Cycle Three: Should the curriculum address controversial issues?

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.