events in history have caused dramatic shifts in America’s attitude towards its immigrant population.
Suggestions for classroom use:
Discuss: What were some of the major changes in immigration policy that went into effect following 9/11?
Historical connections: What are examples of other incidents in America’s history that resulted in dramatic changes to immigration policy?
Reflect: What is the best way for America to protect its borders while also treating immigrants fairly and respecting their rights?
If Internet service was suddenly shut down in the United States, in what ways would it most impact your life?
Introduction
On Thursday, November 29, Internet and cell phone service throughout almost all of Syria was shut down. The service disruption continued through Friday, forcing an airport closure. The Syrian government has been widely suspected of disabling service, although President Bashar al-Assad, claimed that it was "terrorists" cut the cable. The shutdown marks another chapter in Syria's bloody, ongoing civil war, which began in March 2011, in the midst of the Arab Spring. Rebels attempting to overthrow the county's authoritarian government, have routinely used social media on the Web to communicate with each other and send images of the war to the rest of the world in an effort to highlight the military's attacks on civilians.
Only four internet cables connect Syria to the outside world, according to Matthew Prince, CEO of CloudFlare, a web security company. Three of them run underseas, and the fourth is an overland line through Turkey, making it very unlikely that anyone other than the Syria government had caused the blackout. "In order for a whole country outage, all four of these cables would have had to been cut simultaneously," Prince wrote in his investigation of the incident. "That is unlikely to have happened."
Should prisoners convicted of the most violent crimes receive the death penalty? Tell us why or why not? Link to a convincing argument or related article online, perhaps.
Introduction
For the first time in nearly 35 years, California voters will decide on the fate of the state's death penalty law. Proposition 34, on this November's ballot, proposes a full repeal of the law. If passed, the measure would convert the sentences of all current death row inmates to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Not surprisingly, Prop 34 is among the most emotionally-charged issues on this year's ballot, marking yet another chapter in California's ongoing, soul-searching debate on justice and punishment. Opponents of the death penalty (those in favor of Prop 34) contend that executing people is never justifiable, even criminals that have committed the most serious crimes. They also argue that the death penalty is incredibly inefficient and financially wasteful, due to the number of legal appeals, and the cost of keeping prisoners on death row for years on end. Repealing the death penalty would save the state an estimated $100 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
But supporters of the death penalty - those in opposition to Prop 34 - argue that criminals convicted of the most violent crimes deserve to be put to death. The death penalty deters future crime, many argue, and for the families and friends of victims, it is the only way that justice is truly served.
In an attempt to have a more diverse student body, should universities be allowed to make race-based admissions decisions that give preference to minority applicants? Tell us why or why not?
Introduction
Abigail Fisher, a white honor student, certainly didn’t think Affirmative Action was right, explaining that universities should not be allowed to make race-based admissions decisions that give preference to minority applicants. In 2008, she was rejected from the University of Texas. She sued the school, claiming that its race-conscious admissions policies unfairly and unconstitutionally favored black and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asians. Last week (Oct. 10, 2012), the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, the latest in a half-a-century long string of challenges to affirmative action policies.
For more than half a century, Americans have battled over the constitutionality and ethics of affirmative action policies. To see a timeline of the landmark moments in the history of an issue, visit the latest KQED Lowdown post Affirmative Action On The Rocks: Another Chapter In A Long Contested History
The Court’s eventual ruling on the case will help determine the extent to which race can be used as a factor in admissions and employment decisions. If you were a judge on the Supreme Court, how would you rule and what would be your reasoning?
When we vote for president in the U.S., we're not actually voting directly for the candidate we select on the ballot. Instead, we're voting for a group of "electors" who are part of something called the Electoral College, and they are the one's who actually cast the final votes that decide who the next president and vice president will be. So, in the presidential election it's not a one-person-one-vote system. Should we change that system so it's more direct democracy, or should we leave it the way it is? Is there a better system, perhaps?
Introduction
Here’s a little factoid that I’m sure we’ve probably all learned at some point, but that never fails to confuse the crap out of a lot voters. As Americans, we actually DO NOT directly elect our presidents and vice presidents. I repeat, the U.S. president is not chosen through a one-person-one-vote system!
So, then how does a presidential candidate win a state's electoral votes?
