About four months ago, the above words appeared in a thread in Constitutional Debate. Although I doubted that the Constitution of the United States is understood by anyone with a “junior high school” [middle school] reading level, I had no evidence to support this other than years of observation in the classroom.

So, I decided to do some original research on the readability of the Constitution. I purchased a computer program from Micro Power and Light Co. of Dallas, Texas called Readability Calculations.

The program contained nine measures of readability. I chose three, discarding five because they measured elementary reading materials and the Flesch Index, because the Flesch grade level seemed more useful. The three measures I chose were: Flesch Grade Level, SMOG and Fry Graph.

Flesch Grade Level

Perhaps the oldest readability test was developed by Rudolph Flesch, author of Why Johnny Can’t Read in the 1940’s. I first heard about it in 1961 in a journalism class at TCU.

http://developer.gnome.org/documents/usabi...eadability.html

SMOG

http://www.health.state.mn.us/communityeng/groups/test.html

Fry Graph

http://school.discovery.com/schrockguide/fry/fry2.html

My first approach was to remove the Article numbers and clause numbers from the Constitution and paste the whole document into the program. It locked up!

So, I decide to feed the entire Constitution into the program--clause by clause starting with the Preamble and ending with Amendment XXVII--removing identifying numbers. In all, I have analyzed 131 clauses. My method was to measure a clause with the three tests, average the results and round off to the nearest grade level. In 65 cases I averaged all three results. In 66 cases the Constitutional passage was outside the parameters of the Fry Graph, leaving Flesch and SMOG.

In making calculations of frequency, I used both the average of the two or three measures or the one that yielded the lowest grade level. Sometimes Flesch gave the lowest score, sometimes SMOG and at other times the Fry Graph.

MY FINDINGS:

Depending on measure:

1. Grade Level

2-4 clauses are written on an elementary level. (Grades K-5) = 2% to 3%

3-5 clauses are written on a middle school level. (Grades 6-8)= 2 to 4%

18-27 clauses are written on a high school level (Grades 9-12)= 14 to 21%

Totals:

23 to 36 elementary to high school clauses =18% to 28%

In a best case scenario that leaves 95 clauses or 72% of the Constitution is above high school reading level

2. Measures of Central Tendency

Using an average of the two or sometimes three tests I found:

Mean Grade Level=19
Median Grade Level=16

Using the test that yielded the lowest grade level I found:

Mean Grade Level=16
Median Grade Level=14

My guess is that completion of grade 14 (sophomore in college) is the time when students can understand the nuances of the Constitution. From my days at UNT, I remember that constitutional law (closely related to understanding the Constitution) was offered as a junior to graduate level course.

3. The Easy and Difficult

Article I, Section 1, Paragraph Thirteen:



Grades 3 to 4 was the easiest.

There were many that were almost unreadable. Article V is an example. It is one long sentence:



Here’s a statistical analysis of Article V.

Sentence 1
Words 143
Syllables 215
Monosyllabic Words 100
Words with 3 or more Syllables 21

4. Archaic Language

There are words appear in the Constitution that are not in line with modern spelling. They are;

Modern = Archaic

a. defense = defence
b. behavior = behaviour
c. increase = encrease
d. control = controul
e. labor = labour
f. choose = chuse*

The current spelling of choose first appeared in Amendment XII, ratified in 1803. So, the document contains the same word spelled two different ways.

5. An Interview

When I first started thinking about this thread, I ran into a man who was once president of a competing teacher’s union. He is currently a social studies teacher in Fort Worth and I took the opportunity to pick his brain.

I asked how much of the Constitution was taught in middle school. He said, “not very much.” We want them to know what a Constitution is and why we have one.

Asked when he thought we should teach the Constitution and he said 11th grade. He gave two reasons:

1. That is a grade where they can begin to understand the Constitution,
2. It is close to the time students will be of voting age and it will begin to have practical value.

Fort Worth now teaches one semester (18 weeks or 90 days) of government. My friend thinks there should be two semesters; the first devoted to federal government and the second to stat/local governments.

The Dilemma as I See It

We can’t wait forever to teach the Constitution, but it is partly an unreadable document, containing long sentences, polysyllable words and archaic language.

