Cycle 3: Should the curriculum address controversial issues?

This smart, snarky New York Times editorial by Gail Collins caught my attention this week:

“Abstinence works,” said Governor Perry during a televised interview with Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune.

“But we have the third highest teen preg

nancy rate among all states in the country,” Smith responded.

“It works,” insisted Perry.

“Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?” asked Smith.

“I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works,” said Perry, doggedly.

Tortolero, who lectures around the country on effective ways to prevent teenage pregnancy, once testified before a committee in the Texas House that was considering a bill to require that sex education classes only provide information that was medically accurate.

The bill was controversial. I’ll let you ponder that for a minute.

Some communities in Texas do not believe in abortion. As a result, they are hindering the efforts of those who become pregnant to deal with their situation in a pragmatic way. This might be the opposite of how I believe communities should add

ress controversial issues. For us to address heated issues, we need a lot of compromise, acceptance of the facts and truth of a situation, and even bravery. Ignoring things, whether bills, homework, or statistics about the number of young people who become pregnant is rarely a good choice.

Answering the question of whether the curriculum should address controversial issues was illustrated by a discussion in my science class. One student was furious at another who stated that the only content he should read about evolution was the Bible. My angry student herself is a practicing Christian, but couldn't understand how my other student can be rude to his classmates, occasionally swear, then be dogmat

ic about his belief in religion.

As Stephen Thornton wrote in "Silence on Gays and Lesbians", teachers have choices about what to teach. Thornton said that it is to easy for teachers to feel absolved of responsibility about what is in their curriculum. When it comes to gays and lesbians, if we do not address stereotypes and unfair, then students are forced to learn about homosexuality through the media, their peers, and others. These individuals will be less fair and more prejudiced toward gays and lesbians than ideal.

This is a new idea to me as an educator: n

ot supporting the causes of those who are treated unfairly is the same as supporting their

oppression. Thus, I have a responsibility within myself to treat those in my classroom and in the world fairly by speaking up. My silence is not a freedom for me to be absolved from the sticky issues that addressing controversial issues brings up. I need to be brave myself if I want to encourage my students to address these topics.

When the antagonizing student was not in class, I asked my angry individual to consider that our classmate was incorrect or wrong. I said that I had to and continue to face the situation that not all of the information that reaches us is valid. I brought up a story about Facebook I heard around my classes a few weeks ago: Facebook is shutting down! or It's too crowded so it won't be available after March 1st. I told my students that Facebook posted a message on the Facebook homepage that those rumors we

re false and that Facebook was remaining open and available. The rumor was essentially a chain-mail message that did not originate with Facebook, and was inaccurate. I think this type of belief can take hold because young adults are easily-influenced, particularly from sources that appear to be reputable and authoritative like an e-mail message.

My students became quiet. I told them how I bec

ome frustrated too, and speak out angrily with my friends or parents. I said I think I do this because I assume that everything I hear and everyone who talks, is communicating the truth. I was told by my Dad to associate myself with the ideas and people that resonate the truth to me.

I told my class, "You have to do the same."

My students are coming to realize that they are the arbiter of what is true and what is not. I told them that science can help with that. For 15 and 16 year-olds, this is revolutionary: "I need to look in myself and determine what is true or false." It was empowering when I was told that, and I hope it was the same for my students. I think some of the power of confronting controversial issues lies in the confidence that comes from being able to determine what is real and not real, or true and false. This class period was memor

able to me and my students.

In the conversation about knowing what is true, and what is not, we encountered controversial issues: Evolution, God, and individual truth versus the truth we're told. This conversation is difficult because it is not just about the topics discussed. The fossil record by itself shouldn't be controversial: we're talking about imprints on really old rocks in the middle of nowhere, boring.

A book I recently read, "The Rough Guide to Climate Change" says that Climate Change is controversial because a belief in it "serves as shorthand for an entire worldview." This resonates to me because it isn't the content of the lessons I teach about evolution and climate change which are particularly controversial. The controversy lies in what those beliefs imply and connote about ones worldview, particularly those big questions that we turn to religion to answer.

The New York Times article by Eckholm about incorporating a discussion about homosexuality into school was disturbing for me to read. Those who belief that we should not support the equal treatment of those who are different, for whatever reason, are implicitly supporting unfair, and degrading treatment of those individuals. This quote from the article is inflammatory because it means that homosexuality is not just an unacceptable option for those within the church, but is also unacceptable for those outside it:

"We do not want the minds of our children to be polluted with the things of a carnal-minded society," Mr. DeMato, 69, told his flock at Liberty Baptist Church.

A student from the Eckholm's article Harlan Reidmohr said that he believes the absence of a discourse about homosexuality in his school led to the harassment he faced. When the adults and teachers in the lives of those who are gay and lesbian don't support those who are, more is said by our silence than we realize. I think when we ignore something which is bad - the evil in this case is our lack of acceptance of those different from something in our selves - we actually support that which we are silent about.