The presidential election is decided state by state. And for each state, it's a winner-take-all system. So ... that means that the candidate who receives the most popular (aka direct) votes in each state gets all of the electors from his/her party. The other candidates in the race, even if they lose the popular vote by a single vote, get no electors from that state at all. Nada. Squat.
Simply put, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state, wins all the electors in that state.
Why did our founders come up with this system (it's in the Constitution, after all)?
Two reasons:
a) They wanted to steer clear of the British parliamentary model, where the chief executive (prime minister) is chosen by the majority party of elected representatives. The founders thought that it seemed a whole lot more democratic to appoint electors from each state than to have a system in which the president was elected by Congress.
b) It was as issue of old-school logistical problems: back in the day (like way, way back, before phones and trains and wheels - ok, they had wheels), long distance communication and travel was challenging to say the least. Voting for delegates at a local level was just easier and less vulnerable to corruption than was counting every person's vote throughout the whole nation.
A candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote and it has happened three times in American history. The most recent occurrence was in the 2000 election, in which Al Gore won more popular votes but still lost the election to George W. Bush.
A more complete overview of the Electoral College can be viewed on KQED's The Lowdown.
We encourage students to tweet their personal opinions as well as support their ideas with links to interesting/credible articles online (adding a nice research component) or retweet other people's ideas that they agree/disagree/find amusing. We also value student-produced media linked to their tweets like memes or more extensive blog posts to represent their ideas. Of course, do as you can…and any contribution is most welcomed.
More Resources
Current segment AL Gore Calls for Popular Vote - Aug. 30, 2012
Former Vice President Al Gore and Current TV hosts Eliot Spitzer, Cenk Uygur, Jennifer Granholm and John Fugelsang talk about the disenfranchisement of American voters and the pros and cons of going to a popular vote as part of Current TV's coverage of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
RT America segment Electoral College Dropout - Nov. 3, 2011
Is the Electoral College still relevant? As a recent poll shows 62% of Americans think it's not, RT Producer Adriana Usero hits the streets of DC to see what exactly people have to say.
Do Now
When we vote for president in the U.S., we're not actually voting directly for the candidate we select on the ballot. Instead, we're voting for a group of "electors" who are part of something called the Electoral College, and they are the one's who actually cast the final votes that decide who the next president and vice president will be. So, in the presidential election it's not a one-person-one-vote system. Should we change that system so it's more direct democracy, or should we leave it the way it is? Is there a better system, perhaps?
Should the legal voting age in America be lowered to under 18 years of age? How low should it go? What are some arguments for or against this, and how might it impact the outcome of political elections in our country?
Introduction
American youth under 18 years old live under the same laws as adults. They pay sales taxes (every time they buy something). And some can even work jobs and get drivers licenses.
But ... they can’t vote.
And that’s just not fair, say a growing number of student rights groups across the country that are lobbying to have the voting age lowered to at least 16.
"Young people participate in this society in many other ways," Alex Korokney-Palicz, president of the National Youth Rights Association told Fox News. "They pay taxes, they follow our laws, they can be charged as adults for crimes. They have so much reason to vote, and It's simply unjust to deny them."
Being able to vote, he added, would add real meaning and relevance to high school social studies and civics classes, which most students take before they turn 18.
But, say opponents, too many youth simply lack the necessary level of maturity and complexity to make informed decisions at the voting booth.
"I think it's a dumb idea," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "The voting age was set at 18 because that's the age at which people could be drafted and die for their country. They (youth under 18) don't have enough life experience or history and don't know the issues in enough detail."
Throughout the course of American history, the right to vote has very gradually grown more inclusive. And it's almost always resulted from hard-fought political battles waged by disenfranchised populations demanding representation in the political process. Remember that when the Constitution was first drafted in 1789, the right to vote was reserved for white male property owners 21 and up.
By the mid-Nineteenth Century, property requirements were dropped. Over the next two decades, the right to vote was granted to black men and shortly thereafter to all naturalized male citizens over 21. It was more than 50 years later - in 1920 - that women were granted universal suffrage after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
But it wasn't until 1971 that the voting age in America was finally lowered from 21 to 18. The 26th Amendment, which prohibited states from setting the voting age any higher than 18, was ratified largely as a result of heated student activism in opposition to the Vietnam War, and the compelling notion that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted, it was only fair that they be considered old enough to vote too.
Do Now is a weekly activity for students to respond to current issues through the use KQED's award-winning online media resources and social media tools like Twitter.
