Um, I don't think that knowing what the Bill of Rights covers is a value judgment, do you? They weren't questioning, for instance, whether the kids thought burning a flag was right or wrong; they were asking these kids whether the kids thought it was legal.

"Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees."

In that case, they're making a value judgement on the text.

I wish I had more experience with regular public schools, so that I could argue the point, but I think what they're not getting is critical thought. From what I read, it seems to be a lot of fact memorization without questioning those facts. I didn't realize that it was odd for a Free Enterprise class to discuss Marxism until I read Lies My Teacher Told Me. Lots of things get glossed over in the attempt to make History and English a sort of "Rah Rah Western Civilization" thing.

Look folks, I'm getting a little defensive here. Please do not assume that kids aren't being taught these things because of one article. Statistics are not to be trusted.

High school students and public schools in general are grossly misrepresented in the media. Yes, there are kids who see things in very black and white terms and who don't understand that flag burning relates in any way to their own freedom of speech. But truly, it is not the norm for history and social studies teachers to not teach the Bill of Rights or critical thinking. That's an anomoly.

Critical thinking is our main focus in English and history. It's what my state test is based on, in fact.

The SAT, which is national, now includes a critical thinking writing piece which it never did before.

No, it's not perfect, but please don't assume it's all gone to shit, either.

"Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees."

The truly frightening part is that they're making this value judgement based on faulty assumptions that the First Amendment is less permissive than it actually is. Imagine what the responses would have been had they known that you can find porn on the internet.

Wow. Someone's not happy that Toto's home. Bastet just scratched him. And he's bleeding. Poor guy. She's never done that before. I mean, she's batted at him, but never actually scratched him.

When I was in high school, I generally was very trusting and innocent. I suspect that if asked at the time, I would have felt that the First Amendment, while important, wasn't truly necessary these days because "everyone know freedom of speech is important."

I know that's not exactly what the article is saying, but I think that it sometimes takes a while for critical thinking to be clearly developed.

I think that it sometimes takes a while for critical thinking to be clearly developed.

Yes, this. They are so young.

I'm sorry if I just snapped at everyone. I'm really tired after school today, and I'm defensive.

Also exhausted. I think I'm going to take a nap.

Kristin, that's what I meant - I was taught this stuff, as a matter of course, and as it happens, so was Jo. We asked her questions all the time, and this stuff was still basic.

But what I don't remember, from my school days or Joanna's, is this emphasis on "standardised test! All that matters! Must pass that! Top priority! Force the teachers to make that the numero uno priority!" That seems to be me to be recent. Isn't it?

In that case, they're making a value judgement on the text.

Yep - but very few working parents, in my own acquaintance, sit down and discuss the Bill of Rights with their adolescent children. Real world constraints in a two-income family says, no. So if the kids are making statements like the one quoted above, and they aren't getting it from their parents and they aren't getting it from their teachers, where are they getting it from?

My money's on it being the same place kids that age get most of their stuff: their peers. Blind leading the blind.

I'm sorry Kristin. I didn't mean to offend. While I think there are some bad teachers. I hardly think they're the problem (In this instance. What they can do to an individual student is a whole nother ball of wax). When school boards decide that intelligent design ought to be taught alongside evolution, and textbooks ignore or only briefly touch on the recent past--I do see a trend away from (or perhaps it was never there) questioning and defending ideas.

I went to great public schools. I had great teachers. I believe in public schools and, even in a city with notoriously bad eggs in their public school basket, would take the necessary steps to send my kids to one of the good ones. This is for lots of reasons, the primary one being that good public education is one of the foundations of a healthy democracy.

I was speaking from foil-hat land when I said, "Almost makes you think those shitty public schools aren't happening by accident" because those crypto-fascist neo-cons scare the fuck out of me. And there is nothing I would put past them.