I have never been good at Robert’s Rules of Order, even though decades ago I was the president of a student government that supposedly used them. Looking at the by-laws of incorporated boards and bodies that I serve on now, I see that several include language like this: “Except as may be modified by resolution, Robert’s Rules of Order (current edition) shall govern the conduct of [association] proceedings when not in conflict with [state] law or these By-Laws.” Indeed, I’ve found an estimate that “approximately 95% of the organizations in the U.S. prescribe Robert’s as their parliamentary authority.” However, lots of important but informal groups don’t have by-laws, and those that do often seem to pay little attention to their own provisions about Robert’s Rules.

I probably wouldn’t advocate applying Robert’s Rules much more widely than they are used now. Learning–or recalling–the Rules can be burdensome; depending on them can shift power to people who happen to know them already; and they may conflict with contemporary cultures. After all, they were written by a US Army officer in 1876.

Actually, Brig. Gen. Roberts was an abolitionist Southerner who fought on the Union side and did other worthy things, so he may deserve some consideration. In any event, his Rules embody wisdom, and all groups that make decisions should find ways to accomplish some of their fundamental goals. As Roberts wrote in the first edition of his Rules, it was “really not of so great importance” whether his own processes were the best. What was–and remains–important is to adopt transparent ways of operating in order to avoid “the caprice of the chairman, or captiousness of the members.”

That lesson has been re-learned in very different contexts. By 1970, the feminist activist Jo Freeman, aka Joreen, had become frustrated by the emphasis on “leaderless, structureless groups” in the women’s liberation movement. She acknowledged that women were reacting “against the over-structured society in which most of us found ourselves, and the inevitable control this gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among those who were supposedly fighting this overstructuredness.”

However, Freeman claimed that all groups have structure, and when they purport to be leaderless and free, it just means that the authority is opaque and therefore unaccountable.

She wrote, “At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom.” Those in the core of an informal group “will relate more to each other than to other people. They listen more attentively [to each other], and interrupt less; they repeat each other’s points and give in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the ‘outs’ whose approval is not necessary for making a decision.”

Freeman saw supposedly leaderless groups as tyrannical. “For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized.”

Specifically, groups need explicit rules for delegating authority, sharing information, rotating responsibility, making clear commitments, and holding their own decision-makers accountable. These are the very purposes of Robert’s Rules. If we don’t want to use that document, we need alternatives.

I observe the following deficits in many informal groups’ discussions. First, groups are often not clear about what they have promised, so that members and others can know what to expect. An approved resolution is a commitment. If your group doesn’t vote on resolutions per Robert’s Rules, you need other ways to make clear and official commitments.

Second, it is often unclear what the group is doing at a given moment. Is it discussing a choice prior to making a collective decision? Are individuals giving advice to a person or small team who will make the decision? Are members sharing information with each other? Is the group exchanging perspectives on the overall situation and values? Is the task to identify problems and brainstorm options?

These are all valid activities, but they need to be distinguished. Robert’s Rules does so by allowing any member to offer a motion, which (if seconded) becomes the sole topic until it is resolved. A motion must be stated in such a way that it can be adopted or rejected by a vote. Thus, when a motion is on the table, the group’s task is to discuss it in order to inform the individuals’ votes, not to canvass individuals’ advice or share information. A different motion can be offered next, but it must wait its turn.

Informal groups waste precious time and energy–and become frustrated–when they are not clear on what they are doing. In the absence of rules of order, a moderator can keep people on track, but moderation is an advanced skill, and the power can be abused. Some groups develop other approaches, such as writing the current task on a flip chart. One way or another, it’s essential to clarify what is being done now and to allow people to propose doing something different next.

Third, groups need moments when everyone has equal power, even if they choose to empower some individuals for specific tasks. Robert’s Rules mandates voting on an equitable basis. It allows every member to introduce motions. It forbids anyone from speaking twice on a motion unless everyone has had a chance to speak once.

