When deciding what to teach and what not to teach, controversial subjects often have us as teachers scratching our heads. Do we address these topics? If so, how? What is age appropriate? This weeks readings helped to answer some of these questions, but as broad as this topic is, many more questions still remain. Jonathan Silin stated in his article that, “ the denial of subjectivity within the curriculum only falsifies experience and alienate students from their own possibilities, “(246). For the peace of our society, to help those in need, and to fully educate our children, these important issues must be somehow addressed.
To be honest and when I looked at the readings for this week and noticed one on HIV/AIDS I wondered to myself, “Is HIV/AIDS really still a controversial topic? We all have had health classes or job safety training or watched enough after-school specials to know that the only way to pass on HIV/AIDS is through the transmission of bodily fluids—blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, and any other bodily fluid that contains blood. This is 2011, a full 30 years after the ‘AIDS epidemic’ broke.” My was I surprised to sit down to watch ABC’s February 18, 2011 edition of “What Would You Do?” and the segments with an HIV positive restaurant patron/ waiter that I knew ignorance was still alive and well in America. The show cited a Kaiser Family Foundation survey released in 2009 on HIV/AIDS indicating the ignorance we may be passing on to our children. 23% of respondents are still uncomfortable working with someone with HIV/AIDS, 35% would be uncomfortable having a child whose teacher was HIV positive or had AIDS, and a stunning 51% of people would be uncomfortable having their food served by someone with HIV/AIDS. Even more stunning 20% of people thought you could get HIV from sharing a glass with someone who has HIV, 12% thought you could get it from a toilet seat, and 7% thought it was possible to acquire HIV from swimming in a pool. (All of these statistics are actually an increase from a similar survey in 2000).
In his article, Silin pointed out that the adults in their lives had already affected how the children thought or felt about the topic of AIDS. “Whether motivated by specific fears and anxieties, or simply the emotional resonance of the word in out culture, their behaviors accurately mimicked the responses of the majority of adults,” (247). Silin also pointed out that the schools often “reduce complicated social problems to simplified fragments of information, adopted pedagogic strategies that focus on measurable, behavioral outcomes.” (249) rather than opening up dialogue. I found this to be the problem when I taught Biology. I was given only a small amount of time (1 class period, or roughly 45 minutes) to cover the anatomy of the male and female reproductive system as well as certain sexually transmitted diseases. The class probably spent no more than 10 minutes on the subject of HIV/AIDS as we defined it, discussed how it was transmitted, and how it was not, before we moved on to another topic. Having no meaningful discussion or connection, the students may have forgotten what was taught soon after.
The more society changes, and the more controversial subjects are talked about outside of school, the more it seems we are freer to discuss them in class. Forty years ago when my parents went to elementary school, the subject of gays/lesbians was taboo; twenty years ago when I was in elementary school, progressive schools in New York and San Francisco were bringing the subject to light, but not in my small town; today, the school district in Helena, Montana’s original curricular goals wanted to teach students in first grade to “Understand human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.” It is possible to discuss sexual orientation without idealizing it, or condoning it. Social studies, the study of how people interact with one another, seems like the most logical place for the topic of sexual orientation to be addressed. Thornton argues that while blatantly ignoring gays/lesbians, “Educators must answer the question, ‘Does everybody count as human?’” (363). We rise up to defend women oppressed by the Taliban, but not of gay men or presumably gay men “although, as with Afghan women, the persecution rests on these men simply for being who they are,” (363). However, that statement makes it seem that women and gays are the only ones receiving Taliban oppression, when those who convert to Christianity are also being unjustly persecuted and sit on death row simply for the crime of converting to Christianity, and yet we stay silent. As educators, we need to be non-biased; meaning we can’t pick an agenda (such as gay rights) and call everyone who ignores us wrong for silencing parts of history and then simply ignore the plights of others. We could easily make the same argument for the Holocaust; schools teach that Jews were sent to concentration camps and killed, but so were thousands of Gypsys, those who were disabled and mentally ill, Jehovah’s witnesses, freemasons, Soviet POWs, ethnic Poles, and many others numbering conservatively at 8 million, also died. The evil it takes to slaughter that many people needs to be counteracted by educating students that everyone has value.
Educators need to be willing to ask good questions: “How had Addams, who rejected some of the gender conventions of her day helped to shape her time and legacy. “Her significance, in this scheme, incorporates the complexities and controversial aspects of her life as well as speaking to different but nonetheless related questions today,” (365) or simply, “ What if you were mocked/teased/ harassed simply for being who you are? Are you a lesser person? Who are you giving control to? Did they earn it? How would you fight back? Would you fight back, or just lie down and die?’
