Cycle 3 - Should the Curriculum Address Controversial Issues?

While childhood is a special time, it is by no means pure and innocent, even with young children.  Many young children have older siblings, and from my own experience, older siblings do not always care how innocent or pure a younger sibling is.  In any case, even young children come into every classroom with countless questions, many of which their teacher probably does not want to address.  But, as teachers, it is our responsibility to address especially these questions, as these not only teach our children how to be tolerant and accepting, but also teach our children how to grapple with difficult issues.

As teachers, we have a responsibility to children to teach them about these difficult, controversial issues.  Teaching young children about homosexuality and giving it validation reduces bullying later in school years, as well as tells homosexual children that they are okay just the way they are.  Perhaps, if homosexuality education had occurred early in the lives of children we learned about who had committed suicide, they would still be alive today.

Because of the ramifications of homophobia on youth today, homosexuality is a controversial issue, and it will be until appropriate measures are taken in education. If we can begin teaching young children, with books like Heather Has Two Mommies, and getting them talking about their thoughts and feelings early, perhaps in ten or twenty years, homosexuality will not be a controversial issue. If everyone is committed to opening the doors of communication and teaching all children to treat all people with respect, then one day, teenagers will not be committing suicide because they're bullied for being gay.

According to the reading on AIDS we had, kids want more information about HIV and AIDS, and the best way to get them that reliably is to educate them in the schools.  However, even with education, it was shown that behaviors don't change.  Now, personally, I'm not sure what to do about this, as I was always a good kid.  I received a moderate education in AIDS and STD's, I suppose, but I was also pretty clueless, and just didn't date.  Not being in the public schools, or having kids of my own, I don't really have anything to compare our reading to.  I do know that my children will learn about sex from an early age, as we live on a farm, and STD/AIDS/HIV education will have to be part of that.  I do think that meaningful conversation is an important part of such education, and that was something that I never got in schools.  We had the lecture, watched a movie, and probably had a reading from a textbook, but conversations were not part of the equation.  Perhaps that is the missing ingredient that will help lead to behavioral changes in at-risk youth and individuals.

Here in Washington State, school districts have two options about AIDS education.  They can either use the state's KNOW curriculum, or another curriculum that has been reviewed by the state.  While the KNOW curriculum has a document for 5th and 6th grade (here) but nothing younger, it does state in that document that in grades K-3rd, children should be taught to avoid needles found on the playground or elsewhere and to not touch others' blood.  They're also supposed to be told that HIV and AIDS is a very serious disease that affects some adults and teenagers, but that young children rarely get it.  They also don't have to worry about playing with kids whose parents have it, or those few children that have it themselves.  This is good, but I think the two should be connected - children should be told not to touch other peoples' blood because HIV is transmitted through blood, but that's why it's okay to play with kids whose parents have HIV - it can't be spread by coughing or touching, like a cold can be.

Again, I don't have any experience teaching these topics to my students, and students don't exactly walk in to their lessons and ask about AIDS. However, I know my own children will, and I've always felt that every question of every child deserves, if not an outright answer, at very least a response. I may not have all the answers, but I can certainly help my children to find the answers, and we can discuss them together as a family, about what they mean. I am also grateful that I have homosexual friends, so my children can learn from an early age that families come in all sorts of packages.

Another topic that I believe falls into the category of controversial is religious education in public schools.  Now, obviously, private schools can do what they like on religion, and many parents choose to send their children to Catholic or Protestant private schools, in which prayer or mass are a daily part of the school routine. But what about in public schools?  When I was in high school, one of my favorite classes was Religion and Philosophy.  It was a one semester course, in which we discussed multiple types of philosophies and multiple religions.  I felt this was a valuable use of my time and education, allowing me to thoughtfully consider other viewpoints.  I feel that I am a much more considerate and tolerant person because I know a little about other religions.

As a non-Christian, I am definitely in favor of the separation of church and state, and would protest if prayer or Christian worship, or any worship, were required in public schools.  But I would like to see even more education about religions in public schools, and not just the mainstream ones.  This New York Times article, Universal Faith, explores the idea of "dual purpose," that is, things that can be used for secular and religious purposes.  They discuss installing foot baths in a Michigan high school so Muslim students can wash their feet before their prayers.  However, these foot baths are to be functional, utilitarian foot baths that anyone can use, unlike the "ornate ablution fountains like those outside mosques."  The article claims that this is an example of dual purpose, but I don't think so.  How many times did you wash your feet, in the middle of the school day, in high school?  I never did.