This kind of equality is purchased at the cost of formality. That is actually a familiar tradeoff. Official elections give each citizen one vote, and that requires ballots, voting dates or periods, and myriad other rules. Courtrooms are rife with procedures designed to equalize rights and powers.

Many groups understandably dislike formality, which seems to undermine spontaneous friendship. Yet, as Freeman observed in the women’s movement, informality breeds inequality. Groups must be able to shift to formal processes that protect equality at decisive moments.

Fourth, groups spend too much of the precious resource of time discussing matters that should delegated to individuals or small teams. A whole group is usually too large to function effectively. Many tasks do not present controversial issues that require broad discussion and participation; someone should simply do the work. At the same time, it is important to clarify what has been delegated to whom, to hold the responsible people accountable, and to give them explicit recognition for their service. Robert’s Rules accomplishes those purposes by allowing groups to elect officers for fixed terms, to establish committees, and to delegate specific tasks to committees. Again, there may be other ways to accomplish these purposes, but they cannot be ignored.

See also: a flowchart for collective decision-making in democratic small groups; civic education and the science of association; friendship and politics; needed: pragmatists for utopian experiments; and du Bois: “Organization is sacrifice.”

Folks from your Lou Frey Institute and other civic learning organizations had the great pleasure to attend the Opening Forum at the National Archives in Washington, DC for the kickoff of the first national Civic Learning Week. It was an excellent start to the week, and it featured a fantastic and engaging collection of speakers and guests.

You can view the entire event below, but I though that it might be helpful to share some thoughts and reflections on each session, and consider what this first week should mean moving forward. So if you want to see what you missed, view the video embedded below (it starts around the 36th minute) and read on!

We began with a welcome from Debra Steidel Wall, Acting Archivist of the United States, and Louise Dube, Executive Director of iCivics. The point made by the Acting Archivist is so important: ‘Access to powerful documents has never been more necessary’, and we encourage you to check out the new resource developed by our friends at NARA, Civics for All of US.

We then have our first panel discussion. This panel, Civic Education for a Plural Yet Shared Nation, was moderated by Danielle Allen of Harvard University. It featured a discussion between Christina Grant, Superintendent of Washington DC Public Schools, Benjamin Klutsey of George Mason University, and Dan Vallone of More in Common USA.

One of my favorite things about this forum is that so many good points were made so clearly, and during this panel, the participants identified two needs: 1. leaders who can emphasize common grounds in civic education, and 2. more collaboration to find common ground. To paraphrase,‘In the doing we learn about each other and dissolve the myths about each other’. It was also pointed out that polarization seems worse because the most extreme on left and right are the most loud. But civics helps us understand we are not as polarized as we think. Differences in thought can be enriching, and diversity in ideology is important…but it requires a willingness to listen and accept that dissent is a GOOD thing! This requires an improved understanding of civil discourse as well (aside: Florida has included a significant module on civil discourse and civic engagement in its new Seal of Civic Excellence course!).

Our second session was a much-too-brief conversation between Danielle Allen and Republican Governor Christopher Sununu of New Hampshire on prioritizing civic learning.

I wish we had more time with the governor. He talked about the importance of Founding Principles and the role of local government and the local community, and the wonderful example of the New England Town Meeting as a form of civic participation and learning. He was also quite funny, honestly, and his time was too short!

After the governor left the stage, we got a very in depth, and honestly a bit depressing, panel about research, evidence, and the impact of civic learning.

This panel, moderated by Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy of the Civics101 podcast, shared research from Joe Kahne of CERG and Julia Kaufman of RAND discussing research around civic education and social studies. The RAND study was very disturbing though for those of us in the field perhaps not suprising.

In short, social studies continues to suffer from a lack of attention, and lack of resources, at the K-5 level. It gets deeper, and I enourage you to read their report here. The lack of quality resources is a HUGE problem. How do we build a consensus to address it??? Something to think about.

Relatedly, CERG looked at what is happening in the classrooms around tough topics and civil discourse.