Additionally, numerous adults do not read well. See links below:

http://www.americanliteracy.com/literacy_figures.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_li..._at_lea_mod_lit

I have been working on this thread for almost four months. Some may dispute my findings. That is fine, but I have made an honest attempt to research and present my findings.

Questions for Debate:

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

Finally,

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand? *

*My conception is that this project might be funded under No Child Left Behind and the committee would be made up of teachers, (particularly reading teachers of all levels) administrator, parents, advocates, lawyers, and political science and reading professors.

A recommendation you might want to consider is to simply have students commit various provisions to memory, and then over time fill in the details of meaning with regard to words and phrases that they don't encounter every day. I would avoid as much as possible saying to them flat-out, "This is what this sentence means." Instead, in most cases they should be encouraged to figure that out for themselves, and debate it amongst themselves. There's nothing wrong with instructors taking part in the discussion, but as far as actually "laying down the law", so to speak, about what particular provisions say, that should only be done to the extent that it's necessary to get the students onto the right general path.


I would strongly advise against something like that. Students will apt to conclude that the "New Standard Version" is, for all intents and purposes, the Constitution itself, and that's all they'd need to know, and that only lawyerly eggheads would ever have the need to go to the original document. What could be done instead is a footnoted version (much like you see when Shakespeare's plays are printed up for classroom use) that explains particular words and turns of phrase used in the 18th century that might not necessarily be used today. And furthermore, these footnotes probably should not be nationally standardized, so as not to create any impression that these footnotes are in any way "officially sanctioned" parts of the document.

Excellent work, BoF. A+ for effort, A+++ for use of computer technology, A &&& for objectivity.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

We seem to think so for naturalized citizens. The level of working knowledge required of naturalized citizens should be the standard for all citizens.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

Although the language is difficult, the concepts are not. Representative republic, three branches of government, and the Bill of Rights ought to be taught early on. The more complex concepts can be saved for high school: separation of powers between fed and states, historical perspectives, the evolution of the United States. Plus Intelligent Design? That might not work. Seems that war became an outcome of the design. But that would be an interesting study too.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?

I personally find the study of word origins and historical usage to be interesting, and maybe others would too, if approached in the right way. For example, the word ejaculate once had a primary meaning of saying something suddenly and with force. Then it became a sexual euphamism.

As far as the meaning of archaic and difficult language goes, that's always a crap shoot. However, it's easy to understand that language changes over time. Old English, Middle English, Modern English, street talk, professional jargon, euphamism, double-speak, and straight up lies -- yep, this would be fun!

But I'm a prejudiced English major type.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

Just enough to understand how the fed government works at a high level. Local and state government should get at least equal attention, as this is where things that directly impact life happen more often, and where individual citizens have greater influences.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

No, but study guides would work, possibly with more than one interpretation being represented. I think students at a very young age understand that people have different takes on things, sometimes to the point of fighting.

How early do we teach the Civil War? Bring in the Constitutional conflicts of that war, and there you have a relevant set of events.

It is interesting to compare the Constitution with the Bible. Lots of parallels there. But that could be too advanced for the high school level, and maybe up through undergrad curriculum. On the other hand, it might not. Aw, what they hey, give it a whirl and see if anyone's head explodes.

I may not be an american, but is not american ´high school´ kids around 15?

Is this an age in United States when its "too advanced" to talk about similarities between the Bible and the Constitution?

Granted, most kids around havent read the Bible, heck, most CHRISTIANS have not read tghe Bible.. I am just talking as a European, where these 15 year old kids would have no problems talking about it... Perhaps U.S kids are a bit.. slower? Or how do you mean?

In what way would it be to advanced is my question

First of all I am not sure how Shakespeare would measure up sentence by sentence on the old readability chart but it should definitely be taught. The earlier the better.



1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Yes. I think the most fundamental action of citizenship is protecting one's liberties and freedoms from the government the way our system is set up. In order to do this, one needs to know what rights are there already.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

Now, in terms of mechanics I am not certain of your meaning. I think that elementary school must be the beginning of our Constitution information. It brings to ming the School House Rocks cartoon of the Preamble.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

The same way we get around this problem for other material. We put the students in a classroom with someone who has mastered the meaning and with a book that helps clearly explain the meaning of the document.

Scavenger hunts for rights and powers in the Constitution should be an activity to help high school students recognize the basic elements of the Constitution and the functions of those elements.

