the issue is new or a full-fledged client∕service relationship from gov-
ernment has not yet become fully developed.
He also goes further to say we should be advocates for citizen in-
volvement in civic affairs. That means programs in which the pri-
mary goal is to encourage people to become actively involved in pol-
itics and public policy. Michael Briand this morning agreed when he
said, “Education should teach politics as well as policy.” The Family
Community Leadership (FCL) program has this as a major goal, but
very few long-time extension public policy education people have
been involved. FCL has, instead, drawn on a new cadre from home
economics and community development specialists and county
agents.
This morning we have heard three excellent presentations. The
defending, i.e., traditional, position on the neutral alternatives con-
sequences approach was given by House. He cited six milestones,
one of which is still to evolve in this decade.
The challenging position by Hite argues that the nominally objec-
tive public policy education model is a useful disciplinary device, but
it straightjackets policy educators and provides respectable cover for
timidity and political cowardice.
Where do you stand? The discussion is now up to you.
REFERENCES
Doering, Otto. “Today’s Citizen Anger: Is There a Constructive Roie for Public Policy Education?” Unpublished
paper, Purdue University, June, 1992.
Hahn, Alan J. “Education is Education, Perhaps, But Not When It’s Public Affairs Education.” Adult Learning,
May, 1992, pp. 29-31.
Hahn, Alan, et al. “Principles and Techniques of Public Policy Education Learned from Eleven Innovative Proj-
ects.” Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies-1991, ed. W. Armbruster and T. Grace, pp.
63-75. Oak Brook IL: Farm Foundation, 1992.
39