I volunteer part-time to lead tours of the UK Parliament and it’s terrific fun. I’m good at explaining it to adults, generally, but struggle when it comes to kids.
I had a group of primary school children last week, and while I peppered my tour with stories of kings, queens and executions (which they love), I have to be mindful of the fact that normally they’re here for a school trip so I have to explain why we have a Parliament, how it came about, and how it works.
Generally I try to explain it as:
Crown: used to be very powerful, but over time lost control to Parliament, and is now a national symbol.
Lords: forum of expertise, there for life, Bishops and hereditaries, weaker than Commons
Commons: elected, most powerful, seat of the Government.
I also have to explain how a Bill is made law (1st reading, 2nd reading etc).
Any of you good folks know good strategies of explaining such things in kid-friendly terms?
They were okay, I think – the found the Lords a lot more interesting as curiously they’re easy to explain. Brainy people in a room looking at things in close detail. They were more interested in what they could see rather than what I was explaining to them, and that’s to be expected I guess.
The Commons was less easy, as they’re still getting to grips with the idea of representation, and what MPs actually do. Trying to explain a Bill got some stiff yawns, but it’s kind of essential for the tour and their education, unfortunately. Any ways to spice it up, or make it more understandable to them?
I tried using an analogy of ‘let’s have a Bill that makes kids go to school on weekends’, which tends to get their attention at the very least!
I’ve done a few school tours and I’ve found that kids love being asked about what they know – and that’s a good way to find out what level you are pitching to. I would start off with what do you kids think parliament is for, who are MPs?
Now, as to how to explain it to them, your categories are fine but I would start with what parliament does now before going into the history and keep returning the focus to what happens now. Finally, because kids like it when it’s all about them, get them into a discussion of the voting age, why can’t they vote until they’re 18, should children have a say in how the country is run? Good luck!
Edited to add that the Bill making them go to school at weekends is just what I was talking about.
Sounds like you’ve got a very good approach, Malden. I talk to schoolkids about politics and the judicial system a couple of times a year. My approach is, after a few introductory remarks, to ask THEM lots of questions, getting their feedback and gently correcting them where they get it wrong. I also will say nonsensical things like “The President has to be at least eight feet tall to be elected, right?”, because the kids love having the chance to correct a grownup, and the jokes make the lesson a bit more palatable.
The Speaker casts a tie-breaking vote against any such motion or bill, to preserve the status quo, right?
Ask them if they notice in the lunch room or playground how some kids gang up on the others for no reason, form little cliques, pull stupid stunts to get attention, and use bullying and lies to intimidate others? Well some adults do that too…
How much time do you have with them? Can you set them up as a mini-government, assign roles, explain what they can/can’t do and then have them debate something of interest like how long the school day should be, voting age, etc?
I now see it was the UK system being discussed, although there is still
the quesion of how a tie is resolved in the US House, and for that matter
in any other legislative body.
I recall reading of a House-Senate conference commitee meeting decades
ago, with three members each from the two bodies, Sam Rayburn presiding.
The purpose of the meeting was to iron out differences between House and
Senate versions of the same bill. Rayburn asked for a motion on whether to use
the Senate or House version as the basis for disussion. A Senator immediately
said “The Senate version”. Rayburn declared “Motion made”; the motion was
seconded and the vote was a 3-3 tie with each side’s three members voting for
their version. Accoring to parliamentary rules in force at the time for that situation
the tie defeated the motion. That is why I guessed that a tie generally defeated
a motion.
Thanks for the input folks, glad you think I’m on the right track
In the UK, the Speaker of the Commons is expected to vote the way that ensures the government survives. (i.e. if a major decision goes against what the government wants, this normally means the government must fall).
In the Lords, the Lord Speaker has no such power. If it’s a tie, the motion is considered failed automatically.
I get 1 hour 15 with them but we can’t stop for a long time: the tour involved going from room to room in the Palace of Westminster, explaining the history and purpose of the room and the decor. In certain places, such as the chambers, the division lobbies and the members’ lobbies I go into procedure, membership, powers and history.