I just gave a quiz to 11th graders that required a definition of the following after reading the Constitution.

Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Preamble, elastic clause, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, ratification. This was along with 5 or 6 other terms and it was the assigned reading for part of a week of classes.

This is not a government class, I think it begs the question, should we require government for all high school students? I think no, but it would definitely help fulfill the civics aspect of the public education mission.

Encouraging students to push for advanced levels of reading comprehension also is a winning strategy here.

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

At least three weeks.

Finally,

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand? *

Heck no. Lets stick with margin notes. This is a treasured piece of literature and we have by no means lost the meaning of the text. I find the Constitution to be fairly directly communicated. The concepts that the founding father's grappled with were complex and require higher thinking. With informed facilitation it is a very teachable document IMHO.

I mean that both God and government are created by human beings. This is an advanced concept that could very well disturb folks, and I've seen it happen in college-level philosophy classes.

So faith in both God and government make the two concepts real. Do they have any reality outside of faith? That can't be demonstrated. The only realities involve symbols scribbled on parchment, which are themselves only meaningful with human belief.

Then this evolves into what is actual reality and what is human perception of reality. It takes a pretty hearty intellect to wrap around the notion that we are still largely ignorant of reality. I am doubtful that high school aged kids (16-18, generally) can do much more than touch on it, no matter what geographical location.

But as stated, what the heck, give it a whirl. Natural defense mechanisms will kick in, where the notion is rejected with something like, "Well, that's just ker-aaaa-zy!"

Okay, whatever. End of lesson.

BTW, this isn't a function of intelligence so much as experience. Intelligence is somewhat important for putting the knowledge to work, also for detecting how others put the knowledge to work.

Note of Clarification

My reference to a non-King James version of the Constitution was meant to convey the fact that both were written when language differed from modern usage--the Constitution, 1787 and the KJV, 1611. The differences in language were more pronounced in 1611 than 1787, but the idea's the same. It was an analogy.

The idea, whether good or bad, of writing a simplified teaching model for the Constitution or whether such can better be achieved--as others have mentioned--through annotation or footnotes is much the same as translating the Bible from manuscripts into modern English. It has nothing to do with the Bible or religion per se.

Not to mention the constitutional objections that would be raised, if this were to be done in public schools. If I understand correctly what you're saying, you're suggesting basing a teaching curriculum on the notion that God is a construct of man? Wouldn't that be regarded as government promotion of a religious view?

Yeah, more than likely. Best keep God out of this altogether. But it is undeniable that government is a construct of humankind, so that notion would be safer.

Or would it? Seems a lot of folks think that the United States was invented by God.

Aye, what a mess we've got. Who is to say what is correct? Blast it, back to the old thing about inventing our own realities.

So who decides what interpretation of the Constitution ought to be taught? Or maybe the students should do their own interpretations with the knowledge that we all interpret. The Constitution that is. Let the other sleeping dogs lie.

Just because someone does not want to accept the Truth, does not mean we should avoid teaching it, dont you agree?



I do not really understand this.. How do you mean? Faith generally refers to belief in higher power or similar. Of course, you can use it as "i have faith in her", but this would merely mean ignorance, or blind acceptance. In what way has this to do with Goverment?

Faith (or ignorance) is needed to be believe in a God, we agree on this. But a Goverment is real, whatever you might think of it. No ignorance needed. Perhaps you mean "faith" that it will do what you want? (be 'good´ perhaps?).



Subjective and pure rhetoric. Humans that do not accept that we are ignorant of certain things are mere cretins. I will draw the assumtion that most (ordinary foolks) are aware of our limitations and general ignorance about certain things. But we are not about Ignorance, We are about WHAT WE KNOW AND CAN LEARN.

I would say this is a very suited subject for highschool kids if you want them to become reasonable intelligent. The ones that cant handle it can be rooted out.



Then you could have an enlightened Teacher to tell them?
If they would not talk about them, what do you think would happen? They would grow up, know nothing, no reflections, no intellect. Going nowhere, doing nothing.(*reminds of a certain people in North America i know about eh?).

Or You could let them evolve, expunge their ignorance. Whaever they want it or not.






It´s English. English i presume, is your native tongue, not mine. I understand it perfectly. Strange. Do you need ither people to explain the Bible to you as well ?

