Against this whirlwind, my co-mentor and I do our best to hide our nerves and project a confident demeanor. I gulp hard and raise my voice to introduce myself. “Hi everyone, my name is Log…my name is Mr. Gallagher.”

The classroom teacher, Lieutenant-Colonel Fife, had instructed us to use our last names in order to maintain a level of professionalism, but the words felt odd tumbling out of my mouth.

After my introduction, the lessons I had learned at the Generation Citizen mentor training came rushing back. Walking around the room helped maintain control of the classroom and keep the kids in the back of the room in check. Asking students to explain their one or two word answers elicited thoughtful, critical responses.

Generation Citizen has given me the tools I need to help run an effective classroom. I cannot wait for the upcoming semester because I think D block has a lot of potential.

~Logan Gallagher, Mentor from Boston College working at Brighton High School

Instead of stifling these insecurities, the directors, Gillian and Daniel, crave for ‘em at the kickoff. They divulge to us: “Yes, you’ve got responsibility on your shoulders… but we’ll always give you a scaffold of support.”  One by one, we chirped out concerns. “When I’m teaching in the classroom… I don’t think these kids will think of me as the authority figure.” As voices continue to be cued into the discussion, the fears mainly ricochet within the realm of the classroom: how we are going to maintain discipline, keep our professional poise, stoke the momentum of “civic education,” and avoid ruffling the feathers of administration.

Illuminated on the wall, there’s this multi-media presentation that Gillian and Daniel navigate throughout the day. Slide by insightful slide, it ameliorates our qualms as we become connected with a deeper sense of the mission of GC, the genesis of “civic education,” and the role we’ll adopt as Mentors. As agents in the enterprise, we will amplify the GC visage to the world alongside our middle school and high school students.

By our midday, Dominoes-pizzaquipped recess, we’re laying forth the methods we’ll use to effectively Mentor in the classroom. It grows evident that the only guaranteed way for us to demonstrate our newly-bred expertise in how to discipline the students is… well, to practice on each other. Assembling in clusters to rehearse the technique, we each stand menacingly over our peers. “Sharon. I’m asking you to put the phone away. (pause) Put the phone away. (pause) Sharon. Phone.”

For these Mentors, is asserting authority still a residual fear? I think not. Or at least, not as much. Departing the room that day shortly before 5 o’clock with the Mentor handbooks and curriculums under our arms, the collective sentiment was more something along the lines of solidarity, satisfaction, and great expectation. This season we’ll be riding in tandem, as Mentors, to encourage these students to engage in their democratic classroom and walk up to the open mic.

~Erica Rigby, Mentor from Tufts University working at Kipp Lynn

After seeing the striking statistics of poverty and minority representation in Providence, I was expecting a huge challenge on my first trip. Yet arriving in Highlander Middle School was like stepping onto a college campus. Kids showed enthusiasm for learning, teachers spoke bilingually to diverse groups of students, classrooms utilized SMART Board and iPad technologies. Rather than a bleak look into potentially challenging urban equalities, the visit was inspirational, even exciting. I realized that, with the resources in place to do great things, GC really could be a catalyst in these kids’ lives.

As of tonight I have just taught my first class. The kids were all eagerly attentive and participated in discussion enthusiastically. As we played get-to-know-you games and an Agree/Disagree activity, each got the chance to voice their opinions and began to explore what it is they care about it and want to do something for. I’m sure my co-Mentor and I were quite a spectacle, he with his Jordanian English accent and I with my Southern one, acting out elaborate stories from “Two Truths and a Lie” and pacing around the room explain the goals of GC. But what was clear in the room was that there was shared enthusiasm, and no awkward mishaps or first-day nervousness could break that.

I can’t wait to get back in the classroom. The kids I have met are more excited than I could have ever imagined, and the possibilities that lay before them seem endless. Even though I may have been nervous about my first day in the classroom, I know that this week Generation Citizen planted a seed, and it’s one I’ll have the pleasure of watching flourish in the months to come.

~Carter Robinson, Mentor from Brown working at Highlander Middle School in Providence RI

This month, the Department of Education came out with two reports on the teaching of civics. What they advocate looks a whole lot like action civics, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan used the phrase himself during a recent speech, in which he approvingly cited the Mikva Challenge (a top-notch action civics organization in Chicago):

“To paraphrase Justice O’Connor, the new generation of civic education initiatives move beyond your ‘grandmother’s civics’ to what has been labeled ‘action civics.’ The goals of traditional civic education–to increase civic knowledge, voter participation, and volunteerism–are all still fundamental. But the new generation of civic learning puts students at the center. It includes both learning and practice—not just rote memorization of names, dates, and processes.”

