Response on Podcast Does Mandatory Civic Education Increase Voter Turnout?

As I was listening to the podcast, I was intrigued by the mention of the exam that high schoolers needed to take as a graduation requirement. It reminded me of the civics class that as seniors we were required to take. This class revolved around knowing about the US government and the history of our country. I remember that there was a brief mention of voting rights, but it wasn’t a major lesson. I think that an approach like this would be helpful since the podcast mentioned that if we give information on how to vote and how it works then it would lead to increase voter turnout. Although the class should have a complete lesson plan about voting. A positive aspect of the civic education program was to have a focus on providing information on how to vote. Giving valuable insights into the electoral process, from registering to understanding the significance of local and national elections. Additionally, the program would prepare students with resources to delve deeper into the intricacies of voting, ensuring that they had access to a wealth of knowledge beyond the classroom. A program like this would be crucial for high schoolers since most will turn 18 and would need to register to vote. In the podcast they mention the impact of the naturalization-style test that many students need to take, I am compelled to question its effectiveness in increasing voter turnout. While the intention behind the test was positive, aiming to ensure that students understood the fundamentals of civic engagement, its implementation appears to have limited short-term effects on voter participation. I believe to increase voter turnout we must target students in the classroom. This could be installing a program that teaches students about voting, promoting it within the school with flyers, and giving students incentives to complete a class or lesson to learn about voting. Mandatory civic education undoubtedly plays a crucial role in equipping students with the knowledge necessary for informed citizenship. The provision of resources and information on voting is worthy, serving as a valuable foundation for civic engagement. However, the effectiveness of the naturalization-style test in directly increasing voter turnout may be limited, especially when its focus extends beyond the immediate concerns of the electoral process. Many questions on the naturalization test don’t have to do with voting in turn don’t teach students about voting instead the history of the US. This is important but if the focus was to increase voter turnout it is not as effective to have those questions on the test.  As many younger students ages 16 and up approach adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it, they need to become informed about voting and the inner workings of the government.  Either informing them through classes or exams. There is also the possibility of informing through implementing policies that allow all students to get information not just the selected few, increasing the voter turnout in the long term not just the short term.