While these students were excluded from statistical extrapolation, this is evidence there was not control over how participation was assigned or how the opportunity was given. Students in other classes might have had limited options for topics, might have been guided or impacted by preceding lessons on civics, might have had letters read prior to submission, impacting a student's sense of freedom to write a true and preferred opinion.

The vast majority of these students can be voters in this election. With the president being incumbent, I wonder if participation in this project increased the likelihood of the same students choosing to vote. This project might have made the students feel invested since their opinion was voiced.

This highlights priorities. If students instead checked off boxes of things that mattered to them, there would be more overlap. Rather, these letters are mostly single topics that likely felt most important, under attack, or urgent.

Students were instructed not to reference who the president was, but clearly Adeline knew who she was writing to. I wonder if her high level of logic and use of formal citations was not just evidence for her argument, but also evidence of her personal value as an intelligent and serious American voice. As an 8th grader in 2016, she's potentially voting for the first time in this election or possibly still a hair too young.

I must admit I was swayed in my letter choice by the use of citations and logical arguments. I found long letters that made strong claims, without citations and evidence, caused me to feel more like an editor than a listener. I kept thinking arguments were uninteresting when they made bold claims without any supporting evidence.

I was looking for a high level of personal involvement in the first letter I chose. It made both an emotional and ethical appeal towards immigration. Unlike some other immigration letters I didn't chose, this one expanded to the need to have a global effort, showing higher levels of empathy.

Cynicism and mistrust has been shown and the number one cause leading to political disengagement in adults too. Therefore, not teaching students to participate is still taking a position and affecting their future voice.

I'm not certain this advocates for schools to be involved in civic engagement. I also think it's a fallacy the writer has continually believed that society is unaware of the role schools can take in building youth politics. The power teachers have to shape, alter, and impact student voice is why certain politicians lash out against universities and why some schools are institutionally underfunded, why standardized learning is pushed in public schools, and why some people are okay with high drop out rates in certain districts. Silencing student AND teacher voice is intentional.

This is a large study database. Letters can give insight on so many things including a comparison in writing ability. As a researcher, our team's data base for EF (executive function,) wasn't this large. I wonder if the data includes how the instructions for this assignment were delivered.

I highlighted this paragraph because it is so clearly Liberal and a reason why civics isn't neutral. Can a class be taught about caging children, legislating individuals "out of existence," and BLM in a neutral way? I picked two of my letters because they were passionate and emotional about welfare, but entirely opposite positions on the topic. How can a classroom cover hot, political topics without causing rage amongst parents? Even causing a kid to expose their family's leaning on political topics can be dangerous. I think of my opposing letters and feel like these two students could never be friends.

I don't think the public sees schools as politically neutral, in fact I think a reason schools avoid more civic education is because education is often not neutral. Aside from charter and private schools, public schools and universities are publicly seen as Liberal. This is part of why there is a push to have public dollars follow a student rather than be contained in the public education system.

My high school had a single quarter of one class that addressed how the government worked. We spent a tragically tiny amount of time learning about something that overwhelmingly shapes our lives. We had an amazing opportunity to spend two weeks, every year, at the Denver capitol, playing a mock US government. Our school representation was miniscule because virtually no one knew it was even happening. The interactive activity is why I had a pocket constitution in my pocket and obsessed over the details of how our government worked.

The first letter that stood out to me was another student personally connected to an international issue; immigration. I'm accustomed to believing kids echo the opinions of their parents, but kids are part of our policies and can offer insight and experience.

Well, I now believe I will complete this class far better versed in technology. None of the assignments cover something I am currently familiar with.

I'm actually feeling a little guilty about opting my kids out of computer learning in school. Just a little guilty though. I'm amazed at the things they seem to have picked up intuitively and really don't want my kids staring at screens in school. Maybe this class will change my mind, but I was really disappointed to learn this opt out was not honored. When schools went virtual, I found out my kid was extremely well versed in the computer programs already.

As an avid gamer, and occasional Facebook user, I often blame technology for the breakdown of model behavior. Hidden behind our screens, we're often more callous, defensive, reactionary, judgmental, sensitive, and insensitive. I also struggle to not be misunderstood. I even read a study that says kids are less likely to believe someone is likeable in text if they use punctuation.