To be honest, this sounds like the excuse Creationist give when they "reinterpret" the Bible...... Or, as normal people would say, deny the clear meaning.

It could say;
"You should kill your offspring if they do not obey you"
Very clear.
"No No, it doesnt mean kill your offspring.. Its a metaphor. It means that God Loves everyone... Thats what it means, new interpretation will be printed shortly."

You get the point. Why cant you just read it as it is? Do you need people to explain to you what Platon Wrote? Or Aristotle? Most likely, but i dont, because I understand it.



ADDED:



Indeed I agree.

Faith (or ignorance) is needed to be believe in a God, we agree on this. But a Goverment is real, whatever you might think of it. No ignorance needed. Perhaps you mean "faith" that it will do what you want? (be 'good´ perhaps?).

Eric,

Our definitions of faith are different. Before the Constitution of the United States, did the United States exist? No. A band of colonies existed, and they didn't exist until the British made it so. Before that there were Native American governments, and before that, none.

Faith means believing something to be true, in this case, government. If nobody holds that belief, then government does not exist. The documents help to solidify the belief, but in themselves, they are meaningless scribbles on parchment without the faith, or commonly held belief, in writing symbols and what they mean.

It's interesting that Samuel Johnson published the first English dictionary in 1755.

Anyway, take for instance the notion of arms and how that has changed since the US Constitution was drafted. At the time of drafting, the commonly held notion was that arms involved muskets and cannon. Now it means a lot more, from single-shot pistols to nuclear warheads. An individual citizen could not threaten the entire planet back then. Now it's feasable.

And so the government got reinvented. It grew an arm, the ATF. Enough people accept its existence, and so it exists. At the most fundamental of thinking, this is true of government as well. What makes government real is common faith that government is real. Without that, government stops existing. The point that BoF is trying to make is that we need to reaxamine exactly what the Constitution says, in light of modern English usage. Or perhaps in the light of 19th century usage.

I can think of several things that have developed since the 19th century that probably need reassesment: global markets, Internet, interstate commerce, energy demand, mass-scale polution, even religion.

But it comes down to what we teach in the lower schools, those intended to start citizens on self-sufficiency, higher education, or some kind of professional training program. Hey, it's not ignorance to use faith. The entire geometry system of mathematics is based on it. We have faith that a point exists. From that faith comes a line, and from that a plane. Or how about mathematics? We have faith that zero exists. It did not for a very long time.

I'll extend this to physics as well. The faith here is that reality has certain rules of behavior, where energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and that an object can exist in two places at once at the sub-atomic level. A contradiction, but the faith isn't perfect yet.

And this comes down to the evidence that something exists. For government, it could be leaders and buildings, police and military. It could be books of law. But these are manifestations of government, not government itself.

Government is an abstraction, an invention supported by common belief, or faith. It is created and destroyed by the human brain. Maybe high school students can get this, maybe not. From what I've seen, probably not. Things may be different in Greenland, but I can't judge that and make an assumption based on how most people develop in the teen years, when experience is limited, versus how development goes after living for, say 30 or 40 years, maybe having children, maybe fighting a war, maybe building a career, maybe having to start from scratch several times over. Lots of maybes happen after high school.

What do we teach about the Constitution? I'm back to keeping it simple and functional. Maybe here's how it's supposed to work, and here's how it actually works. Later on people will (or might) figure out that they have a measure of control over the manifestations of an invented reality, being that it depends on their faith in the invented reality.

Here's an example for religion: During the Roman Empire, people were allowed to keep their native religions after conquest, but they had to acknowledge the principle deity of Rome, from which the Emperor derived his power.

Now who do you suppose wrote that rule? The Roman Emperor, of course. And why doesn't this rule get followed any longer? Nobody believes it. An argument can be made that nobody enforces the rule, but the very act of enforcement acknowledges that the belief is reality, real enough to risk life and limb enforcing it.

I'm talking here about school students, many of whom do not read on grade level, not people on this board who generally read on a higher level.



There is a difference in interpretation and translation. Translation simply brings a document into more modern, readable form, or even takes it from one language to another. Interpretation, by the courts in our case, determines what is the not so “clear meaning” or perhaps changing meaning.

You mentioned Plato and Socrates. How many people have reads them in Greek? How many people have read them translated into another language?

