Proof positive that the EGEA cares nothing about education quality and reform or the students, and, as usual, spews union propaganda in an attempt to prevent free school choice and a non-union school.

I don't it is " union propaganda " to point out that the curriculum proposed by this charter school is already in use. Ken Poppers is an EGEA rep and a history teacher. In fact, the " Project Citizen" curriculum and grant was presented at the Jan. 3 School Board meeting.

Ken Popper's suggestion Project Citizen is widely used in 8th grade classrooms throughout the district is misleading, bordering on an outright lie.

I am California's 3rd Congressional District Coordinator and a national trainer for Project Citizen. I'm responsible for distributing texts to teachers, recruiting teachers to use the curriculum, and to attend professional development seminars and institutes. I am passionate about civic education.

Over the past 5 years, the only middle schools to receive Project Citizen texts distributed by me were from Edward Harris Jr. Middle School and T.R. Smedberg Middle School.

Teachers at the remaining 7 middle schools have received no new books, nor indicated to me in response to the numerous emails I've sent over the past years they are in fact participating in the program.

I was unfortunately unable to attend the school board meeting to speak on behalf of the Grove, but I would say this with 100% certainty: the delivery of civic education in a systematic, effective, and uniform manner is not taking place.

And addressing this is not a high priority issue.

I have received support in my civic education efforts from our school board and superintendent. They've been to my classroom, met with students, participated with our civic studies.

But why aren't ALL EGUSD students able to access a civic education? Why aren't we making this a priority? The Grove is addressing this. For that, I applaud their efforts. Civics is important.

P.S. Elk Grove Unified School District is not the only one struggling to make civics a priority. To read more about our civic education crisis, please check out the National Assessment of Educational Progress for Civics in 2010 by visiting the following link:

http://nationsreportcard.gov/civics_2010/

Jim,
Ken never said that project citizen was 'widely used'. He made the point that California's Social Studies standards address the standards that the Grove's curriculum addressed. He was making the point that the Social Studies curriculum we currently use is not deficient in meeting California Standards.

One thing that I was struck by is that supporters spoke of the Grove not having to 'teach to the test'. I know the point they were trying to make, that project based curriculum is superior to curriculum that is measured by a multiple choice test. Do supporters of the Grove really think that just by starting a charter that standardized tests and API is no longer important? If so, they are in for a RUDE awakening.

Dear Freethinker,
I wish you had the courage to put your real name out into the public so that we might respectfully discuss ideas in a candid, and honest manor.

While I'm proud of my titles and associations, I realize they are merely labels. Nothing more. Can we set aside charges of egotism and focus on the issues at hand?

I'm aware there are copies of the Center for Civic Education's curricula floating around out there. My first set of texts were printed in 1987 and handed off to me by my father, now a retired teacher.

I also realize there have been trainings prior to my 5 years as a coordinator for the program. I am equally aware that many teachers use sections and chapters from the We the People: The Citizen & the Constitution text, but none that I am aware of outside of the 5th grade team at Adreani Elementary School have recently engaged in the full-blown Simulated Congressional Hearing per the text.

I am unaware of any recent classes having engaged in a full-blown Project Citizen portfolio. Are there teachers out there using bits and pieces of it? Possibly. I wish I knew who they were. But alas, my titles don't grant me omniscience.

Can you outline for me, the district's uniform, systematic vision of how best to teach civics? I would like to know what that looks like. Principals do make a difference. If the district established a plan for the teaching of civics, perhaps principals could uniformly support the mission which The Grove is seeking to fulfill.

Graham,
You raise good points. Sure, Core Knowledge is fine and good, and yes, it probably shares more similarities with current California Content Standards and the upcoming Common Core Standards than differences. I don't feel qualified to speak to that portion of The Grove's petition.
My interest in The Grove concerns the civic education component.

While the Patch article didn't use the term "widely used" as I did above, they did indirectly quote Mr. Poppers as saying the "...Project Citizen curriculum the new school would adopt to teach civics is already in use in eighth-grade classrooms."
What is the reader left to infer? That just 2 out of 7 middle schools might use the program? Or that it is "widely" used. I teach my students how to interpret literature and make inferences. My interpretation based on the Patch's reporting of the comments of Mr. Poppers is this: he wanted to portray the use of this curriculum in a positive light so as to make The Grove's civic mission seem redundant or unnecessary since EGUSD teaches to California Content Standards and already has a plan for civic instruction in place.
And while the current social studies texts as you point out may not be deficient, they certainly aren't the only or the best way to instruct kids.
I'm curious to see how The Grove does in reaching the bar they're setting for themselves. And I'd like to see EGUSD make explicitly and systematically teaching civics a priority district wide from the top down.

