The application of the democratic concept is the expectation that all students willingly and actively participate in school activities. This is an assumption made by actively involved students and staff who view acculturation as a main factor that must be overcome through the passage of time, before recently immigrated students begin to attend and participate in school functions without coercion. The focus on the recently immigrated student (Limited English Proficient—or LEP) excludes another segment of the school population that does not feel included in mainstream school activities, the low socioeconomic student (usually native born) who qualifies for Title I services.

LEP and Title I students have a common link: the perceived lack of willingness to participate in school activities. This perception is imposed by the culture of power; those who articulate the norms and traditions of the school. For the LEP student the basis for this belief is that there is a lack of experience and knowledge about the habits and behaviors of mainstream American high school students. It does not address an understanding of the culture of the LEP student and his reaction to the value of mainstream cultural expectations. Depending on the reaction, a LEP student could have the opinion that it is not worthwhile to participate. Although placed in the same category as LEP students, and although a lack of experience may be a factor, the behavior of the Title I student has its basis in the lack of role models, a lack of encouragement, and limited resources.

The premise that time and money will overcome the "participation gap" for LEP and Title I high school students does not bring attention to the need for those who represent the culture of power and influence to examine their sensitivity to the concept of the "inclusion" of all students. The culture of power must actively understand the reality the LEP student lives with each day in school. That reality is a feeling of looking through a shop window watching others shopping, wanting to enter, but not knowing where to find the door to access the objects for purchase, and there is no one who is available to show them the entrance. The culture of power needs to respond in a sensitive, proactive manner if they intend to consider themselves inclusive and accepting of all enrolled students, thereby increasing participation. Decision makers create and maintain an organizational climate that gives a positive or negative message of acceptance to all others who are not like themselves.

The concept of participation in school activities for most foreign-born high school students is as incomprehensible as addressing teachers by their first names. In the vast majority of other cultures, social interaction is not considered the responsibility of the school. Parents are viewed as the determiners of religious, social and community interaction. Many times it is believed that social contact in school will encourage unacceptable behaviors in their children, especially in a co-mingled gender school, while distracting them from the purpose of school attendance. Can this be refuted when viewed from their perspective?

But, let’s return to school climate, and the messages that LEP and Title I students receive from teachers and other students in the typical high school. There are two parallel expectations in a US high school. The first is to take the correct classes in order to receive a diploma of completion. A parallel expectation is that each student is to participate in extracurricular activities. This expectation is reinforced by college applications that solicit information about school and community service as a determiner to select one candidate over another or as a minimum for entrance consideration. When a student chooses not to participate in clubs or school teams or projects, she is seen as not caring about their future, or not caring about the school.

Caring about the school is again, a strange concept to someone who views the school setting as solely a place of learning. Loyalty as a concept related to school and a determiner for college acceptance will also be a strange expectation to many recently immigrated students. So, the functional usefulness of school becomes part of a curious maze of misunderstanding that must be hurdled by the student who does not equate school attendance with family and community acceptance. The student must adjust and adapt or become a non-participant or a marginal participant.

The extracurricular activities in high school are not being denigrated here. This article asks that the viewpoint of the students in questions be examined. How is each school actively engaged in a dialogue of understanding about the attitudes and expectations of LEP and Title I students towards the school system? How does the mainstream student body view students who choose not to participate in school activities? Are there ways to be more inclusive of non-mainstream students; how do we reconcile this effort with parental expectations of social interaction? Should we examine the points of view of other cultures and consider whether they have merit? Taking the sensibilities of the non-mainstream population in consideration, are we a school or school system that is promoting understanding and tolerance of other points of view regarding the function of school?

The answer to these questions is in the faces and feelings of all those students who are walking the halls of today’s high schools. The reaction of each student will be expressed in his degree of curiosity and awareness of their position of acceptance in the school population. Will this affect students' academic achievement? Academic achievement will be affected by the climate of acceptance and understanding within a particular school unless the student has a very strong and supportive family. Organizational empathy and sensitivity will affect the personal learning climate for each student, especially if she is from a culture that views school and teachers with a high degree of respect.

Full participation in a typical American high school by a recently immigrated student should not be expected unless the school is accepting and accommodates a variety of viewpoints regarding the function of school in the lives of a culturally diverse population.

Angela Holmes is the Special Projects Coordinator and teacher at Fullerton High School.

Formal opposition to the measure came from Governor Gray Davis and the California Teachers Association, both of whom said the voucher measure would drain much needed money from public schools. Many local teachers joined the fight against this proposition, recognizing that it represented yet another effort to redirect critical funding from public schools. Here are some of the ways in which teachers from around Los Angeles and surrounding communities opposed the measure along with their reasons for doing so.

Stefanie, an elementary teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), sent fliers home to parents with information about the proposition, primarily focusing on how it would take money away from their school. "Many of my students said their parents weren’t planning on voting until they heard about this proposition. It presented a way to interest the parents on a personal level to vote."

Cynthia, a teacher in a small urban district, felt vouchers would "widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. Those people who already had the resources would benefit over those who don’t." Many people Cynthia knew favored the proposition, including her own parents. "I personalized the issue for them by presenting my own experiences."

Rosa, a teacher in another urban district, felt it was critical to engage in a discourse over the issue because so many proponents of the proposition were advertising heavily in the Latino community in which she works. "I told people how it didn’t make sense when our schools need more money, not less," Rosa says, adding she talked with many people in her school community over the importance of opposing the proposition.