The data concerning UNCIVIL discourse at the k-12 level is concerning, and the lack of professional development on how to conduct discussions of controversial issues is disturbing…but an opportunity for those of us in the field. Kahne pointed out that districts that make clear statements of support concerning civic education see improved outcomes and instruction and less problems in civic instruction and learning around difficult topics. Both researchers shared their thoughts on what needed to be done: a consensus on high quality resources and materials, and a need for professional development around leading discussions on controversial issues. Well said. How do we do them?

Following that sometimes depressing but always necessary discussion, Lee Glazer, director of the Museum Programs Division at NARA, talked some more about the importance of Civics for All of US. I want to reiterate again what an important resource this can be.

One of the most interesting and exciting panels followed. Hearing students talk about civic education and its impact on their learning and their lives was simply fantastic.

Moderated by Andrea Foggy-Paxton, Entrepeneur-Residence of Education Leaders of Color, it brought together parents and teachers Tanisha Carpenter, Amber Coleman-Mortley, and Neil Wrona to discuss civic education and engagement with students Roman Messali, Garvey Mortley, and Sarah Rivera. It was fantastic, and some key comments stuck with me:
-‘Civic experiences happen on a day to day basis. We engage in civic practice everyday.’
-‘Civics is a love language.’
-‘We have to support and appreciate our teachers for civic education to happen in this polarizing environment.’
-‘There is a lot of civic education happening in classrooms and schools that we don’t realize.’
-‘Those of us that are able to sit in a room with people that we don’t agree with, that we vehemently disagree with, and have civil conversations that get us to a place [of understanding] that is the power of civics.’
-‘Justice is heavily tied to civics. It is not separate.’
-‘Civics education is about problem solving.’
-‘Student engagement around issues that matter. Real people that can make a real difference.’
-‘Being able to have real conversations. Learn how to talk to people.’
-‘Analysis should be prioritized. Civics Ed is a right.’

There was so much more that was said, including the importance of student government. But I just want to thank these folks for sharing their thoughts, and for the Civic Learning Week team in bringing them in. It was fantastic.

The final panel session of the day was moderated by Crystal Patterson of Washington Media Group.

The discussion between Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute, Miriam Vogel of EqualAI, and Sam Wineburg Stanford University dived deep into digital democracy, social media, artifical intelligence, and information literacy. Levin made a great point that sticks with me even now: ‘Educators also have to help people unlearn what is untrue.’ This is such a huge struggle, especially as many of the people we are trying to teach have no idea what they know is untrue. Levin went on to say that“Just being engaged, just participating is not enough. We have to have a set of skills for distinguishing truths from falsehood.” We MUST help students understand the civic system and civic life they live and engage in in order to innoculate them against conspiracy theory and falsehood. As Wineburg said, ‘Information literacy should be a non-partisan issue’, but sadly, it sometimes seems it is not. And the Internet can help make people more informed…or more confused. It was a really interesting conversation across all three panel participants, and I fear that we are not doing enough to support not just media literacy but information literacy.

We then had a video presentation from Brandon Short, with PGIM Real Estate and a former Giants and Panthers football player (GO PATS).

Short discussed the connection between civic engagement, civic learning, and the American Dream, and it was an inspiring and motivational few minutes!

Finally, we wrapped up with Shawn Healy of iCivics and Rajiv Vinnakota of the Institute for Citizens and Scholars.

Together, they summarized the three main themes of the opening forum:
1. Need to reimagine civic education to include civil discourse and the relationship challenge; Question how we help kids distinguish truth from falsehood (information literacy);use all spaces as civic spaces; 2.Local work as our work; lynchpin of civic progress; 3. Everyone is a civic teacher. We all help students grow in civic life.

As Healey said to close, civics should be in our bloodstream. Teachers want PD, so let’s give it to them. And we all want better civics, so let’s fund it!

Moving Forward

Civic Learning Week should be Civic Learning Year, all year, all day, every day. We have a responsibility to the next generation of participants in civic life to provide them with the tools and the resources to engage and to grow and to learn what it means to live up to our Founding Principles and to improve our communities. Sadly, I think we have been saying that since the Founding; while we have made progress in civic education, we must continue to grow and to ensure access and opportunity and strong foundation of knowledge. We look forwrad to working with colleagues in Florida and across the country in following up on the goals of Civic Learning Week. Because, after all, civics is a love language.