One thing teachers do need to consider when choosing what to teach, and is often the nail in the coffin of controversial curriculum, are parents’ rights. Being an educator, but not being a parent myself, I looked to social media (Facebook) to help me look at the topic from another point of view. I asked my Facebook friends, who are all parents and swing the gamut from conservative to liberal, the questions: “Should controversial subjects be part of school curriculum? What do you think about your children learning about such subjects as sex, tolerance, evolution, HIV/ AIDS and gender issues at school?” I got back varied responses (I have included some of them below) that all seemed to rally around one point: each parent wanted to be able to talk to their child about these important topics and to have a dialogue where worldview and culture could meet in a safe environment. Just reading the curriculum goals in the New York Times article “Early Lessons in Tolerance”, I can’t imagine being a parent and being forced to explain to my child earlier than the 5th grade what sexual intercourse is and how that may include vagina, oral, and anal penetration. In a 2004 PBS poll, 27% of respondents thought it was inappropriate to be teaching about oral sex to high schoolers and a majority (57%) thought it was inappropriate to be teaching it to middle schoolers (who are at least 1 grade older than the Montana 5th graders).
Blogs on controversial sex education in Montana
There are ways in which districts have gotten parents involved, giving them a voice, and in turn, allowing controversial subjects to be taught with little criticism. During the late 1990s and early part of the 2000s, my mother was a member of a panel known as the “PA 226 committee”. Members of this committee included parents, clergy, people from the health department, someone from the school district, and students who previewed materials to be used in health and science classes to cover topics such as sex education, menstrual cycles, and sexually transmitted diseases. Barb Fils, who works with parents and is a technical advisor for PA 226 committees is quoted saying that through her work it has been, “proved the point that if you talk to (parents) and you don’t hide anything, they want more.”
One topic that came up when dialoguing with my friends through social media, and while reading through the articles for this week was how the teachers themselves needed to approach the subject. They all agreed that the topics do need to be addressed in schools, but in a fair, unbiased way. (Read Joanna’s comments below to get the opinion of one teacher in the field.)
As a science teacher, I have taught two controversial subjects—global warming and evolution. My first brush with this was during my student teaching. I was teaching Biology at a Christian school in Grand Rapids and as part of a lesson I had the students watch a film on amphibians. When I previewed it, I noticed that while it had good pictures and information, it also came to its information from an evolutionary standpoint. I contemplated not showing the video, but then decided to use it and test my students understanding of evolution. (Having received some background on the school curriculum, I knew evolution was a subject that these students would have learned about in some detail previously). If they had issues with the film (and I knew they would), I asked them to write a paragraph to the narrator explaining flaws in the science. I got back a lot of papers that said “You are stupid. Don’t you know evolution is wrong.” and “Evolution is not Science.” Having read their responses to my cooperating teacher, I asked permission to create a short unit on evolution. He agreed and I spent 2 weeks teaching on Darwin, natural selection, Lamrack, carbon dating, micro and macro evolution; teaching my students to think critically, and to understand that in order to argue effectively they needed to be just as educated in what they did not believe as what they believed. We had lots of lively discussion and as the unit progressed there were fewer debates with the words, “well that’s stupid” and more use of scientific facts as rebuttal. In the end, most were able to find a happy medium between faith and science.
It is important for schools and parents to come together and educate students on controversial subjects so that we are raising educated citizens who can live in a free and peaceful world.
Curriculum helpers—Pro-evolution for teachers
Teaching origins in the public schools
Interesting article on a Gay Health class
----------------------
Parents comments
Amy - i think teachers and schools already have a lot on their plates but if they have time and it can be integrated than sure these are topics our kids are going to be around and experiencing their whole lives so why not make them
Bethany- Since there is likely to be a wider difference in opinions when it comes to these topics (as opposed to math, science, music, etc) , I would rather parents educate their own children. I want to approach those subjects with my kids from my own world-view. I think it would be very hard for the public educators to teach those topics from a purely objective stance.
Rhonda- I "think" that if they're teaching about the existence of these topics, that's one thing. I think schools cross the line when they try to teach our kids how to feel/act/respond/accept them. I really don't even think they have a place in curriculum. Sadly, some parents do Not have important conversations with their kids regarding these topics, but I don't think there is a way to teach them without sharing a personal opinion. That's how I feel about it anyway!
Erin- I really agree with all of what Rhonda said. it's so hard to say what should be done. but just as parents have their own opinion on these issues, so do teachers. So, while it would be great for students to learn the FACTS of how HIV/Aids is contracted and so on and so forth, you never know what kind of "spin" the teacher is going to put onto it. Id rather educate my children about these things myself since I bare no hate and love people of all races/sexual orientation.