In his work teaching adults English in the Pico-Union area, Juan describes how many of his students expressed confusion over Proposition 38. "They heard and saw the many advertisements and thought that vouchers might help their children get ahead." Juan presented research demonstrating "how vouchers only help a select few and leave public schools worse off than before." The concern his students presented prompted Juan to work against the proposition by volunteering several nights at phone banks sponsored by the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA).

The California defeat of Proposition 38 comes in the heels of the release of several major research studies on the impact of vouchers. The most significant study came from researchers at Harvard, who found mixed effects of vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, DC, all of which are privately funded programs.

The following links provide more information about voucher movements throughout California and the country:

http://www.novouchers2000.com – No to Proposition 38 – The Draper Initiative -An Experiment Our Children Cannot Afford. Opponents to Proposition 38 present updated information on the proposition’s defeat and evidence supporting the need for its downfall.

http://www.pfaw.org - People for the American Way dedicates a large part of its efforts towards opposing voucher movements throughout the country.

http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/CEP_school_vouchers.pdf - The Center for Education Policy presents a detailed review of research on vouchers in this document Schools Vouchers: What We Know and Don’t Know – And How We Could Learn More.

Rebecca Joseph is a third year doctoral student in Urban Schooling at UCLA. A former urban middle school teacher, Rebecca works with preservice and practicing teachers.

by Kevin P. McCann

Fifty percent. Forty-six percent. Thirty-nine percent. Luckily, these are not my class averages from my students’ last test! Sadly enough, however, these are common percentages of voter turnout that are exemplary of most counties in the United States today. In most elections, the current presidential election not withstanding, it is a clear fact that the majority of Americans do not vote, for one reason or another. Clearly, then, our hip-hopping, video-game-playing, Britney-Spears-listening teenage generation would logically be even more disinterested. Chalk it up to the current presidential election if you want to, but after spending the first three months of this current school year teaching U.S. History to 160 eleventh graders, I am happy to argue the opposite. Do our teenagers of today appreciate their rights in our great democracy? Do they feel any civic responsibility because of the rights and freedoms that are unique to America? You might be surprised.

Roughly twice a week, I ask my U.S History students to write journals that are centered on connecting what we are studying to their personal lives. For the past month, my classes have had a number of short-term research assignments centered on the candidates in the presidential race. In addition, they wrote a five-paragraph essay arguing in support of their choice for president. On November 8th, the day after the election, I posed the following journal prompt to my juniors: Thomas Jefferson once said, "Responsibility is the price of freedom." Do you feel that it is our responsibility to our nation to vote? Yes or No? Explain.

The responses I received were overwhelmingly supportive of this defining democratic act. Many students seized on the message of "appreciating our opportunity to vote" in comparison with other nations, and were angry at those who "don’t vote and then complain." Some related voting to a clear responsibility we have to help our nation decide on the critical issues that it faces. Certainly, there were a handful of students that felt otherwise. Ironically, however, if you analyze the comments, both groups of students actually defended another defining cornerstone of American democracy: the right to free speech—albeit with different interpretations of what that means. On that note, the students shall speak! Here are some of the more unique comments that I received:

"Yes"

"If you don’t do anything else in the world, the one thing that you should do is vote."
—Nia Briscoe

"Voting is the one chance that I have to effectively act upon my government without being a politician"
—Natalie Levy

"If we don’t vote, we are releasing what little control we have over the government."
—Ryan Steward

"Su voto es su voz" (Your vote is your voice)
—Lizeth Villalba

"If you vote, and your candidate doesn’t win, at least you have input."
—Sean Paavola

"With our freedom comes the responsibility to make sure it is kept and represented."
—Devin Cochran

"Voting makes us feel that we can make a change."
—John Aziz

"I have been given the freedom of personal opinion, and then an opportunity to exercise my opinion"
—Tom Kirven

"I felt I was really being responsible; I was proud to be an American voter."
—Christiana Duarte, 18, after voting for the first time

"When you vote, you use your freedom"
—Cornelia Maurer

"If you don’t examine the issues and vote, you’ll be ‘clueless’ when they pass laws that you don’t understand"
—Oscar Castro

"Voting is not a responsibility, but a choice. A person shouldn’t be pressured into it. This would be abusing someone’s free will."
—Casey Richardson

"I think you should vote, but people who don’t shouldn’t be criticized because it is their choice."
—Kevin Marino

"It is wrong to feel forced to vote if you don’t like any of the people."
—Donald Williamson

"Your responsibility is what you choose it to be—that’s freedom; choice!"
—Andrea Miller

Both sides of the responses have a unique interpretation of whether voting is a responsibility to our country, and how this relates to the use of our democratic right of freedom of speech. Some feel that voting is the quintessential demonstration of the people’s power to speak. On the other hand, some feel because of our freedom to speak (or not to speak) in this country, we shouldn’t be criticized if we exercise our option not to vote.

As I was reading the responses, I came to this conclusion. These students actually care. They are not the "disaffected" teenagers that we hear so much about these days in our country. They care about their rights, however they interpret their responsibilities to our nation (most clearly feeling that voting is a responsibility that we have). I think the question really is for us in the adult population: Do we take the time to help them explore? Do we take the time to ask?

Kevin P. McCann is a U.S. History Teacher at Fullerton Union High School in Fullerton, CA.