|
Teaching Democracy Lessons
Appreciating Representation
A Lesson Plan for High School Teachers of Civics, Government, and U.S. History
Review Online HTML files: Main Contents Page
Complete Lesson Plan (36-pages): Download to Word or Print in PDF format.
Prepared by Alan Rosenthal, Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, as a project of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center for Civic Education and the Center on Congress at Indiana University. The author can be reached at alanr@rci.rutgers.edu or (732) 828-2210, ext. 251. The current version was completed in November 2005.
An Overview of the Lesson
Background
Objectives
Methods for Teachers
Background
This lesson on appreciating representation is designed mainly for civics, American government, and history courses taught at the high school level. It follows upon an earlier lesson, “Appreciating Democracy,” which deals with: first, the fact that people have different values, interests, and priorities; second, that legislative bodies try to settle these differences by means of deliberation and negotiation, with compromises and majority votes as key elements; and, third, that dealing with differences can be very difficult, indeed. Now the focus is on how, to what degree, and on what issues people’s values, interests, and priorities get represented in the legislative process.
This “Appreciating Representation” project is sponsored by several organizations that are collaborating on the teaching of civic education on representative democracy and legislatures: the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the Center for Civic Education (CCE), and the Center on Congress at Indiana University, all of whom are joined in the Representative Democracy in America project.
Rationale
Our governmental system at, both the national and state levels, is based on the principle of representation. People do not themselves govern, nor do they ordinarily vote to adopt laws and public policy. Rather, they govern indirectly by electing legislators who represent them.
For the framers of the U.S. Constitution, the legitimacy of the government came from the consent of the governed. The House of Representatives, with its members elected by constituencies throughout the nation, was designed to reflect the views of the people. The Senate, with its members originally selected by state legislatures, was designed to reflect the sovereignty of the states. The will of the people would find its way through legislative chambers by means of lawmakers who would assess their constituencies’ preferences and interests and take them into account in deciding on matters of public policy. Legislators would lead, interpret and reflect public opinion as they assembled in Congress.
Today members of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and the houses and senates of the 50 states (except Nebraska, which is unicameral and has a senate, but not a house) are elected by the people and are considered to be representatives of the people.
At the state level, for example, legislators represent their constituents in a number of ways. They help constituents in their district who may have problems with governmental regulation or the provision of services, such as welfare benefits, unemployment compensation, driver’s licenses, insurance costs, taxes--almost anything under the sun. They try to get projects, such as the construction of a court house or funding for travel by a high school band, for their districts. And they are constantly looking for as many state dollars as possible to be channeled to their districts as school, county, and municipal aid. Insofar as possible, legislators also attempt to give voice to the policy views of their district and its residents. It is not always easy for legislators to figure out what the policy views of their constituents are and, thus, it is far more difficult for them to express constituency views than to help individual constituents with problems they have or fight for projects and state aid for their districts.
Legislators themselves have little doubt as to the quality of the jobs their institutions do with regard to representation. When asked in a recent survey about their legislature’s performance representing constituencies, almost nine out of ten members responding characterized the job as “excellent” or “good” (rather than “only fair” or “poor”). Smaller proportions thought their legislatures did as well making laws or balancing the power of the executive.1
Overall, Americans approve of the job their own representative is doing. Public opinion polls offer evidence of this, as do election results that show incumbents winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the time in both Congress and state legislatures. Yet, people don’t feel the same way about representatives other than their own or about the system in general. As surveys conducted by the University of Michigan show, confidence that government officials listen to “people like me” has declined over the past 50 years. A recent survey, sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislatures, found that almost half the people with opinions think that elected officials don't care what plain people thought and more than half with opinions think that elected officials work to serve their personal interests rather than the public interest. Further evidence of the lack of public support for the representative part of democracy is suggested by the fact that only 30 percent of those surveyed believe that making laws is a job best left to elected representatives, while 47 percent believe that the public should decide issues directly by voting on them.2
Americans are not only represented in legislative chambers by members whom they elect. They are also represented by political parties and interest groups to which they belong or with which they share values, interests, or priorities.
Party matters to people, even though most people are critical of the two major political parties and think they have too much power in the political system. Fifty years ago, party mattered even more. Then, roughly three out of four Americans identified themselves as either Republican or Democrats, while the rest identified as independents. Since then, the proportion of independent identifiers has increased, but, still, about two out of three people consider themselves to be either Republicans or Democrats. The remaining one-third are independents, but even among them a number lean Republican or Democratic.