The reports plus Duncan’s speech drew the ire of conservative education commentator Chester E. Finn, Jr., who worries that the federal government is taking an inappropriate role by encouraging youth political activism, and instead favors the teaching the patriotism. Finn’s article drew a number of incisive replies, including from GC’s own director of evaluation, Alison Cohen, which you can see by scrolling down in the article.

What most interested me, however, was another response by David Feith on the National Journal website. Feith is the editor of a recently-published book on civics education, Teaching America: The Case for Civic Education. Like Finn, Feith favors the teaching of patriotism, which I won’t wade into here (suffice it to say, I don’t see patriotism and action civics as mutually exclusive; quite the contrary).

Feith goes on to make a distinction between “supply-side” solutions to civics ed (more/better teachers, textbooks, tests) and “demand-side” civics – “cultivating in students an interest in—a demand for—civic knowledge, skills and participation.” It’s a really important and often overlooked point: if we don’t put student interests and motivations at the center of how we teach, they’re most likely going to be bored out of their gourds and they won’t learn very much.

But this is where we must part ways. Feith sees action civics as falling in the supply-side category because it makes classes “more modern, interactive, “21st-century,” etc.” Feith’s understanding of action civics seems flawed. The whole point of programs like GC’s is that the students choose an issue that’s important to them. If kids are learning to solve a problem that’s affecting their lives, the skills taught in the process (researching, strategic thinking, persuasive communication, etc.) become inherently relevant – and students are likely to learn that much more.

And to Feith and Finn: I can think of no better way of fostering love of country than by having historically underrepresented kids experience firsthand the power of democracy to make their voices heard and solve problems in their lives.

~Daniel Millenson, GC Managing Director

As a recent, fantastic, Christian Science Monitor piece noted, we are in a Civics Recession.  A Department of Education summit this week, headlined by Secretary Arne Duncan, highlighted the problem and called for a “Crucible Moment”, in which higher educational institutions take a heightened focus on effective civic engagement within their student bodies.  These are all positive developments, and Generation Citizen is in full agreement.

When we talk about the “civics recession”, it’s easy to blame specific bodies: individuals, schools, and politicians come to mind immediately.  But what about the media?  How much does the fourth branch of the government, the media, influence that problem?  Do we need to hold them to a higher standard?  Or do they just reflect what people, in many case disengaged or uninterested, want to see?

I don’t want to get into the debate about whether the media should spend more time covering the famine in East Africa than the Khardasian break-up (the answer is yes, but it’s irrelevant).  Let’s, instead, look at how they’re covering the current presidential campaign.  And specifically, if I want to watch a responsible, non-partisan analysis of the South Carolina primaries tonight (like a good GC student would do, to become an informed voter), what network would I watch?  The answer is that I have no clue.

MSNBC and Fox News are essentially of the same cloth now.  You can’t watch Fox News for 2 minutes without a completely insane analysis of Democratic-promoted policies.  But in watching MSNBC for a few minutes the other day, the host of the show continually attempted to take down “Willard” Romney for his immense wealth, and then offered a completely biased account of the Keystone pipeline project that actually left me more apt to take the other side of the argument.  So then, we should watch CNN, right?

Let’s talk about Thursday’s debate for a second, because everybody else is.  Specifically, let’s talk about Newt Gingrich’s take-down of moderator John King for asking about Gingrich’s second wife’s interview that day (which CNN analyst David Gergen called the most explosive moment he had seen in debate history.) If you didn’t see it, to open up the debate, King asked Gingrich if he wanted to address the charge that the former Speaker had asked his second wife for an “open marriage.”  Gingrich, well, blasted him, to a rousing response from the audience.

King later defended his question by saying that the “open marriage” question was the story of the day, and he needed to bring it up immediately.  In a presidential debate.  As former candidate Herman Cain said, “The problem with that argument is that it’s incorrect.”  Thursday was probably the most dramatic day of the campaign yet.  Among the main events that occurred before the debate even took place:

• Texas Governor Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gringrich
• An anti-piracy bill galvanized public opposition unlike any piece of recent legislation in recent history
  
• Polls came out showing Gringrich rapidly gaining momentum on Mitt Romney (a Romney victory in South Carolina would have ended the race)
• Obama officially put an end to the Keystone pipeline
• An Iowa re-count showed that Rick Santorum, not Romney, was the winner of the Caucuses

This ALL happened Thursday.

John King could have started the debate asking about any of those stories, all of which probably have more of an impact on the campaign, and did not.  He asked about Gingrich’s second wife.  Why?  Because sex sells.

Look, everyone is entitled to their position about Gingrich’s marital infidelities.  I think that his personal behavior, especially conducting an affair with a staff member while trying to impeach the President of the United States for the same behavior, is hypocritical.  But we’ve known this for years.  And so CNN starting off with that question is completely indicative of a media that is catering way too much to the Khardasian crowd, and not enough to the ideal GC student.