Why does Elk Grove need a "leadership" academy? If they want to fill a unique niche why not teach plumbing to those who just might not want to go to a traditional 4-year college, but who want to get a job and earn some money. We don't need little politicians who are being taught they are our betters. Let's hope the idea fails.

Dear "Joe the Plumber,"

I wish you, too, had the courage to put your real name out in the public so that we might have an honest and candid discussion. One of the things we teach students in the Project Citizen and the We the People curricula is to argue with ideas, not people personally. Ad hominem is neither civil, nor necessary.

And I agree with you completely that we need to revive courses such as wood shop, metal shop, and others. I took them in high school and learned a great deal.

The purpose of Project Citizen is to teach kids how to monitor and influence public policies. It teaches kids that there is such a thing as a Constitution, various levels of government, problems that can and ought to be addressed by government, and that sometimes a private sector or civil society solution really is the best answer to a specific community problem.

As for the We the People: The Citizen & the Constitution curricula, the simulated congressional hearing is nothing more than a performance assessment.

You can watch video of this at:

http://new.civiced.org/resources/multimedia/video-gallery/viewvideo/63/we-the-people/we-the-people-national-finals-overview-5-w-narration-1

Mr. Bentley, based on your posts you are obviously a liberal, maybe a Progressive. Do you have the ability to keep your agenda out of the classroom or at least bring in people with different ideas than yours? This is a big problem in many high schools and colleges today, and the bigger problem may be that the uber-liberal teachers and professors often do not have the ability to acknowledge and admit their biases.

Dear M.Legison,

Please feel free to append any or all labels you choose. I personally opt not to label myself since my views on different issues vary widely. And I do make it a habit to keep my politics and biases out of my classroom. To do otherwise, in my humble opinion, would be less than professional. A child's parent is their first teacher of political science, and I wouldn't dare interfere with that. The same holds true for religious beliefs.

I've found the simple assigning of labels is one way to end a discussion and dismiss the viewpoints of others. I try not to do that, and I wish you would, too. I'm certain we could find many things on which we could agree and disagree. I have libertarian friends, liberal friends, conservative friends, progressive friends, and we all share at least some similar viewpoints on differing topics.

Best,
Jim Bentley

You just answered my question, with confirmation. Thank you.

M. Legison ... I'd love to know where in his original comments here you saw that Mr. Bentley was a liberal.

Earlier posts, not this one. I can spot a liberal with near perfect accuracy. One big difference between us is that we conservatives are proud of it and openly state our ideology. Liberals for some reason try to hide it, or throw out something like they have "many different positions and can't be labeled" Full credit to both you and Jane--you openly state your bias and I respect that.

I could also point out that in many cases, conservatives believe that once somebody identifies themselves as liberal, they throw on a few more liberals and ultimately accuse those liberals of being un-American, traitors, or not loving America as much as conservatives. Generally, you don't see liberals do that. Nobody accused George Bush of being anti-American or not loving his country, but those accusations have been flying fast and furiously ever since Obama became President. Mr. Bentley is pretty much right about the use of labels particularly in the manner in which conservatives use them to justify not debating the issues.

Why do liberals try to hide their ideology?

I can't an answer a question based on a generalization I don't accept. That's one of your other problems, applying generalizations where they don't belong. :)

I think it's an interesting question, but I don't expect an answer here. Many of the news broadcasters maintain they are impartial. The Bookings Institute continues to claim they are nonpartisan and unbiased. College professors and teachers on the left refuse to acknowledge their political bias. Why? We on the right are usually pretty open about our beliefs and positions. We know and acknowledge Fox News, Heritage, and AEI all come from the right, One guess might be that while dominant in California and a few other states, strong liberals and progressives are still a distinct minority nationally, and they feel inwardly awkward about their positions.

I've been instructing, observing and listening to children for over 30 years and it never ceases to amaze me how adults continuously tranfer their selfish, uncivilized demons and thought processes onto children and then seek to impose through instruction or legislate through regulations, a way out of the non existent quagmire. Project Citizenship? Really? Let me ask you this. Do you honestly like it when a person tells you "thank you" and you can tell it is an empty gesture? I don't have a dog in this fight and think that a charter school for this area is a great idea based on comparative success stories. However the focus, premise and vaccuousness of the "civics agenda" is highly questionable and continues to perpetuate the fallacy that children learn from the outside in rather than the inside out. Civic robots with skin are just that, robots. These very robots are the smile at your face, stab you in the back, "civil service" elites who currently helm, influence and control our public schools. Look at most high school sports teams and you will be hard pressed not to find an unathletic, poorly disciplined child whose parents are the biggest boosters of the program in order to secure their student athlete playing time. Is that the essence of "civic service" to which you speak? Best of luck to the Grove and may all involved not forget that in absence of the self aware citizen, the civility of its citizens is nothing more than Pavlovian response. We are better than that.