I thought I could make a play on words "non-King James" Constitution without someone seizing the opportunity to change this into a religious debate. Oh well, it's not the first time I've been wrong.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?
Absolutely. Many of the hottest debates we face right now hinge on the interpretation of some aspect of the Constitution. If people don't know what it says and what it means, then they are fairly easy for unscrupulous politicians to take advantage of. I think history and government go hand in hand, and those that don't know where our forebears came from will have a hard time avoiding falling prey to other sweet-talking tyrants.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?
It makes sense to me to begin as early as 1st grade. Not making the students actually try to read the Constitution, of course, but giving them a birds-eye view of what's in it, such as the three branches of our government.

By the time they get to 11th or 12th grade, they should already know pretty much everything that's in the Constitution, at least in principle, and that makes reading it a lot easier.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

Well, for the words that have archaic spelling, that's not too difficult. Just translate "labour" to "labor" and "defence" to "defense", and the job's done.

For words that have archaic meanings or are otherwise hard to understand, here are my suggestions for a vocabulary lesson:
domestic
common (meaning "for everybody", as opposed to "normal", which meaning students might think it means)
liberty
posterity
ordain
vested
elector
requisite
attained
inhabitant

ok, I've only made it through Article I, section 2, and I'm starting to think the list will be a lot bigger than I want to include in a post. Let me just say that there are a great many words that should be learned. Part of the Vocabulary curriculum we have in grades K-12 should be derived in part after considering what students will need in order to understand the Constitution.

Part of understanding it, of course, is reading it and re-reading it. The first time through, my eyes were glazed over before I'd finished the preamble. Each time through, though, it gets a lot easier to understand, especially when supplemented with visual demonstrations of how our government works in practice.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?
Half to two-thirds? That's just my guess. Intermixed with the nuts-and-bolts lessons, I would like to see at least a fair amount of time used for the students to debate. Students tend to hate it (I know I did), but to me, there's no better way to fully understand a topic than to have to explain it to somebody else, especially when you have somebody right next to you trying to explain just the opposite.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?
I can understand the desire to make it easier to understand, but I'm wary of any formally sanctioned rewording of the Constitution, even as merely a teaching tool. I'm not worried so much about it having any legal standing, which is highly unlikely (I sure hope anyway), but because it's that much easier to shelve the real Constitution in the minds of the citizens, which is where it ultimately matters.

I have no objection to any teaching tools, so long as they help the user understand the text of the Constitution when they read it, instead of just giving them a dumbed-down version of it.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Yes. Citizens absolutely must understand what this country was founded on, which is the Constitution. Many people can recite some of the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness...) but that is not the basis of our government, the Constitution is.

Without an understanding of the base document, how can one begin to understand how government works?

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

We should start with the basics in elementary school and build from there. An understanding of government should be an essential part of education throughout a kid's school life.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

I don't think that every high school student needs to be a Constitutional scholar, however I think they need to undestand the basic language of the document. No word in the US Constitution should confound a reasonably able reader, however. We do have these things called dictionaries (for modern usage). I do think a review of how terms have changed from the meaning in 1781 to the contemporary meaning to the is crucial to understanding the document, which should be overseen by an instructor.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

Probably around 4 weeks. One week on the Federalist papers, One week on the document, One week on the Amendments (this would be the hardest, I think), and one week on some modern interpretations and the impact that the Amendments have had on our society. I think any reasonable discussion of the Constitution should include a review of the Federalist papers, since they were written as a detailed explanation of the Constitution.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

What else does the useless Department of Education have to do? Isn't this something they would handle: how to teach a subject appropriately? We can have them do this one last task before we disband the Department. Seriously, why does a document have to be "dumbed down" to teach it? We need to raise expectation, not lower them. Teaching the original document, not some panel's interpretation of it, is the most important thing.

One thing I'd be opposed to is any suggestion that interpretation of the Constitution is a subjective exercise. This isn't a Picasso that we're looking at here. This is law. It has to have only one correct meaning, or it's rather pointless. That doesn't necessarily mean that the correct meaning is going to be the same as the "official" meaning that the government says it has (after all, there's a certain conflict of interests there), so that's why I'd be in favor of encouraging the students to figure as much of it out for themselves as they realistically can be expected to (which would be quite a bit, I'd wager).