We should not completely blame the media for our Civics Recession.  But it should be part of the equation.  We need a more informed and engaged citizenry, politicians that refuse to pander, and rather, respect their electorate, AND a media that focuses on facts and policies.

So, with that said, where should I watch the returns tonight?  C-Span?

- Scott

Surely, after Mitt Romney won by mere eight votes, young people would throng to the polls in the New Hampshire primary, where you can mosey into the polling both any time during the day. Evidently not. According to data released by CIRCLE, just 15% of eligible young voters cast a ballot. And just like Iowa, they broke decisively for Ron Paul.

Some historical perspective helps. In 2008, 43% of young voters turned out. But remember that that was a year in which both parties had competitive primaries. The last two times just one party had a primary were 2004 (just for Democrats) and 1996 (just for Republicans), and both of those times turnout was 18%.

But this isn’t just a youth problem: the US is ranked 139th out of 172 countries in voter participation.

The thing is, these types of articles get written all the time, and it’s no longer particularly surprising. What’s more interesting is exploring why so many Americans aren’t prepared for political engagement in the first place. And I think it’s noteworthy that until the 1960s (and even until the 1980s in some places), students actually had to take not just a class called “civics,” but also a more current events-focused class, “problems of democracy.” Nowadays, students are much more likely to learn about citizenship than how to engage as a citizen. Our voting stats are a reminder of the consequences.

~Daniel Millenson, Managing Director

To acknowledge this seems antithetical to GC’s mission: we want young people to get political, so therefore, we must think that politics, and who’s in charge, matters. Daniel and I just wrote up an opinion article that hopefully will be placed  soon that argues, strongly, that politics does matter, and that young people need to get politically active.  If you look at the decisions that get made in Washington, politicians favor the demographic groups that actually show up, make calls, and vote.  If you look at recent budget cuts, they disproportionately affect younger people and minority groups…because those people show up less.  I absolutely believe that in order to make a difference, you need to get political.  But you need to get political on a local level.

But at the same time, to echo a point I’ve made before…our society, perhaps guided by our media, has made politics into too much of a game.  Take the recent Iowa caucuses.  From a completely objective standpoint, it would be a HUGE surprise if Mitt Romney does not win the Republican nomination.  But the news networks went nuts because of the low margin between Rick Santorum and Romney, waiting up until 3 AM and literally following “the guy in the truck” delivering the last votes (to be fair, I was watching until about 1:30).  And yet, the most substantive part of Romney’s 8 vote win was that I owed my rooommate $20 for the pizza we had shared that night because I had put my money on Santorum.  Seriously.  Romney’s going to win the nomination, regardless of whether he won Iowa by 8, lost by 20, or tied.  I’ll bet you a few pizzas on that.

That story is a microcosm of the problem with politics in this country.  We’re completely focused on the personalities, the politics, and the game, and not enough on the policies.  Let’s say that we had President McCain instead of President Obama.  I guarantee you there would have been some sort of stimulus.  He would have pursued health care reform that probably closely mirrored Obama-care (Obama’s current passed plan looks a lot like McCain’s proposed during the primary).  He would have gone into Libya.  (One very substantive difference is that he would have nominated two conservatives to the Supreme Court….this might be the most important job of a president.  And if you don’t believe me, wait until the health care decision coming this summer).

So the question of the blog post is whether our president matters.  I think he (or hopefully in the future, she) does, but not to to the extent that we think they do.  HOWEVER, I do think that local politicians (governors, mayors, and state legislators) matter a great deal.  In New York, gay marriage would still be illegal if we had Governor Paladino instead of Governor Cuomo.  In Rhode Island, the state might be completely bankrupt if it wasn’t for new Treasurer Gina Raimondo (read about her if you haven’t).  And Massachusetts might not have have universal health care if not for the careful work of former Governor Mitt Romney (that’s not meant as a slight or an endorsement, just a truth).

So the answer:  pay a little less attention to the 8 vote margin in Iowa, and a little more to the politics going on in your backyard.  That’s what matters.

- Scott

In any case, as an organization that is all about political participation, we’re obviously interested in the election.  We’ll be following it, writing on it, and analyzing it, as much as we can.  As a start to that, we’ve put together a position paper that provides some of our opinions on both improving and increasing the political discussion amongst youth.  You can read it here:
http://www.generationcitizen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012-Election-Position-Paper-Final.pdf

The main three points we make are:
1) Schools need to get more political
2) College should not be a pre-requisite to effective civic participation
3) Volunteerism and service needs to be couched in politics

Please read, spread the word, and let us know your thoughts.  We’ll be exploring ways to get this out even more in the days and weeks ahead, as the election unfolds.

- Scott