Jessica- I'm with Bethany in that parents ought to educate their own kids... but too many don't. Schools are right to pick up the slack, and good parents will continue to educate their kids as they ought, ideally preemptively to any disagreeable content in a school curriculum. I don't mind my kids learning about other viewpoints, because they've already learned mine, and I don't like the idea of leaving my kids unprepared to encounter different views and ideologies when they're no longer under my care.
Joanna (teacher, not a parent, who brought some thought provoking insights for the parents to consider) - As a geography teacher, right now I am teaching about the Middle East, which forces me to teach about religions such as Islam and Judaism. I think it is necessary that students know about these things and not to call them "weird" or "stupid...". I have to teach tolerance for differences, especially religious differences. I want them to know about these things so that they are not ignorant in the future when they may come in contact with a person of another religion. I am not teaching that one religion is wrong and another is right, just that these religions exist and they are different from and similar to each other on certain points. Without being taught how to be tolerant, from school or home, kids just dont know how to handle difference, and often handle it poorly. Unfortunately, many parents (not all parents!) are not able to teach about this because they either dont know the information themselves or dont have the time or desire to do so. I think the best way to ensure that peace endures in our country is to teach tolerance, not hate.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Cycle Two: The Contents of Curriculum
This weeks readings had us thinking about what the content of curriculum should be. What do we put in and what do we leave out? In a nut shell, Dewey wanted more exploration and experience, Hirsch wanted students to all memorize the basics and allowed practical application to be flexible, while the article from the New York Times showed a new way to teach with video games.
John Dewey’s (not the Dewey of the Dewey decimal system) philosophy, as found in “Child and Curriculum”, is that curriculum content needs to be experienced. If it is not, the lack of connection with what the child already knew, felt, and loved would make the curriculum “formal and symbolic,” having no real lasting impression on the child, leading to a lack of motivation and ultimately, “the child’s reasoning powers, the faculty of abstraction and generalization, are not adequately developed,” (118-119). According to Dewey the value of experience is not merely found in the experience itself, but also in the “standpoint, outlook, and method,” (116) of the student, allowing for continued growth in that role.
Not surprising, Dewey also seems to be against textbooks. Especially in comparison to the teacher, textbooks generally reduce the student to a “lower intellectual level,” (118). The material that is presented within the textbook is not translated into life-terms (a way for the student to see how it relates to him/herself), but is a substitute for experience.
I think Dewey’s ideas are relevant for today, especially among the youngest of learners, those in the pre-school and kindergarten age range. Young children should be learning by doing. While there are some things that most readily lend themselves to rote learning—the alphabet, days of the week, months of the year, shape and color names—others can simply be learned as children move around the classroom, exploring their surroundings and using problem solving skills when the needs arise. While we have daily curriculum activities at Tutor Time, a majority of a child’s day is spent engaging in self-directed play/learning. Outside of directed learning times, we as teachers, simply explore with the children, becoming part of their play, and encouraging them to follow their own interest. While one child might be exploring magnets, trying to figure how to make them go together and pulling them apart (early science), another may be using blocks to symbolize a birthday cake (cognitive thinking), another maybe looking at books in the book center (basic literacy), while still another is counting with pegs (early math). Each is self-directed and each is learning. The curriculum at that moment is varied and exciting.
I think it would be more difficult to incorporate Dewey into a high school classroom. It would be costly to have all of the materials necessary for students to be working on multiple projects and lessons at a given time. Teachers and students would have to conference about what was going to be studied, what the outcome was going to be, and how the student would be graded. Students would also find it harder to jump with a subject such as math where one concept would rely on the knowledge of another.
(For Further reading on how Dewey is still influence education around the world: Dewey in Turkey: Lessons for today)
Hirsch’s chapter “Cultural Literacy and the Schools” outlines a different approach to curriculum. After exploring curriculum of the past, his plan was to incorporate extensive and intensive curriculum. The content of the extensive curriculum is “traditional literate knowledge, the information, attitudes, and assumptions that literate Americans share—cultural literacy.” (127) It would be a minimum of what all students should know; for example, who is Shakespeare and who are Romeo and Juliet? In contrast, intensive curriculum “ensures that individual students, teachers, and schools can work intensively with materials that are appropriate for their diverse temperaments and aims.” (128) So while all students will know about Romeo and Juliet, they don’t need to read that play. If the students are more into history, they could read “Richard III”; if fantasy, “A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream”. Differentiating would seem to work better with Hirsch’s model.
