4 ms·

US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards. About half of US adults sampled couldn't even name the three bran

US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards. About half of US adults sampled couldn't even name the three branches of government; an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". A huge majority wildly misunderstand the first amendment [1]. I used to volunteer with a civics ed non-profit. Students, almost all whom had already completed their required civics curriculum, entered our program with all sorts of wildly insane misunderstandings of American governance. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnDodYekJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/09/17/americans-civics-survey-sobering-insurrection/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnD...

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". I should stop having impostor syndrome.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >all three +political+ branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive Would this be more accurate? I'm not sure the judicial branch is considered political enough for "one group" to "have".
  - jfengel 4y ago
    It's not how the term "branch" is commonly used. You could say it, and people would know what you meant... but then, people understood what the Senator meant in the first place. For that matter... the Judicial branch is quite political, and is widely considered to be "had" by one particular political party. 2/3 of its members were nominated by that party, and nominations have been increasingly subjected to ideological litmus tests. (Which they must then pretend not to have until confirmed.)
DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
> US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards And 100% of them repeat the tired cliche of name-dropping "Founding Fathers" in every reddit thread.
- User23 4y ago
  Now imagine how the minds are blown when they learn that the US legislators haven’t actually legislated, which is to say actually written a bill, in living memory. The actual process by which laws are passed resembles the schoolhouse rock version about as much as Roger Rabbit resembles criminal proceedings.
ryanhuff 4y ago
Of course, the mentioned Senator from Alabama wasn’t elected because he was competent. Alabama appears to have different priorities.
nwiswell 4y ago
> all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive While it's objectively the case that this is not accurate, control of those three is commonly called a "trifecta" by pundits and political operatives, so that's probably the source of the confusion.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  No, I don't think so. "Trifecta" is a fairly recent term for that. Knowing that the judiciary is set up to be independent is pretty critical.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    Define "recent"? This 2007 article uses the term: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2664-wall-street-readies-for-shifting-d-c-landscape-amid-murmurs-of-tax-hikes/ https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2664-wall-street-rea... My point is that this could easily be a slip of the tongue, the kind of mistake that I could see myself making when speaking extemporaneously. But making that mistake would not mean that I didn't understand the difference between the three branches of government and the three distinct "federal electoral prizes", so to speak. Knowing that we're talking about Tommy Tuberville, I'm obviously less inclined to offer him the benefit of the doubt, but we are still jumping to conclusions.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      2007 is definitely "recent" when we're talking about the Constitution. I think you'd find that shocking percentages of Americans don't understand any basic information. Probably not even who's the Vice President, or who's next in line of succession after the VP.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
theknocker 4y ago

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". I should stop having impostor syndrome.

ashwagary 4y ago
>all three +political+ branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive Would this be more accurate? I'm not sure the judicial branch is considered political enough for "one group" to "have".
- jfengel 4y ago
  It's not how the term "branch" is commonly used. You could say it, and people would know what you meant... but then, people understood what the Senator meant in the first place. For that matter... the Judicial branch is quite political, and is widely considered to be "had" by one particular political party. 2/3 of its members were nominated by that party, and nominations have been increasingly subjected to ideological litmus tests. (Which they must then pretend not to have until confirmed.)

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago

> US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards And 100% of them repeat the tired cliche of name-dropping "Founding Fathers" in every reddit thread.

User23 4y ago
Now imagine how the minds are blown when they learn that the US legislators haven’t actually legislated, which is to say actually written a bill, in living memory. The actual process by which laws are passed resembles the schoolhouse rock version about as much as Roger Rabbit resembles criminal proceedings.

ryanhuff 4y ago

Of course, the mentioned Senator from Alabama wasn’t elected because he was competent. Alabama appears to have different priorities.

nwiswell 4y ago

> all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive While it's objectively the case that this is not accurate, control of those three is commonly called a "trifecta" by pundits and political operatives, so that's probably the source of the confusion.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
No, I don't think so. "Trifecta" is a fairly recent term for that. Knowing that the judiciary is set up to be independent is pretty critical.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  Define "recent"? This 2007 article uses the term: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2664-wall-street-readies-for-shifting-d-c-landscape-amid-murmurs-of-tax-hikes/ https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2664-wall-street-rea... My point is that this could easily be a slip of the tongue, the kind of mistake that I could see myself making when speaking extemporaneously. But making that mistake would not mean that I didn't understand the difference between the three branches of government and the three distinct "federal electoral prizes", so to speak. Knowing that we're talking about Tommy Tuberville, I'm obviously less inclined to offer him the benefit of the doubt, but we are still jumping to conclusions.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    2007 is definitely "recent" when we're talking about the Constitution. I think you'd find that shocking percentages of Americans don't understand any basic information. Probably not even who's the Vice President, or who's next in line of succession after the VP.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

theknocker 4y ago