Our discussions about it are changing my attitude toward controversial issues in my classroom: I need to actively speak out for, discuss, and support the causes of those things that we call controversial, when what we really mean is we don't like this idea, or even you. So to sidestep a controversial issue is not an option for us who consider ourselves progressive educators. To sidestep is simply to support the continued unfair status-quo toward those people, or ideas, that we don't like.

I looked up the Core Values for the district in North Carolina in which I work. "High expectations", "Partnerships that have meaning", and a "Community of learners" are listed. But values about acceptance, equality, and pursuing the truth are not. I wonder if this is intentional, or if it is even significant. They also aren't in Our Vision or Our Mission. Should maybe I include something on my personal and school sites?

Jonathan Silin in "HIV/AIDS Education" considers how we address that topic not by ignoring it, but by allowing only health and science teachers to speak about it. As a result, Silin writes, we contain it within a discipline, so that it doesn't contaminate other subject areas. As a result, the status quo toward HIV/AIDS is maintained, and we would have it appears we are addressing our stereotypes and unfair treatment of those with the disease. As others have mentioned in their posts, this article is slightly dated, and those with HIV/AIDS are perhaps now in a more egalitarian society. Regardless, the ideas in Silin's article about how we address controversial issues, whatever they are, are very much applicable.

The idea that we can smooth over things controversial things by "containing" them is interesting. I think Silin is correct to say that discussing HIV/AIDS in a health class is very different from discussing the disease in a Civics or Language Arts class; as a topic of study for science, one can learn a lot without encountering the people and reasons behind the illness, and the content is just like that learned in a unit on genetic diseases: interesting, but not about me or us. Silin writes that teachers come to children with a knowledge of their community, with the intent to move from narrowly based concerns toward the world of larger ideas. The role of teachers is to help their students make sense of the world.

Another thing I found interesting from Silin's article was his discussion of how our inherent beliefs about students inform how we teach them. One view is that children inhabit a very different world from adults. Another is that schools present a safe space to encounter the confusing world of the adult on the street, in media, or at home. Silin writes that information and misinformation pours forth from children. Kids are curious, knowledgeable, and capable reflectors, who make rational mistakes. I hope to be in the camp of those educators who empower students to themselves be arbiters of truth, like in the story I began this post with. I believe my students are as Silin writes, curious, knowledgeable, and reflective, and I want to work for my curriculum to encourage those traits.

This call-to-arms post on "Darwin Day" by a former Physician and current Science Teacher in New Jersey addresses the importance of teaching the controversial, but scientifically crucial topic Evolution. We can avoid those things that make us uncomfortable, or we can stand up and address controversial issues and topics. I think facing up to the world as-it-is will empower our communities, teachers, and students, and is the choice we need to make.

Everything, everything, in Biology makes sense in light of descent with modification . . . very little makes sense otherwise.

Cycle 2: What Should the Content of Curriculum Be?

Reflection

There's nothing new nder the sun. That thought entered my mind while I read "Learning By Playing" in the New York Times, on the technology andvideo-game centered school Quest to Learn. I wonder if our investment in schools that focus on gaming is a shorter term trend set to die out. The following thought feels dangerous and rebellious;perhaps it shouldn't.

What if we blurred the lines between academic subjects and reimagined the typical American classroom so that, at least in theory, it came to resemble a typical American living room or a child’s bedroom or even a child’s pocket.

I read this week's readings on my iPad. In order to do so I downloaded the PDF files to my iDisk "cloud-based" MobileMe (check out that Wikipedia article link) hard drive that I can access from my laptop and computer at home, my work computer and work laptop, my iPad, and my iPhone. I took notes on my iPhone as I read these articles. I was not doing this to prove a point: it was the easiest, most natural way for me to read the material. So I acknowledge times are changing, both in my thought process and philosophy, and in my actions. But I am skeptical of the virtue of schools focused on video games. It doesn't feel right. Perhaps mobile e-mail and internet did not feel right earlier either - I don't know, because I'm too young to rememberThe following quote reminded me of Kirch's criticism of school as "vertically and horizontally segregated". More on this later.

The traditional school structure strikes Sale as “weird.” “You go to a math class, and that is the only place math is happening, and you are supposed to learn math just in that one space,” she told me one day, sitting in the small room at the school that served as Quest to Learn’s operational headquarters.

The author of Learning by Playing acknowledged that research is sparse. I was interested to read:

Brain researchers have found that playing first-person shooter games like Call of Duty does seem to have some neurological benefits, including improving peripheral vision and the ability to focus attention.

I found the following book through Good Magazine while I was researching outside sources. The book is "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal; her thesis is that video games are good for us! I wonder if any of you came across her work in greater depth than I. She has some ideas about how to ensure video games remain a source of good, such as to limit the number of hours of video games played per week to less than 21, and to choose to play with friends in person, instead of through the internet. She also appears to insist that violence is not a particularly helpful aspect of any video game. I'd like to read her book.

In the Cleveland County School District, teaching 21st century skill is understandably a focal point. I wonder if video games are less of a 21st century skill, and more a hobby.

All this goes back to the debate over what constitutes “21st-century skills.” How do schools manage to teach new media without letting go of old media? Is it possible to teach game design and still find time for “The Catcher in the Rye”?