Also, schools should not be shy about presenting students with historical materials that go against current Supreme Court dogma. For example, Alexander Hamilton stated very clearly in 1787, that "The words 'due process' have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature." This wasn't Hamilton's private opinion, but was universally how that phrase was understood. But starting about a century ago, the Court up and decided that it does limit the legislative power, and that the Court has nearly arbitrary power to say exactly how it does. And it came to this conclusion mostly by playing specious word games. It never directly confronted the traditional understanding of the phrase; it just sidestepped it, and in the process came up with a whole new definition (or indefinition) on its own.

Again, I'm not saying that students should be told directly that the Court was wrong here, but given the proper information, I think they could come to their own conclusions on that.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

I'd agree with everyone else, a working knowledge is essential, but I would suspect most people don't know the amendments of the constitution very well (except maybe the 2nd).

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

I think we could start teaching it in 7th - 8th grades in a very introductory level. At the same time as kids are learning about reconstruction and the civil war, they could learn about the 13th amendment and so on. Not a full teaching of the constitution and serious analysis, but small introductions concerning what it is, what it does, and why it's important. Eventually, in 11th or 12th grade, there would be a US Gov. class with a serious amount of time spent on the Constituion and things concerning it (ie. federalist papers).

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

This is where the teachers come in. They need to be able to present the constitution in a way which can be understood. Teachers couldn't say read the origional constitution and tomorrow we'll discuss it (though I think that's how I was taught, but it was an advanced course). Perhaps teaching in small segments to make it managable would work better with discussion of what people think it all means. I don't know if anything should be taught as a prerequisite, I would just assume the kids would learn what they don't know when it comes to vocab and archaic language. Perhaps more important than knowing what specific words mean is the ability to read for content and context. This would be addressed in the english classes with reading comprehension and development of better anaylitical reading.

4. In a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

One semester is not much time to cover US GOV. but I suppose, about 4 weeks would be the most you could spend on it without leaving other things out. Now that I think about it, one semester of high school government doesn't do much more than gloss over the generalities of government.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand? *


This seems like a decent idea, but it would be important, and difficult, to keep everything with the same meaning. I think this would be a worthy endeavor.

I'm going to try again. I had a nice reply, ready to go, hit Spellcheck (just in case), and the window closed. Grrrr...

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Yes (stating an opinion, not making an assertion)

The Constitution is the foundation of the US Legal system, the core upon which the government is based, and the conceptual foundation upon which the American Experiment is built. Without a working knowledge of the Constitution, one can be mislead far more easily as to what one's Rights are (and, more importantly, are not), and what the govt can (and, more importantly, cannot) do.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

Middle School, around the same time as we begin teaching the War Between the States (it was not a Civil War) would do well. It's tough to understand that period without some familiarity with the Constitution. Later in the education path, perhaps late high school, an actual study of the Constitution should be, with an eye towards ubderstanding it in context. This means also studying the Federalist Papers, letters written by the Framers, and a few of the other outstanding documents, such as the Magna Carta, treaties, and state Constitutions.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

I see no reason to change the language. Teach the historical context. Part of that is teaching the language as it was written in the period. This does not need to be complex, as you can go quite far by simply stating that rules for spelling weren't as codified then as they are now, and that there were a few letter differences, and some meaning changes. Then you provide the student an annotated and footnoted copy of the document.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

When I graduated high school, some 15 years ago, Government was a full two semester course. I felt it was still not enough time, but that was largely due to excessive time spent on federal govt while virtually ignoring state and local.

I would a solid 9 week quarter to the Constitution, and attendant contextual documents (as mentioned above - Magna Carta, Federalist Papers, Articles of the Confederacy, letters, etc). I would also include an overview of the events of history leading up to the creation of the Constitution. This should enable the student to place the document, and its' ideals, firmly into historical context, and see it as an integral part of our history, as opposed to some dry document to be memorised and pored over during test prep.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

Not in the least. In addition to the excellent arguments above, I will offer the fact that I own an annotated and footnoted copy of the Constitution in oftbound form. It exists, and it is extremely handy in understanding the document. I picked it up while still in college, and found it invaluable. Such a book could easily be produced with high school students in mind.

I think there is difference between interpretation and translation.

I'm not even sure I agree with the proposal I set forward. Annotation and footnotes would probably do the same thing.