This morning’s Civic Learning Week blogpost comes to us from FJCC/LFI Civics Instructional Specialist Kimberly Garton. It’s a consideration of new perspectives, and we hope you find it helpful.

Recently I read a piece of advice that encouraged individuals to start saying “thank you” instead of “sorry”.  While obviously there are situations where an apology is necessary, somewhere along the line, we became a society that constantly apologies and the phrase lost its value.  So, the idea is, instead of “sorry I am late” to swap it with “thank you for waiting for me”.  The psychology behind the change in behavior says that when we start saying thank you more often, we become more confident, improve our self-worth, stop judging ourselves harshly, and it overall helps us see the good in the world around us.  A simple change from a negative connotation to a more positive outlook can certainly do wonders. 

In the world of education, especially civics education, the negativity can be overwhelming.  Recently for teachers in Florida, it has been a constant bombardment of negativity towards education and educators.  Whether accurate or not, the messaging has tended to focus on limitations placed on teachers and schools: don’t read these books, don’t teach these topics, don’t say these phrases, don’t use these resources.  As educators, we often choose frustration and feel “sorry” for content or pedagogy we perceive to have lost the ability to engage with.  So instead, this Civic Learning Week, let’s try some “thanks”:

• Thank you for the opportunity to teach about the brilliant young individuals who founded this country.  Individuals who read, debated, compromised, and fought to build any incredibly durable system of government.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach about the language and components of the U.S. Constitution, a framework for government that also protects sacred rights and liberties.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach about individuals from all walks of life and their courageous struggles and endeavors to fulfill the promise of democracy and bring us closer to “a more perfect union”.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach about ways citizens can and must be involved with their government, and the power and responsibility behind the phrase “We the People”.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach the meaning and importance of rule of law and due process in the United States legal system.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach about world affairs and U.S. foreign policy methods available for interacting with the international community.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach patriotism through our country’s aspirations.  In the words of Fredrick Douglass “I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes and at whatever cost.”
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach using a vast number of primary sources that allow for deeper understanding, greater student connections to past events, and as the National Archives puts it, “History in the Raw”.
• Thank you for the opportunity to teach students how to “develop an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.” (Florida State Statute 1003.42-Required Instruction)

Many Framers had concerns about the practicality of the newly established government.  But in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “education would facilitate the people’s good sense on which we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty”.  The ability to teach or be a part of civics education in any way is truly a gift and a blessing.  Together, we ensure this “great experiment” continues and each generation is equipped with civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be citizens capable of participating in civic life.          

So I encourage you to take this Civic Learning Week and reenergize your passion.  Re-read your standards, benchmarks, and state statutes and remind yourself of all of the amazing content and skills you get to teach and share.  Listen to a new podcast, attend a professional development opportunity, pick up a book, or engage your colleagues in a conversation about their favorite civics topic.  Take a moment to see the good in the world of teaching civics and government.

And thank you for all that you do.

A city or town newspaper was nicely designed to keep people informed about their own elected representatives. Traditionally, it appeared on your doorstep, offering a mix of features that might encourage you to open it up. Election news would often appear above the fold on the main page. Elections in your own community would be emphasized. You didn’t have to be curious about politics to receive the most relevant political news.

As the chart with this post shows, most Americans (69.3%) claimed they read a newspaper “every day” in 1972, but that proportion has been around 20% since 2016, mirroring a 50% decline in the number of paid journalists. People still consume news, but cable television is national, local television tends to skip politics, and online sources require you to seek them out. (They mainly reach those with prior interests.) Besides, very few people are paid to report factual information about local politics.

I wish I could test whether the decline in daily newspaper journalism and readership explains current low levels of political knowledge. Perhaps that can be shown, but I have not found a long-lasting survey that asks about both news consumption and political knowledge in consistent ways.