Rather than looking for dual purpose, I think it comes down to equal accommodations.  Accommodations can be made for religions, like the foot baths, if every religion is able to claim accommodations.  And this is where I think we run into the problem, because our government can't decide to only endorse a few religions, or that certain ones don't count.  If just one student wanted an accommodation for their obscure religion, if any accommodations are given for any religions, than that student has to be granted theirs.

So, while I think religions should definitely be taught about in schools, "Teaching religious ideas as an academic subject can, of course, be a prime example of dual use, since such ideas may be studied critically without embracing them," schools that are designed around one religion, like the Ben Gamla Charter School and Khalil Gibran, need to be organized, funded and run by a private organization, not the government.  Further, I think that deciding to offer accommodations to one religion, while admirable, can be a sticky business that quickly gets out of control.

In short, controversial issues like HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, and religion should be discussed in classrooms to promote critical thinking and problem solving skills, tolerance, and acceptance.  Overall, more needs to be done in these areas, and earlier rather than later.  By the time children reach middle and high school, when many have decided they are "ready" for controversial issues, children's viewpoints are already pretty solid if not well defined.  In order to adequately promote tolerance and acceptance, children need to be taught about these controversial issues when they are still very young, including answering their questions as they arise.

Cycle 2: What Should Schools Teach? How Should They be Held Accountable?

As I read the article on Quest to Learn, I'm reminded of something I've been learning the last few years, and this article keeps circling around.  The difference between schools and games isn't even that it's more fun to play games.  It's the relevancy.  Games are relevant to kids; they're like real life.  You're solving problems and applying information to life-like situations.  In school, you're listening to a lecture, or reading a sterile text from a textbook.  These activities are not even remotely relevant to kids, if they ever were.  However, when teachers go the extra mile, and design real-life problems for their students to solve, they gain the relevancy factor, and students realize their work really does have meaning and purpose.  All without the use of "fun" games.

For example, the brilliant idea of the Studio Schools.  Putting students' minds to work on real, actual problems in the real world, requiring them to learn new knowledge and skills while applying them, and finding that not only are students motivated to succeed in that environment, but they do fantastically.  That test scores of students previously in the lower percentiles rose to the top quartile - that's impressive, and I don't know of another school system, or even teacher, that can boast that kind of improvement.  Furthermore, it's preparing students for life after school in a way most schools do not today.  They leave their Studio School with not just a high school diploma, but real work experience, that they can use to help them find a job, or provide relevancy to their college work.

While Hirsch did have many things to say that I agreed with, for the most part, he seemed outdated, to me.  Whenever I get a reading that is more than 20 years old, I have to ask: How relevant is it now?  And I found that the vocational curriculum that Hirsch was complaining about is the same vocational curriculum (like shop, small engine repair, jewelry making) that my parents had access to, and I never did.  In fact, just the other day, my husband and I were lamenting that those classes are no longer offered.  If nothing else, I'm sure they kept a number of students in school, who otherwise saw no reason to stay.  While my mother would have stayed, whether or not she got to make a bunch of pretty bracelets (which I still have!), there are, and were, a lot of kids that without something obviously useful, find no reason to attend.

I do have to admit that I immediately looked up Tales of Shakespeare and Adventures of Ulysses, and found them available on Amazon, much to my delight. Personally, I love the classics, and hope that my children will, too, and perhaps these children's books will help foster that love.  However, I am not going to require my children read them.  If they really only want to read The Babysitter's Club or The Black Stallion, then I believe intelligent conversations about the books, the problems and issues that are raised and solved, can help discover other interests.  Perhaps they will lead to the classics, or maybe they lead to something completely different.

I particularly liked Hirsch's last paragraph, about the dichotomy in education between skills and knowledge.  It's one thing that I learned in one of the courses I took about teaching science: that the knowledge and facts of science are inseparable from the skills of how to do science.  Actually, I'm sure without meaning to, Hirsch just argued for Dewey and the way he advocated children learning by doing.  In learning by doing, you are not trying to separate the knowledge from the skills, but rather, you're developing them both concurrently and also learning how they are connected.

Considering their focus on applicable skills and work experience, I have a feeling that Hirsch would have major problems with both Quest to Learn and the Studio Schools.  It seems to me that the Studio Schools are taking those vocational classes that Hirsch had such issue with, and creating a school around them.  As for Quest to Learn, it is centered around technology and real problems, rather than the classics or his "extensive curriculum."

