Cycle 3: Controversial Curriculum

It wasn’t so long ago that having integrated schools as opposed to segregated schools was controversial.  I considered this reality as I read through this week’s articles and thought about the guiding question, should the curriculum address controversial issues? I found myself quick to respond.  Absolutely, without a doubt, curriculum should address controversial issues. If we look at our country’s history or even the history of other parts of the world, we will find that controversial issues are continually being addressed within society. For example, slavery, women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, rock n’ roll, eugenics, medical marijuana, sex education vs abstinence education, homosexuality, Islam, the list is endless!

One could argue that many of these controversial issues are already being addressed by way of the excluded curriculum. But, is that really how we want to address controversy in our classrooms? I think excluding controversial issues from our classrooms makes them taboo or can make them seem unimportant or irrelevant. As educators, anytime we make something unimportant or irrelevant in our classrooms, we run the risk of making our students feel unimportant or irrelevant. Perhaps they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual or have a family member who is. Maybe they have AIDS, HIV, or some other illness. Maybe they are Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witness, or atheist.

Even if our students manage to elude controversy in their own lives, in all likelihood there will come a time when our students encounter someone with HIV or AIDS, or someone who has two moms or two dads, perhaps even someone who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual themselves. If we don’t address these issues in the classroom, our students will be left to navigate these encounters on their own, sometimes with devastating consequences.

So, for me the question this week was not so much should we address controversial issues but how should we or how can we address controversial issues with our students? I think that the excerpt out of John Silin’s book Sex, Death, and the Education of Children: Our Passion for Ignorance in the Age of AIDS as well as the Thornton article, Silence on Gays and Lesbians in Social Studies Curriculum really helped me think about this question. My personal opinion is that as teachers we need to be prepared to have discussions with our students about controversial issues. But, we need to be able to have these discussions within the context of other aspects of their learning.

If there are times when the Social Studies lesson for the day could also include a discussion about homosexuality or religious freedom, teachers should consider these opportunities teachable moments. As a first grade teacher, my discussion would obviously be very different from that of a middle or high school teacher. Rather than being a discussion on the role of homosexuality in Greek art, my age-appropriate lesson might be a discussion about similarities and differences, which would allow me to focus on different types of families, or different traditions and customs and being tolerant of different types of families or different traditions and customs.

Nonetheless, I think that teachers often avoid controversial or difficult topics in their classrooms. It’s understandable when you consider that teachers are supposed to remain unbiased or neutral. They must consider the ramifications of dealing with such issues not only for students, but also for parents, families, administration, and themselves. For me, I know that when I talk about anything that could be controversial, even something like presidential elections, I worry my students will make assumptions about my beliefs. In the end, my goal is only to expose them to the fact that there is a world beyond their community, not to tell them who is the better candidate, or what kind of family is the best, or what religion they should be, or who they should love. I hope my students leave my classroom feeling respected and confident about who they are in a way that allows them to respect others who may be different.

Within the past seven years, I have taught in three vastly different schools, one urban and low-income, one suburban higher-income, and now in a school that is rural with both low and high income students. Having taught in these different environments has reiterated the importance of making learning relevant to student lives. That does not mean that I don’t expose them to things outside of their communities. It just means that I have found that my students are most open as learners if I can relate the learning to their lives and experiences. If we prescribe curriculum to teach children about things like homosexuality, illness, death, religion, politics, or any other controversial issues, I think we run the risk of neglecting our students’ experiences and backgrounds. Instead, I think that when teaching anything, especially when teaching about issues that can be polarizing, it is within the context of our students’ unique experiences and backgrounds that they are best able to form new or better understandings.

Cycle 2: What should the content of curriculum be?

I’d first like to say that I have really enjoyed that our reading has been a mix of philosophical / scholarly work coupled with at least one article that brings the guiding questions back into the reality in which many of us work.  The Donovan article during Cycle One and the Quest to Learn article this week have really allowed me to consider my own teaching experiences and how they relate to each topic.