Hirsch and Dewey do share one similarity: that student likes and dislikes should be at least a consideration when choosing curriculum. Additionally, “[ The intensive curriculum] coincides with Dewey’s recommendation that children should be deeply engaged with a small number of typical concrete instances.” (128)
A core list of knowledge to fill the extensive curriculum that all Americans would know does seem a lofty goal. However, with No Child Left Behind and standardized testing, each state has already determined what they think is important for their state’s students to know. For instance, in Maryland, all students will know about Mendel and his influence on genetics. So, it is possible. And while this would help cement cultural literacy, there is also an element of this cultural literacy that is passed on within social context as well. I learned how to spell the color orange not because I was required to by my school, but because of the crayons in my coloring box.
I found the New York Times article “Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom” to be very interesting. Using what a student is interested in has been a common theme among both Dewey and Hirsch, and students today are interested in technology. I also believe that students today, more than at any other time in history, are going to have to be able to function in a world where they will need to video conference, Skype, create blogs, and podcasts.
Going to school in the 90s,my friends and I reminisce about being excited when we got to go to the computer lab to learn about the realities of pioneer life by playing Oregon Trail or practicing our geography skills while playing Where in the World is Carmen Santiago? These forays were the exception to our school day and a great treat. Through computer games of all types, I learned how to type, do math problems, dissected a frog, and create stories. Games are a valuable tool to reinforce concepts and ideas, but they are not a substitute for education.
My biggest disagreement with the article came when Doyle suggested a shift in teaching and learning because of what is being done by students outside of school. “Why”, he questioned, “memorize the 50 states and their capitals? Why, in the age of Google and pocket computers, memorize anything?.... He took aim at spelling, calling it “outmoded.”” These “outdated” skills are more useful than Mr. Doyle believes. Memorizing the times tables, something Doyle might suggest would be more easily done with a calculator, may in fact take more time and result in keying errors. Times tables are a building block to higher math skills, such as division, long multiplication, and fractions and algebra. Memory is also the key to oral traditions that are part of many cultures. Spelling improves reading and writing fluency and also improves vocabulary and comprehension. Spelling is also important to those journalists and communicators that Doyle feels he is educating. Transcripts and articles will be turned down when an editor realizes the piece of writing is full of errors that a spell checker could not correct, for example homophones.
I was also a little wary of basing a curriculum on spending so much time in a fantasy world, as were many of the primary examples in the article. My friend Dave and I were discussing this article. He relayed a story about his nephew(whom I will call Jake) who learned to read and do basic math skills(through buying and selling) at a young age with the help of a video game. However, Jake soon began to have trouble separating fantasy from reality and wanting to continuously be in the other world. I have trouble with a curriculum that spends so much time in the creative. Studies have shown that people who spend too much time playing video games often confuse reality and fantasy, have allowed the sedentarism to have a negative effect on healthy, and that these games often portray women and minorities in a poor light.
Curriculum is ever changing and so our views on what it should be. It is up to us, as teachers, to dissect best what will help our students learn and grow and use whatever means possible.
---------
Lesson Planning websites:
Multi-disciplinary
For science teachers
John Dewey’s (not the Dewey of the Dewey decimal system) philosophy, as found in “Child and Curriculum”, is that curriculum content needs to be experienced. If it is not, the lack of connection with what the child already knew, felt, and loved would make the curriculum “formal and symbolic,” having no real lasting impression on the child, leading to a lack of motivation and ultimately, “the child’s reasoning powers, the faculty of abstraction and generalization, are not adequately developed,” (118-119). According to Dewey the value of experience is not merely found in the experience itself, but also in the “standpoint, outlook, and method,” (116) of the student, allowing for continued growth in that role.
Not surprising, Dewey also seems to be against textbooks. Especially in comparison to the teacher, textbooks generally reduce the student to a “lower intellectual level,” (118). The material that is presented within the textbook is not translated into life-terms (a way for the student to see how it relates to him/herself), but is a substitute for experience.
I think Dewey’s ideas are relevant for today, especially among the youngest of learners, those in the pre-school and kindergarten age range. Young children should be learning by doing. While there are some things that most readily lend themselves to rote learning—the alphabet, days of the week, months of the year, shape and color names—others can simply be learned as children move around the classroom, exploring their surroundings and using problem solving skills when the needs arise. While we have daily curriculum activities at Tutor Time, a majority of a child’s day is spent engaging in self-directed play/learning. Outside of directed learning times, we as teachers, simply explore with the children, becoming part of their play, and encouraging them to follow their own interest. While one child might be exploring magnets, trying to figure how to make them go together and pulling them apart (early science), another may be using blocks to symbolize a birthday cake (cognitive thinking), another maybe looking at books in the book center (basic literacy), while still another is counting with pegs (early math). Each is self-directed and each is learning. The curriculum at that moment is varied and exciting.