My problem with your approach is that public schools have to deal with both able readers and those who don't aren’t so able. The links I provided also indicate that many adults don't read well.

Here they are again:

Adult Literacy

More on Adult Literacy

It seems rather obvious that if many adults read this poorly, they graduated or dropped out without knowledge of the Constitution or the ability to read such a complex document.

The consensus seems to be that the archaic words are close enough to the modern one's to be easily translated. I agree that this is a minor problem.

One of the problems with reading the Constitution, particularly for those who have poor reading skills, is the multitude of long sentences. 'Cmon, a sentence of 143 words, as we find in Article V, is a bit much.

First, let me support the notion set forth by some of the libertarians in this debate; It is ESSENTIAL that Americans understand the meaning and purpose of the constitution in order to protect themselves from their own government. The minute our intellectuals lose all authority we will plummet into facism as far as I am concerned. The more people who know the score the healthier our society will be.

Soooo.....

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

See above!

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?
In reality we begin teaching our children about government in elementary school already. Mainly they learn about local government, the estabishment (or at least existence of) laws and the meaning of democracy. At the same time they are spoon fed lies about our history. (and the feeding never stops in public education)

Can young minds understand the complexity wrapped up in the Constitution? I don't think so but not for reasons associated with the difficulty of reading the text. I think that the abstract concepts of Rights, obligations and Utility are lost to all youth and many adults as well. According to Kholberg's understanding of moral reasoning many people never make it to the last two stages of development. Certainly few youths get there. The drafters of the Constitution, on the other hand, were informed by Rousseau's "Social Contract", Locke and a number of other thinkers. I think that no understanding of the social contract can be had without a foundation in those thinkers.
Does that mean kids should not learn it at all? Of course not! In my opinion they should learn, first and foremost, the concept of checks and balances. It strikes at the heart of the document, leads them to more abstract thinking and can be illustrated in a variety of concrete ways. (I'm imagining lesson plans now)

What burns me about the average person's understanding of the Constitution is that they only seem to know what rights they have but don't seem to understand the huge implication of their responsibilities to the same contract. Teaching of the Bill of Rights should go right out the window until possibly the senior year in high school. According to the SCOTUS schoolchildren don't enjoy the full compliment of rights in school anyway. Let me tell you, once they get wind of their "rights" they quickly forget their respnsibilities, the school rules and even basic decency sometimes. I have explained countless times to students that cursing a person out in class is NOT a protected right of speech. I loathe hearing the usual, "My mom/dad says I have freedom of speech...blah blah blah...", as a response.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*
The same way teachers every day get around the same problems for the science text, history text, math text and all the novels they teach. At a rapid pace nearly all formal texts are becoming foreign and intimidating to our attention span-deprived youth. The Constitution is just another drop in the ocean for teachers.

4. In a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?

I think it should be evenly divided between the Constitution and state government.
State government is usually totally ignored.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

As I said before, the text itself is only one small obstacle. I personally know a teacher whose third-grade students perform a full play by Shakespeare every year. This year was "Midsummer night's dream". It took the whole year but the kids were able to perform it, archaic language and all, perfectly. Thankfully, though, they did not understand all the meanings.
Not to mention the impossibility of such a task! I would enjoy observing the arguments as people from all sides debate the replacement of each word. The possible subtleties of meaning are immense. Christians are still arguing this day the subtleties of the translation of the New Testament from the original Greek. Does "logos" mean a speech? ...or is it reason? ..or did they mean it was just one word?
What's the line about "I am the word."? Well, some people believe that "logos", in that usage, meant "reason or logic" something akin to the Eastern ideas of Universal Order. But that meaning was lost to most Christian sects.... Nearly 2,000 years later we are fighting because of those confusions. Oh MAN to see Scalia's apoplectic fits!

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Absolutely. If you don't understand the Constitution, chances are you won't understand how the government works, and in any sovereign country, not knowing how your government works just doesn't fly.


2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?
I'm going to stick away from age here and go with grade level. The way I've been taught it is as follows, and I personally think it has worked very well:

9th Grade: Intro to political science, with the Constitution pretty much covered in its entirety, with more emphasis placed on the Articles than on the Amendments, although the Bill of Rights was covered in some detail. This goes along with a recap in history of the Constitutional Convention. The purpose of this was to give the students a basic understanding of how our government is setup and run - bicameral legislature, 3 branches w/ checks and balances, etc. This was also taught in conjunction with lessons on the election process, although that was initially taught in 8th.