As we’ve just begun to consider what curriculum is, it is undoubtedly important to think and consider what the content of curriculum should be.  What should we be teaching our students? Should we determine specific skills at each grade level? Should these skills be standardized, locally, statewide, or nationally? How should we go about teaching the curriculum? I think these are already questions that good educators think about, but reading this week’s articles encouraged me to look at the content of curriculum in a new light.

It seems like we read about two different extremes in curriculum and education overall. E.D. Hirsch’s ideas concern me in many ways. Although I think there are basic skills, ideas, and concepts that students should know, I am not sure that books like What Your ____ Needs to Know can articulate all of those things in effective ways. Does every child, regardless of their cultural background or community need to learn the same things? I looked into E.D. Hirsch more after reading the chapter from his book and quickly found that he seems to be a strong proponent of initiatives to create common core standards based on his development of The Core Knowledge Foundation .  While I think that initiatives like this have good intentions, I worry that they promote a “one-size fits all” mentality when it comes to education. That being said, I do applaud Hirsch for stating that he felt like, although there should be common goals, there should be differences in the ways in which we meet those goals.

With that idea in mind, it seemed to me that based on the NY Times article, Quest to Learn is on the opposite end of the spectrum. The curriculum that the school uses seems to be based on methods that indulge the interests of the students regardless of whether that is the most effective and/or appropriate way of educating students. Hirsch’s ideas concern me because I am not sure that anyone or any group of people could determine what every child in America needs to know and whether all knowledge is relevant to every community throughout the country. However, the concept of a school like Quest to Learn concerns me because I believe that as much as we want our students to enjoy school and love learning, there are times when they will be accountable for tasks and assignments that are not based on games or things they like to do.

Everyone has a favorite subject and frequently a least favorite subject. Unfortunately, you often have do things you don’t enjoy, in order to be able to continue to do the things you do enjoy. School athletics is a perfect example. There are plenty of high school students that love sports over math, science, social studies, English, etc. but those students can’t just say, I think I’ll go to my football practice but not to my chemistry class. Those students must show some degree of proficiency in their academics in order to play extracurricular sports. Is Quest to Learn really teaching their students how to navigate these challenges or are they instead showing their students how to avoid these challenges?

As I said before, as an educator, I want my students to love school, love learning, and be engaged in their learning. However, I recognize that there will be times in their lives when they might not get to select the type of project they will complete, and I want them to be adequately prepared in such situations. As I read the NY Times article, I questioned, Is writing a video review of your classmates game design the best opportunity to teach children how to write? I think schools like Quest to Learn are so focused on engaging students in activities that they enjoy that students are not learning about how to be successful in environments that don’t cater to their every whim.

I am certainly not saying that I am completely opposed to using game based play in order to engage my students in learning goals. I just question if there is a better, more appropriate form of technology integration that could meet the same goals in a more effective and appropriate way than video games?

For me, John Dewey, seems to encourage finding a balance between the two aforementioned extremes. I think Dewey wants children to learn in a way that allows them to relate their knowledge to the real world and I agree with Dewey: children must have content presented in ways that allow them to relate to the topic. As a first grade teacher, I find incredible joy in those moments when my students say things like, “Mrs. Robertson, this book reminds me of a time when I was playing out in the snow just like Peter is playing in the snow during The Snowy Day. When I was playing in the snow I made a snow angel. Maybe Peter will make a snow angel too!” Those moments show me that my students are seeing the parallels between what they are learning and their world outside of the classroom. In reading, these parallels allow them to make predictions, connections, inferences, and so much more.

The bottom-line is that Dewey, Hirsch and Quest to Learn all have pros and cons. How can we ensure that students are mastering basic skills, while still letting them be active members in their learning all the while having fun? As educators, I think we must find a balance between engaging our students in their learning of the content while at the same time preparing them for the world. I am not sure that Dewey, Hirsch, or the faculty at Quest to Learn would agree, but my ultimate goal as an educator is to prepare my students not only for the next grade, but for the world in which we all live. I personally think this is done in environments where students are actively involved in their learning, learning about things that interest them, and sometimes learning how to successfully cope with learning content that may not be a easy or enjoyable for them.