The American National Election Survey (ANES) did ask individuals how often they read the newspaper and whether they recalled the names of the congressional candidates in their district. That series lasted from 1984 to 2000. Each year, just about twice as many of the regular newspaper readers recalled the candidates’ names correctly. For instance, in 2000, 51.8% of the regular readers and 24.2% of non-readers got that knowledge question right.

I’d conjecture that if these survey questions had continued, the proportion of news readers would have fallen in the ANES, and with it, knowledge of people’s own local political candidates. But I can’t quite prove it.

Today’s post for Civic Learning Week comes from our own Christophe Spinale, Associate Director of the Florida Joint Center for Citizenship. He writes for us about the importance of student civic practice!

Despite consensus that civics education is important, there is certainly no shortage of opinion of what civics education should like. Whether from the left, right, or middle, it seems everyone has a view of what civic education should be.  This cornucopia of views got me thinking about the common “threads” that make up civic education and whether or not there will ever be agreement about which ones to use.  I am a bit pessimistic on this point.  As a nation of 50 states, all with their own education policies regarding the teaching of civics, depending on which state students live, the type of civics education they receive is varied. With all this variance on what civic education should be, how can American democracy be expected to survive when, for example, students in Illinois are learning civics differently from students in Florida? Is there enough common ground for the next generation to understand the fragility of our constitutional democracy and what it will take to make it stronger? 

Some argue that the focus should be on the knowledge, but is that sufficient? I would argue no, and I know I would be in good company.  Those considered experts in the realm of civic education have long advocated that knowledge be put to use. This is not a novel approach. For a thousand years, people have learned by doing.  The practicum is foundational to this idea. Seriously, how can this nation’s students learn to “keep the Republic,” if they are not afforded the opportunity to practice citizenship as part of their schooling? Why not afford the opportunity to students to be citizen apprentices? Semantically, I think this is an acceptable approach as the apprenticeship is not novel to education. When I think about those common “threads” and the ways in which they may be “woven” to form a “tapestry’ of civic practice, I am awestruck at the possibilities. Civic education policy makers should be too.

With all the research that shows the effectiveness of coupling civic knowledge with civic skills, the citizen apprentice affords teachers the opportunity to become weavers of civic practice. They are able to take the common “threads” of knowledge and skills and “weave” them together to develop practical learning opportunities around the habits of good citizenship. Of course, this begs the question, what habits?

When thinking about this question, I often think about how the Founders.  This is mostly because they are the ones invoked by the “knowledge advocates” as the basis for understanding our origins. No matter whose story I read, three things strike me – how young many of them were, how well read they were, and how they practiced what they preached.  Obviously, their education provided a foundation of knowledge upon which they could develop the necessary skills to be able to accomplish what they did, but the ages they did it, now that is remarkable. I guess the point is we celebrate these young, bright, accomplished men for their writings, debates, protests, and fighting, so why is there hesitation to include a practice component to learning civics where students learn to deliberate, collaborate, and propose solutions to community issues of concern to them? Shouldn’t there be an expectation to engage in the American experience and participate in political processes as part of learning how to be a good citizen? Shouldn’t these types of “threads” be a basic component for all students engaged in civic learning? 

As a parent, I want my children to have this type of civic education.  I don’t want them being distrustful of democracy. I want them to engage their elected officials responsibly. I want them to have civil discourse and find common ground on issues where there may be disagreement.  In other words, I want them to know how to be a good citizen, having discussed current events and controversial issues, engaged service learning, and participate in simulations of democratic processes.  Imagine the possibilities of allowing our schools and teachers to be weavers of civic practice, where students can truly learn what it means to be  a good citizen, but more importantly, act like one.

I am color-blind. I have the common red/green type sometimes called Daltonism.

I do not mind. In fact, I don’t think I would accept a permanent “cure,” if there were one. I might like to experience the colors that most sighted people see, but I wouldn’t want to leave the world I know on a one-way journey. I love what I experience.