John Dewey caught my attention and my passion. I really liked this reading, from "The Child and the Curriculum". I took many notes, and want to share what I see as his most relevant and insightful thoughts. Dewey believes that w need to allow the child - and presumable we should extend "the child" to mean any student - to realize the world contains the same facts and truths as his experience in the world. This resonates with my own experience. I need for something I am learning to be relevant, even if in a small way, to my life. Otherwise learning about something is foreign and unsatisfying, to me like a crossword puzzle.

I found Dewey's contrast between the scientist and the teacher very insightful. Dewey wrote that the scientist is concerned with adding truths, and using the body of knowledge a his disposal to solve problems. Teachers are only concerned about the subject matter as it pertains to a level of development of experience. I love this line from Dewey: "Teacher's only concern is of inducing a vital and personal experience." He continues that teachers are not concerned not with subject matter as suchbut as part of a total and growing experience for teacher's students.

A failure of the school system is that a child gets a vague middle ground, and neither the complex, nuanced adult subjects, nor the child's innocent, naive curiosity and instinct. This next line floored me, because it capture both my own experience, and the experience of so many of my peers and students.

An interest in the formal apprehension of symbols and in thier memorized reproduction becomes in many pupils a substitute for their original and vital interest in reality. The subject matter does not appeal - the appeal becomes all the discopline that throw the wandering mind back on course.

That is to me the most true statement in my experience as a teacher, as my teaching pertains to rote curriculum. Dewey says that the "way out" is for us as educators to "psychologize" content, in order to bring it into life terms for our students. Finally, Dewey concludes that curriculum is a guide for teachers, that can show the potential achievement of our students. Dewey's "The Child and the Curriculum" made me want to focus all my instruction on relevant, curious, engaging science topics. I felt for a brief period of time I would give up on the strict Standard Course of Study, only until the following reading!

E.D. Hirsch wrote the opposing reading from this week, "Cultural Literacy". Hirsch believed the chief problem to be in faulty underlying theory. Hirsch wrote that our failure to teach content area, and to teach the classics, was leading to a collective loss of our cultural memory. As I mentioned earlier, schools are fragmented by subject area, and by grade level. This makes our education more discontinuous, non-linear, and maybe even nonsensical than it should.

Hirsch describes the 1893 Committee of Ten; he believes that a return to these traditional, content-based principles would benefit our school system. In 1918 the Cardinal Principles made education perhaps more pragmatic and individual based. For example, spending leisure time well is the sixth Cardinal Principle! Hirsch argued that the Committee of Ten from 1893 was more democractic: Hirsch writes that if a student can stay in school, he will be given the same education as every other student. Hirsch goes on to explain that tracking students onto different paths, from college-bound to occupational, is a product of the less-democractic Cardinal Principles of 1918.

Dewey and Hirsch are seperarted by their deeply-help, opposing beliefs.Dewey strongly believes in "psychologizing" and making relavent and appropriate material so that it is suitable for the children in front of us in our classrooms. Dewey and Hirsch are united by their flexibility, despite their beliefs. Both strongly believe in the democratizing effect of education. For Dewey, this translate into material that is relevant to the diverse population of learners in our schools. For Hirsch, this belief means that all those in school receive the exact same education. If they can be present in school, they will be educated like every other student. Dewey acknowledges the importance on the pillars of knowledge. He also respects the "adult" subject content-areas for their sophistication. Likewise, Dewey believes that material should be relevant, but also connected to a more standardized curriculum.

What should curriculum be? Here is the mission of the district in which I am employed:

"Cleveland County Schools will equip all students with the knowledge and skills to become productive citizens in a globally competitive world by partnering with our community to provide appropriate educational experiences."

I came across interesting Module 2 related content: Good Magazine implores educators to teach Jules Verne, because his work applies to lovers of the TV show Lost, as well as budding scientists spurned to work from President Obama's call for a "Sputnik Moment" in the United States. Good writes:

So, c'mon schools, don't just toss Jules Verne onto some random summer reading list. Add his novels back into what's read during the school day.

Also from Good Magazine, their editors asked readers on Twitter and Facebook whether video games teach important lessons. There were some interesting responses relevant to our Module 2 topic; most readers were sympathetic with the idea that video games are good for us. This may support Professor Greenwalt's belief about the trajectory of education in America:

I want to suggest that we might now be entering a time where the pendulum of American education starts to swing back away from mass standardization.

For example, in North Carolina we eliminated the End-of-Course exam as an exist standard! Whether this is good or bad is for another module!

Resources:

http://www.good.is/post/why-schools-should-still-teach-jules-verne
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/good/lbvp/~3/arQzC2IyhqM/
http://www.clevelandcountyschools.org/index.php/about-us/our-mission

http://www.clevelandcountyschools.org/index.php/about-us/core-values

http://clevelandcountyschools.org

http://www.amazon.com/Biology-MasteringBiology-WebCT-Access-Generic/dp/0321585127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297395568&sr=8-1

http://www.inc.com/hardware/articles/201004/ipad.html

http://www.notablebiographies.com/De-Du/Dewey-John.html