11th Grade (or 12th depending on course selections): A more in-depth look at the Articles, as well as a focus on all of the Amendments.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

*I am looking for specific things in question three. For example, what vocabulary words should be taught as a prerequisite? How can teachers modify archaic and difficult language without destroying the meaning?

There are two main ways that I have seen of accomplishing this, and actually, neither is overly complex. The first is to have a decent teacher. A decent teacher can explain to students what the different clauses mean, and put the archaic phrasing into modern-day equivalents. The meaning of words and phrases isn't really lost, as their modern-day equivalents aren't that vastly different.

The second handy-dandy trick is using an annotated Constitution. Nowadays there are plenty of "pocket" sized Constitutions floating around with annotations in the margins that do pretty much what a teacher would do, and either sum-up or rephrase the meanings of the various clauses.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?
Definitely a whole semester. The Constitution quite literally is our government, or at least the rock on which it's founded. Refer to line one of this section's response

Finally,

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand? *

*My conception is that this project might be funded under No Child Left Behind and the committee would be made up of teachers, (particularly reading teachers of all levels) administrator, parents, advocates, lawyers, and political science and reading professors.

I'd have to say "negative" on that one. Once again, I have to refer to these annotated pocket-Constitutions. They're really an invaluable tool. Not only do they expose the student/owner to the actual document, but they have paraphrased and easily comprehensible interpretations of the document's various nuances right there in the margins, next to the original material.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Well, how much knowledge does one need to have for one's knowledge to qualify as "working"? But superficially I'd have to say "YES" because it's would be next-to impossible to exercise the rights of citizenship without having the first inkling what the Constitution has to say about it.

However, given the literacy rates that have already been mentioned, I would say that the teaching effort would be better directed towards teaching people to read ANY passage of text and drawing sensible conclusions as to meaning from it. If they can do that with Dickens or Twain or Shakespeare, then the Constitution should be a doddle by comparison.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?
I'd say it should be gradually introduced from about age 10 or 11. At that age, all you really need to know is that there IS a Constitution. By 18, one should have a pretty good grasp of the main thrust of all the Amendments, and be able to construct an argument

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

Teach literary skills for longer and from earlier.

4. I a one semester high school course in government, how much time should be devoted to the nuts and bolts of the constitution?
If you are going to bother teaching government at all, it should last at least one academic year.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

No. This might be useful in a Constitution that is contained in thousands of different documents (e.g. the British Constitution), or a very long and exhaustive single document (e.g. the recently proposed EU Constitution). But the US Constitution is already a masterpiece of pithy brevity.

Bowdlerising it so that even the semi-literate can understand it without expending any effort themselves is a waste of time. Nothing worthwhile can be gained by putting in zero effort, and and understanding of the US Constitution (whether I, as a foreigner, would adopt it as is or not) is certainly something worthwhile.

There are enough problems in the world already that are created by pandering to the lowest common denominator the whole bird flu paranoia at the moment is caused by nothing so much as the scientific illiteracy of the media and public). Sometimes, we should just expect more from people.

1. Is a working knowledge of The Constitution of the United States essential to exercising the rights of citizenship?

Yes, how can someone be expected to vote when they don't understand the basic framework of American government.

2. At what age should we begin teaching the mechanics of the Constitution?

I started my first readings about the constitution when I was in elementary school. It was simple, but it lays the groundwork for a more rigorous understanding later in life. The concepts of democracy, checks and balances, voting and laws can be understood by a child of less than 10 if simplified appropriately.

3. How do we get around the problem of the constitution requiring reading levels that students and adults often do not have?*

Teach our students to read.

5. This is just an idea, but would you support impaneling a national committee to write, if you will, a non-King James version, of the Constitution, not to replace the Constitution, but to provide a uniform teaching tool that is easier to understand?

You would never get a decision out of this committee. It would become a partisan bloodbath where each side vied to get the interpretation to slant towards its interpretation of the text.

As for an informal "footnoted" version, that's what my high school civics textbook had and it was very helpful.

An interesting project in a civics class might be breaking down the document and assigning various parts to different students. Then each would be required to paraphrase that section and re-write it in their own words, as well as present various interpretation of the clause, if applicable.