Henry Murphy Jr., Amber Corey & Leah Gimbel.
Note: The authors of this article are students at Cooperative Arts & Humanities High School.
When fewer than half of America’s 8th grade students know the purpose of the Bill of Rights, as the National Assessment of Education Progress reported recently, we know we have a problem.
This growing “crisis” in civics education — to quote former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — poses a real threat to our democracy. Young people who do not understand or care about how their government functions will likely become uninformed voters.
Fortunately, there is an easy way to improve young people’s civic literacy: lower the voting age to 16. Giving young people the chance to engage in meaningful political debate outside of the classroom would motivate them to internalize the formal civics education that they receive inside the classroom. These young voters would, in turn, gain a deeper appreciation for government and ultimately help boost our country’s notoriously low voter turnout rates.
With these goals in mind, we have started a youth-led campaign to lower the voting age in New Haven’s local elections. We feel that lowering the voting age will raise the level of civic awareness in our community and enhance political debate. This is why we are asking the New Haven Board of Aldermen to address our cause at their meeting Monday night.
Our proposal would open a whole new door of responsibility to teenagers. Sixteen-year-olds are already learning to balance priorities like schoolwork, jobs and increasing familial obligations. Adding voting to these responsibilities will help them integrate good civic habits into their routine later in life.
Here in Connecticut, teenagers already have many other adult responsibilities, despite their status as non-voters. For example, 16- and 17-year-olds can be tried as adults for certain crimes. In addition, they can work and apply for learner’s permits and driver’s licenses. In effect, the state trusts teenagers to stand trial as adults, hold jobs and operate dangerous vehicles on public highways but, curiously, not to cast ballots in elections.
Furthermore, 16 is a more logical age to introduce voting rights because, unlike most 18-year-olds, 16-year-olds are stationary. Most 18-year-olds are adapting to new settings in their lives. They’re learning to live independently, adjusting to college life and exploring new communities; often, they find themselves in a different state than the one where they grew up. Sixteen-year-olds, in contrast, are rooted in their communities and, as such, often have a better understanding of the political issues in their communities than do 18-year-olds.
To be sure, some will argue that 16-year-olds are not intelligent or experienced enough to participate in elections. But this argument — which was also used to deny voting rights to African-Americans and women many years ago — fails to recognize that today’s teenagers have plenty of valuable knowledge and experience to inform their voting decisions.
For example, teens are often active in their communities. They volunteer in retirement homes, hospitals and libraries. They attend local schools and have local jobs. Some teens even write public policy op-eds, hold press conferences and meet with lawmakers to discuss legislation — just look at us! Many adult voters have never done these things but they still enjoy the right to vote.
Besides, voting should not involve intelligence or experience tests. The last time our country experimented with these, they took the form of literacy tests and were used to enforce racial discrimination. This well-known history should make us suspicious of intelligence-based justifications for disenfranchisement.
Moreover, under our current voting laws, adults without civic knowledge can still participate in politics. Just two weeks ago, for instance, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain confused the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of Independence in a speech. Speaker of the House John Boehner made the same mistake last year. And U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann misquotes the Constitution so often that, last month, a teenager from New Jersey challenged her to a civics debate.
It is true that teenagers have different life experiences than adults. But that difference in experience would benefit our elections — not harm them. Our democracy, after all, is supposed to reflect a variety of experiences. Denying 16-year-olds their voting rights will shut out their voice and prevent them from making valuable contributions to their communities.
I applaud these students for bringing the lack of American history knowledge to the forefront but why take this to the alderman? Lowering the age to vote is not going to change the curriculum which teaches the students about the Revolution, the Consitution, the Bill of Rights, the Civil War, etc. The problem must be brought to our educational leaders locally and statewide who prescribe the curriculum that keep us "focused" to concentrate on those items that are on the tests. If the Bill of Rights was on the Mastery test, you can bet that these kids would know it. But, it is not and therefore it is not chosen as a topic to study except when the kids get older. Most teachers do not do plays in their K-8 classrooms anymore, even those depicting American History because, heaven forbid, it might take five minutes away from the 2 hour, uninterruped literacy block. The irony is tht doing plays encourages reading, gets kids involved who otherwise might not be, and makes learning fun. While teachers are encouraged to integrate fun lessons into their literacy block, many are fearful of thinking "outside the box" because their performance is now based mostly on test scores. Teachers feel restricted in what they can do and the real love of teaching, learning, discovering, experimenting, growing, etc. has been sucked from so many great educators. Districts are bound by scores that determine how "good" they are as a district, superintendents must adhere to this pattern when in their hearts they know this is not good for kids, yet they have to because of the urgency to get those scores up. The pressure on superintendents, administrators and teachers is tragic, yet if you mention this publicly, folks think that you are making excuses and don't want accountability. This is not the case!!
I don't know when it is going to end but I do know that in an effort to make kids "smarter" we are actually restricting what they are learning and taking away the joy of continuous learning in the process.