Not only do Americans identify with the parties; they normally vote for their party’s candidates. It is no accident that, in the 2004 presidential elections, about 85 percent of Republicans voted for George W. Bush and almost as high a percentage of Democrats voted for John Kerry. If party preferences play such a vital role in the voting decisions of high-visibility elections such as that for the presidency, they provide even more important cues to voters in less visible contests, such as those for the state legislature. The political parties represent different constituencies in the population. Republicans are more likely to have higher incomes and be church goers, while Democrats are more likely to have lower incomes and be less religious. Finally, the political parties take different positions on issues--not all issues, by any means, but several significant issues, such as the role of government, abortion, and the distribution of tax cuts.
Interest groups also provide a channel for representation, although few people recognize this. Indeed, most Americans think that interest groups (or “special interests” as they are pejoratively termed) have too much power and do more harm than good.
If, as the public believes, interest groups are the enemy, then, in the words of the comic-strip character Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us.” That is because seven out of ten Americans belong to one interest group or another, and four out of ten belong to more than one group. Of course, the political and policy opinions and interests of all of us are represented by groups to which we do not belong but with whom we share values or interests. It may well be that (as the case of their attitude toward their own representative in comparison with their attitude toward everyone else’s representative) people think that the group to which they belong is pursuing, not a “special” interest, but rather the public interest, while groups whose interest they do not share are self-serving.
The concerns of the constituency, political parties, and interest groups all come to bear on the lawmaking process. So also do other factors, the most important of which are the merits of the particular case, that is the substantive arguments for and against a particular bill, and what individual representatives themselves believe and what their past records are like.
Most of the discussion that takes place in the legislative process--whether in committee or on the floor or by lobbyists for various groups--is over the merits of proposed legislation. Arguments, supported by evidence, are made in favor of a proposal, while arguments, also supported by evidence, are made against a proposal. These opposing arguments are critical grist for the legislative mill. In the deliberation that takes place, arguments on one side or the other often are the decisive elements in how many legislators vote; and, if not decisive, they still play an influential role. Legislators, of course, have their own convictions, values, and beliefs–ones that they have acquired over time. Many, for example, feel strongly one way or the other about gun control; many feel just as strongly on issues relating to gay rights. Moreover, they have records that they have made while serving in public office. They may, for instance have consistently supported increased expenditures for state aid to education. If they change course, they will look inconsistent and in their next election campaign they can be taken to task for switching positions. So, in the legislative process, as elsewhere, the past helps to shape the present.
Additional information on the factors influencing legislative decision making is included in Student Handout A and Student Handout C.
Objectives
An appreciation of representation does not come easily. It has to be taught--just as music and art appreciation and the appreciation of democracy in practice have to be taught. This teaching lesson on representation has the following objectives:
(1) To show students the channels by which people’s values, interests, and priorities are expressed in the legislative process. The principal channels of representation considered here are: first, those elected to legislative office; second, the two major political parties; and third, the interest groups that advocate and lobby for (and against) a particular policy.
(2) To bring to the attention of students the major factors that affect how legislators decide on matters of public policy. These factors are (a) the merits of the case; (b) the views of constituents; (c) the role of interest groups; (d) the position of the political party; and (e) the conviction and record of the individual legislator.
(3) To give students an idea of how legislators make up their minds on issues of public policy and the variation in decision making depending upon the specific issue being examined.
(4) To illustrate, albeit in a simplified way, the multiple considerations that operate in lawmaking in the states.
This lesson is designed to promote learning in high school government, civics, or history courses that is in accord with standards that are in effect in virtually every state. It is designed also to:
(1) Increase a student’s knowledge about channels of representation, the roles of constituency, political parties, and interest groups, the kinds of issues that arise, and legislator decision making in representative democracy.
(2) Develop a student’s skills in reasoning through the decision-making process of legislators, who are being influenced by a number of major factors.
(3) Affect a student’s dispositions toward representative democracy by countering the prevailing cynicism and suggesting that factors such as the merits of the issue, the legislator’s conviction and record, and constituency views are critical elements in decisionmaking. Also to promote an appreciation of a political system in which people seldom decide directly on issues, but instead elect those individuals who decide on their behalf.
Methods
Students will develop knowledge about and an appreciation of the representational system if they examine different types of issues on which legislators have to decide. By doing so, they can see some of the most important factors that legislators have to consider when deciding how to vote. Students will be able to see that the factors that are most influential are not always the same; they vary, depending on the specific issue that is being decided.
In order to accomplish our objectives, five brief and simple scenarios presenting hypothetical situations have been developed:
(1) Deciding how to vote on an increase in the state sales tax;
(2) Deciding how to vote on abolishing the death penalty;
(3) Deciding how to vote on an increased cigarette tax;
(4) Deciding how to vote on allowing optometrists to use diagnostic drugs; and
(5) Deciding how to vote on a reduction in the voting age.
For each of the above-listed scenarios:
(1) The issue is posed;
(2) The merits for and against passage of a bill are stated;
(3) Where constituents stand is indicated;
(4) The positions of Interest groups that are involved are specified;
(5) The political party position of the legislator is identified; and
(6) The legislator’s own conviction and record are noted.