Miguel Fructuoso, Maria Sanchez and Miguel Angel Tornero are established Spanish artists. Although Fructuoso was born in 1971, he was recently diagnosed with Daltonism. I am curious about that story. Adults realized that I was color-blind when I was still a little kid. Fructuoso is a painter, and he has the same physical condition I do. I am not sure how he remained undiagnosed for half a century. It has been suggested, but not widely accepted, that the English landscape painter Constable was color-blind at a time before that condition was recognized.

In any case, Fructuoso’s realization “initiated an intense collaboration” with Sanchez and Tornero, who have co-produced works as “formal exercises” that help them to explore “empathy and exclusion, the rare and the common, individualism and the collectivity.”

They have created several such works for the Centro Jose Guerrero in Granada. Guerrero was born here in 1914, spent a considerable portion of his life as an abstract expressionist painter in New York City, and died in Barcelona in 1991. He was known for vivid color. That makes his eponymous museum a perfect location for an exhibition about color-blindness.

The photo (above) that illustrates this post shows a painting by Guerrero from ca. 1970 (I think), copied by the three contemporary artists, with color-blind “Bill” choosing the paints. Yes, the two images look very similar to me, except along the top band.

Below is the result when many people with red/green color-blindness were offered a large selection of paints and asked to paint a line of a single color around the room in the Centro Jose Guerrero. Yes, I perceive a green line going all the way around.

And here, the artists have reproduced the standard tests for color-blindness as gallery works in paint and print. (No, I cannot see any numbers, but I do like these images.)

Since I have not felt mistreated as a result of color-blindness, I was not deeply moved by the exhibition’s message of empathy and inclusion, although it’s certainly benign. And I suppose I am sympathetic to Fructuoso, although he has done very well in a conceptual/expressionist mode.

I find aesthetic questions about color-blindness interesting. For example, how might we compare the art that I see (and love) to what most of you see? Does it matter that I don’t see what was intended? And how should I feel, as a person with Daltonism, about monochrome art, expressionist art that is meant to look different from the real world, or impressionist works that reproduce nature’s colors for me even though both the paintings and their objects look different to you?

Proposals for sessions at the annual Frontiers of Democracy conference are due by March 31. You can propose a session here.
 
You are also encouraged to register and purchase tickets soon since space is limited.
 
Proposals are welcome on any topic at the “frontiers of democracy”—for instance, political reform, organizing and social movements, dialogue and deliberation, journalism and media, civic education from K-12 to college or community settings, nonviolent resistance, collaborative governance, social entrepreneurship, democratic theory, online forums and tools, issues such as climate change or racial justice, engaged research methods, democracy in any region of the world, and more. Many formats are welcome with a preference for interactive designs over pure presentations.
 
The last face-to-face Frontiers conference before COVID-19 drew about 140 people, of whom 30% were nonprofit staff, 25% were scholars/researchers, 15% were educators, 5% were community-organizers, and the rest came from many fields, including the arts, philanthropy, business, and government. Most came from beyond the Boston area and a few from overseas.
 
Most proposals for 2023 are not expected to address the special theme: religious pluralism and robust democracy in multiracial societies. That theme will mainly be a topic for two of the plenary sessions, which will be panel discussions involving Cornell William Brooks, Brandon Thomas Crowley, Diana Eck, Andrew Hanauer, Aminta Kilawan-Narine, Eric Liu, Cristina Moon, Simran Jeet Singh, Michael Wear, and others to be named. Some conference participants may be interested in considering connections between religion and your proposed topic, but you do not have to mention religion in your proposal.
 
The submission form for a session requires a title and description for the conference agenda, some thoughts about your format and audience, and the contact information of confirmed collaborators.
 
This year’s conference will be in-person, not hybrid. However, session organizers may propose to include remote people in their own sessions.

Time and location: July 13 (5 – 7 PM) to July 15 (noon) on Tufts University’s Medford, MA campus near the Medford/Tufts Station on the Boston Green Line.

Cost: $240 for a standard ticket with discounts for current students. This includes hors d’oeuvres on July 13, breakfast and lunch on July 14, and breakfast and lunch on July 15. Other meals and lodgings are not provided.