I think it would be more difficult to incorporate Dewey into a high school classroom. It would be costly to have all of the materials necessary for students to be working on multiple projects and lessons at a given time. Teachers and students would have to conference about what was going to be studied, what the outcome was going to be, and how the student would be graded. Students would also find it harder to jump with a subject such as math where one concept would rely on the knowledge of another.
(For Further reading on how Dewey is still influence education around the world: Dewey in Turkey: Lessons for today)
Hirsch’s chapter “Cultural Literacy and the Schools” outlines a different approach to curriculum. After exploring curriculum of the past, his plan was to incorporate extensive and intensive curriculum. The content of the extensive curriculum is “traditional literate knowledge, the information, attitudes, and assumptions that literate Americans share—cultural literacy.” (127) It would be a minimum of what all students should know; for example, who is Shakespeare and who are Romeo and Juliet? In contrast, intensive curriculum “ensures that individual students, teachers, and schools can work intensively with materials that are appropriate for their diverse temperaments and aims.” (128) So while all students will know about Romeo and Juliet, they don’t need to read that play. If the students are more into history, they could read “Richard III”; if fantasy, “A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream”. Differentiating would seem to work better with Hirsch’s model.
Hirsch and Dewey do share one similarity: that student likes and dislikes should be at least a consideration when choosing curriculum. Additionally, “[ The intensive curriculum] coincides with Dewey’s recommendation that children should be deeply engaged with a small number of typical concrete instances.” (128)
A core list of knowledge to fill the extensive curriculum that all Americans would know does seem a lofty goal. However, with No Child Left Behind and standardized testing, each state has already determined what they think is important for their state’s students to know. For instance, in Maryland, all students will know about Mendel and his influence on genetics. So, it is possible. And while this would help cement cultural literacy, there is also an element of this cultural literacy that is passed on within social context as well. I learned how to spell the color orange not because I was required to by my school, but because of the crayons in my coloring box.
I found the New York Times article “Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom” to be very interesting. Using what a student is interested in has been a common theme among both Dewey and Hirsch, and students today are interested in technology. I also believe that students today, more than at any other time in history, are going to have to be able to function in a world where they will need to video conference, Skype, create blogs, and podcasts.
Going to school in the 90s,my friends and I reminisce about being excited when we got to go to the computer lab to learn about the realities of pioneer life by playing Oregon Trail or practicing our geography skills while playing Where in the World is Carmen Santiago? These forays were the exception to our school day and a great treat. Through computer games of all types, I learned how to type, do math problems, dissected a frog, and create stories. Games are a valuable tool to reinforce concepts and ideas, but they are not a substitute for education.
My biggest disagreement with the article came when Doyle suggested a shift in teaching and learning because of what is being done by students outside of school. “Why”, he questioned, “memorize the 50 states and their capitals? Why, in the age of Google and pocket computers, memorize anything?.... He took aim at spelling, calling it “outmoded.”” These “outdated” skills are more useful than Mr. Doyle believes. Memorizing the times tables, something Doyle might suggest would be more easily done with a calculator, may in fact take more time and result in keying errors. Times tables are a building block to higher math skills, such as division, long multiplication, and fractions and algebra. Memory is also the key to oral traditions that are part of many cultures. Spelling improves reading and writing fluency and also improves vocabulary and comprehension. Spelling is also important to those journalists and communicators that Doyle feels he is educating. Transcripts and articles will be turned down when an editor realizes the piece of writing is full of errors that a spell checker could not correct, for example homophones.
I was also a little wary of basing a curriculum on spending so much time in a fantasy world, as were many of the primary examples in the article. My friend Dave and I were discussing this article. He relayed a story about his nephew(whom I will call Jake) who learned to read and do basic math skills(through buying and selling) at a young age with the help of a video game. However, Jake soon began to have trouble separating fantasy from reality and wanting to continuously be in the other world. I have trouble with a curriculum that spends so much time in the creative. Studies have shown that people who spend too much time playing video games often confuse reality and fantasy, have allowed the sedentarism to have a negative effect on healthy, and that these games often portray women and minorities in a poor light.
Curriculum is ever changing and so our views on what it should be. It is up to us, as teachers, to dissect best what will help our students learn and grow and use whatever means possible.
---------
Lesson Planning websites:
Multi-disciplinary
For science teachers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)