Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Scoville: Civics and economy in school
As of Oct. 1, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began administering its revised naturalization test to citizenship applicants.
STORY TOOLS
More Opinion Columnists
- At last, victory in Iraq -- sort of
- Will: Too big to fail? Too late.
- Pitts: In historic election, blacks embrace discrimination
Share and Enjoy [?]
The 100 possible questions and their answers focus on U.S. history and government. Question 98 points out our national anthem is "The Star-Spangled Banner," not anything else. Question 100 asks for two national holidays. Acceptable answers include Memorial Day, Christmas and Independence Day but not Cinco de Mayo.
Question 11 is particularly interesting given the current state of affairs on Wall Street and the government's bailout efforts with increased governmental regulations. It simply asks: "What is the economic system of the United States?"
The only two answers the USCIS accepts as correct are: "capitalist economy" and "market economy."
That's reassuring for now, but how long will that be the case? Unless our children actually learn capitalism, they won't know what capitalism is. I discussed the issue with Tom Schiola, a fourth grade teacher at Birch Elementary where he conducts the Mini Society program.
Depending on the school in the Boulder Valley School District, Mini Society gives students in the third, fourth and fifth grades one or more years of experience with an economic market. The students get quite involved in deciding who gets paid, what they get paid for and how. They pay rent, create a product, conduct market research and receive profits and sustain losses.
Many good things can be said about Mini Society and Schiola's efforts, including his discussing the issues honestly and openly with me on record. Nevertheless, changes to the acceptable sources of resources, the lack of diversity in products and the rationality behind the changes raise questions.
Several years ago, students looked around home or elsewhere for their own resources. The school set a limit of $5 on purchased materials and anything obtained from Mom and Dad was to be paid for with Mimi Society money the parents could use. Products were diverse and showed creativity and individuality.
Now, as Schiola explained, parents donate to a class store where students purchase resources. The rationality is kids that cannot afford resources are provided them this way as "an equal opportunity." However, products do show less diversity since they come from the same materials.
Capitalism nurtures creativity and individuality. Lessening those is a real strike against it. Now, put the Mini Society's economic model in national context and you've got government owning all the resources and selling them to businesses. Though it seems like a small thing in a classroom setting, these students are not being exposed to true capitalism.
Schiola agreed. "In that regard, it isn't," he said. "You're right. It's more of a socialist view actually because everybody has the same opportunity."
No quite the same reason for my concern, but we're now more accurately defining Mini Society.
Schiola added, "But, I think, on the other hand, we have to look at the differences in economic levels that we are dealing with that are different than before."
Now, isn't the same rationale with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? We've got to be compassionate Robin Hoods for those who cannot afford it. Let the economically disadvantaged who cannot afford homes have them anyway and let those who cannot afford bigger, more expensive homes have them, too.
I know about being disadvantaged from several angles and demonstrate my personal compassion in more than one way directly with those in need. However, our country cannot afford to replace capitalism in the classroom or the country with socialism, communism, Marxism or any other -ism.
When are we going to teach our own country's economic system to school children? The sooner the better would be wise.
Contact Shirley Scoville at shirley.scoville@att.net
Posted by david on October 5, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point Shirley - teach them in elementary school that if your parents are rich, you then have a significant advantage. Let's get the message pounded in early so they never strive to advance themselves.
Or, if you actually wanted to give all children an equal opportunity (not outcome, opportunity). If you think that 3rd grade is a bit young to teach them that if they're poor they're just screwed, then maybe, just maybe...
...you could look at it as the resources all have an equal shot at are the equivilent of what our economy produces where any company can purchase the same goods. Because by that measure all companies in our economy are equal.
Or if you want to give the kids a true understanding of how personal wealth makes life a very unequal playing field, provide resources in inverse proportion to the child's personal wealth. A rich kid realizing that no matter what they do, they will flunk the project just might give them some true understanding of the obstacles that the poor face in our economy.
In short, there are many legit ways to run this other than your kids are set up to succeed and others set to fail because you can spend more.
Posted by EnglishgalMD on October 6, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ahh, I remember Mini Society. I enjoyed seeing myself as an actor in an economy.
Mini Society is a model of an economy, and like all models, it is imperfect. However, the questions remain, will the children learn what was intended, and what was intended?
When I was in Mini Society in 1st grade, we all wanted to make the same thing after seeing those adorable cotton ball ice cream sundaes in little clear plastic cups with straws and "cherries" on top. The teacher said only 2 could make them. I didn't take that as a model for the amount of government regulation that should be imposed on businesses. I took it as a way for the teacher to give every child a chance to be successful, instead of being one of 25 selling the same product.
I can see why schools want to "even the playing field" and allow every child to have an equal chance to get the same value of resources to make a product. However, I can also see how a very limited group of resources could make all the products be variations on the same thing. This could make for some very sad kids on selling day when no one wants their feather/bead doodad because they all have 50 of their own.
Why not provide a $5 scholarship to those families who can't afford to support Mini Society? Or, why ask whether there is a need? Just like schools provide clay for art class without regard for need, why not provide a $5 voucher to a craft store and let the parents and children decide how to best spend it?
If the schools can't afford it, perhaps PTO can fund this? I'm sure teaching our children how to function in a capitalist society is worth 50 Box Tops for Education per child.
Posted by editer on October 6, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting column about the Birch Elementary mini-society. Mini-societies were once sponsored by the Colorado Council on Economic Education. I'm not sure where the curriculum comes from now, but it seems to have changed in its focus and purpose. I like that Shirley Scoville researches her topics and interviews sources, in this case, the Birch teacher.
I agree with Scoville that children should learn our US economic system of democratic capitalism. Who decided that they should spend classtime imagining and designing a utopian economic system? That's just reinventing the wheel. A more productive,instructive use of time would be for children to operate a school store. Obviously not a new concept, but it teaches many skills in an inter-disciplinary manner. Under close adult supervision, children learn to order the inventory,(learn what sells and what doesn't) organize and stock the shelves, price and re-adjust the price on items, wait on customers, make change, secure the money, keep the ledger, and decide as a class how to spend the profits. They would participate in a co-operative venture that financially benefits the school, not individual children. A school store also finesses the situation of unequal resources at home. Children's home situations are rendered irrelevant. It's a good egalitarian exercise in democratic capitalism. Probably best for middle school. In elementary school, the kids can focus on much-neglected basic math skills.
Posted by editer on October 6, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dave's comment reveals disillusionment, cynicism, and hostility toward our economic system. I can understand that, but in the words of Winston Churchill, democratic capitalism is not the best IMAGINABLE economic system, just the best POSSIBLE system. It is simply not possible to have a society in which there is total egalitarianism, where we fully equalize all opportunity and outcome. School children can design such utopian societies, but they are doomed to failure. Why waste all that instructional time and money?
In the US, people from humble beginnings succeed and realize their aspirations, but as Thomas Jefferson observed, they must have a combination of talent and ambition. So Dave, even if we confiscated all private wealth today and redistributed it in equal portions to all US citizens, in several generations, there would still be rich and poor people in our country----just as in the mini-utopian societies that Scoville wrote about,in which the children's attempts to make everything and everyone equal inevitably fail. Educators should focus on teaching capitalism, which relies upon the importance of setting goals, cultivating your talents and working hard to achieve success.
Posted by david on October 7, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
editer - I do believe that free enterprise is the best system we've found (so far). But as you say, it has problems and we should try to mitigate those problems where we can.
I don't want blanket redistribution. But I also don't want it set up that even in 1st grade, the rich kids are given an insurmountable advantage.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.