Students have to figure out how most legislators would decide and why, given the considerations specified in each scenario. It is critical that students consider only the given set of factors and no others. Enough information is provided so that students can decide how most legislators would vote. What is important here is not what students themselves think, but what students think influences legislators and legislatures. So, students should not take into account their own views and positions, but instead should examine the factors specified in order to figure out how most legislators would decide.
This lesson consists of five scenarios and a debriefing discussion. The time to be allotted to the entire lesson is three 45-minute periods.
In advance of the first period, Student Handout A should be distributed. It includes the same text that is presented earlier in the “Rationale” section of this lesson for teachers and briefly discusses the principal factors that ordinarily influence legislative decision making. The handout should be studied at home before students respond to the first set of scenarios.
The first period should take up three scenarios in which students figure out how most legislators would have voted and why. Student Handout B consists of brief instructions to the students and the five issues legislators have to decide. Student Handout B also contains a tally sheet that can be used to record the votes of students on how they think most legislators would decide on each issue. The second period should deal with the remaining two scenarios.
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3; period 1. Students should be given the instructions, along with the first three scenarios and the tally sheet.
(1) Deciding on an Increase in the Sales Tax;
(2) Deciding on Abolishing the Death Penalty; and
(3) Deciding on an Increased Cigarette Tax.
The students can discuss the issues as a class, but it is preferable that they be organized into discussion groups of six to eight. The assignment is for them to read each of the three scenarios and discuss in their groups the questions:
How do you think most legislators would probably vote on this issue, given the specified factors?
Why do you think they would vote this way?
It should be emphasized that the purpose of group discussion is not to arrive at agreement, so there is no need for students to persuade one another of their view on how most legislators would vote. The purpose is to allow students to exchange views with one another, and learn from one another. Each student should decide how legislators would vote on the basis of the factors specified in the scenarios, not on the basis of dominant opinion in the discussion group.
After about 30 minutes of discussion in their groups, students will be asked to indicate how they think most legislators would vote on each of the three issues.
Scenarios 4 and 5; period 2. Students should be given the remaining two scenarios and the tally sheet, along with a repeat of the instructions:
(4) Deciding on Allowing Optometrists to Use Diagnostic Drugs; and
(5) Deciding on a Reduction in the Voting Age.
Preferably, students should be organized into different discussion groups of six or eight. The assignment is the same as that in the first period--to read each of the scenarios and discuss in their group the questions:
How do you think most legislators would probably vote on this issue, given the specified factors?
Why do you think they would vote this way?
Again, the purpose of the group discussion is not to arrive at agreement, but rather to allow students to exchange views with one another. Each student should decide how most legislators would vote on the basis of the factors specified in the scenarios, not on the basis of dominant opinion in the discussion group.
After 20 minutes of discussion in their groups, students will be asked to indicate how they think most legislators would vote on each of the two issues.
Debriefing; period 3. At the conclusion of the vote during the second period, students should hand in the tally sheets and the teacher should distribute Student Handout C, which analyzes legislative decision making. This analysis is based largely on research that political scientists have conducted. It explains how legislators would have voted on each of the five issues, given the specified factors. The reading of this handout should be done in class during period 2, if there is time, or at home, and before period 3. Along with Handout A, it will provide the basis for class discussion in period 3.
The conventional pattern of pedagogy at the high school or collegiate levels has a reading assignment preceding discussion. In this lesson, by contrast, some background reading precedes discussion and further reading follows discussion. The intent is to engage students in the subject, by means of their having to figure out how legislators would decide. If students become engaged as a result of these exercises, the expectation is that they will attend to the reading more thoughtfully than otherwise. This is one way in which engagement can facilitate learning (as learning facilitates engagement).
The debriefing session, after the students have read an analysis of the subject and decision making on the five issues, should provide an informed discussion of some of the basic elements of representative democracy.
The major questions to be addressed in this debriefing session are:
(1) What did the students identify as the factor(s) playing the most important role on each issue, as far as the decisions of legislators were concerned?
(2) What were the principal differences, issue by issue, of factors that influenced legislators?
(3) Did the discussions and reading of Handouts A and C change the way students think about how legislators make decisions? How?
(4) In our political system do people get represented on the issues? Do interest groups exercise control? Are political parties in charge? Does conscience and conviction matter? What role is played by the merits of the issue and deliberation on the merits?
_______________________________
1 Alan Rosenthal, Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004), p. 233.
2 Karl Kurtz, Alan Rosenthal, and Cliff Zukin, Citizenship: A Challenge for All Generations, (Denver, Colo.: NCSL, September 2003), p. 9.
Posted 12/5/05
Visitor counts for this page.
|