While the idea of an "extensive curriculum" that all children would know of their culture sounds appealing, at least in theory, I do not see a way possible to decide what all that should entail.  Perhaps Hirsch has some ideas in some of his books you mentioned in the introduction.  To me, it seems that the most efficient and effective way to accomplish this, is not through specified readings or anything else, but in conversations with others.  When children talk to adults, they absorb a lot of information as well as the culture, and are constantly asking why.  Perhaps what is needed is for children to have more interactions with a variety of educated adults that treat them as equals, and give their "why" questions the time, thought, and consideration they deserve.  I'm not trying to insinuate that current teachers do not do this, but they have 25-30 students in their classroom, and so much curriculum they're required to get through.  In contrast, many parents that I know do not spend this time with their children, and perhaps that makes the difference.

I know that when I have children, I will be homeschooling them, and we'll start as soon as they are able to talk.  Talking with them, about current or past events or issues, and holding in-depth conversations with each other in front of our children.  Our children will be enrolled in a variety of activities in which they are encouraged to hold conversations with educated adults.  Combine these discussions with reading a variety of sources, and I feel our children will receive an excellent cultural education.  We receive our local newspaper on a weekly basis, and usually read at least some of it.  When we have kids, we will likely read even more of it.  In addition, I plan to take our kids up to our local library every week, for them to pick new books to read.  This should provide Hirsch's "extensive curriculum," while in-depth studies my children undertake, based on their own interests, will provide both Hirsch's "intensive curriculum" as well as satisfy Dewey's focus on the child's interests and tendencies.


I greatly enjoyed reading the Siskin chapter, which surprised me, because I was expecting something as dry and outdated as Hirsch.  Instead, I found myself reading a modern piece that had me constantly nodding my head and saying "well, yes, of course."  As a music teacher, I found this piece exceptionally relevant and applicable, but at the same time scary.  While I could understand their actions, the teachers in Kentucky that banded together and got music on the standardized tests really made me feel uncomfortable.  They did to music exactly what had already been done to the "core" subjects: they took something that was inherently exciting, dynamic, interesting, valid, and intoxicating, and transformed it into something that could be regurgitated onto a multiple-guess test.  They killed it.  It's no wonder to me that I've never enjoyed history, since I've only had one, maybe two teachers, that ever made it anything more than something to be tested on.  But I've very seldom taken a test on music.  Sure, I had "scale tests" in high school, and I took a semester of college theory, but those were after years and years of music for music's sake, educated by private violin teachers like myself.

One of my favorite times to teach my students is after they have mastered the basic skills, and we're getting ready for a performance.  I ask them, "what's the point of music?  Why do you play violin?"  Usually they answer something along the lines of "I like it," or occasionally "my parents say it's good for me."  That's when I get to ask them if they've ever heard that music is the universal language, and tell them about when I was a kid, playing a Bruch violin concerto for a bunch of other students.  I had this elaborate story worked out, and I bring out a little book I put together.  The first page has a picture I drew, with color coded words that correlate to parts of the piece.  I tell them about my story I created for just the first page of this piece: there's a sunrise, and a forest, but then there's a thunder and lightning storm, and a fire, and all the woodland creatures are running for cover.  And I flip through the rest of the book, which is comprised of the drawings the other students did for what they thought my piece was about, with no knowledge of my story.  Pictures of thunder and lightning storms, funerals, wildfires with animals fleeing for cover, and even a castle.  And I get to introduce the concept of putting the music into music - more than just the notes, rhythms, and bowings.  The part that trying to create a standardized test to test EVERY student with, is guaranteed to leave out.

I thought I would look for links related to music standards, and I found several.  The National Association for Music Education has some very advanced standards, that I know are not considered required for every student.  However, personally, I see no reason why they shouldn't be, and my kids will definitely be able to meet these standards.  There is also a very interesting website, musicstandards.org, that details all of the music standards for all 50 states.  What I found to be particularly interesting were Washington's music standards (since I'm in WA), and apparently, "the arts—including dance, music, theater, and visual arts—are defined as core content areas in Washington’s definition of basic education," and furthermore, are supposed to be "core academic subject areas" under federal law.  This assertion does not coincide with my own experiences and observations, as well as those examined in Siskin's article.  Finally, I found the American String Teacher's Association and all of their standards.  They have ASTACAP - ASTA Certificate Advancement Program - in which they detail standards for all major stringed instruments, from beginner through very advanced.  They also have a number of books, particularly their String Syllabus, Vol. 1, 2009 Edition (towards bottom of page).  These resources, available to anyone, are invaluable to string teachers, and should be used by everyone deciding music standards.

This Washington Post article makes different points than what I have, but has the same overall message: national standards and testing is screwed up, and it's screwing up our entire education system.  National high-stakes testing has forced teachers to teach to that test, which has reduced our education system to a mad scramble to "pass a test."  It's turned amazing teachers that could do so much, into people that are struggling to keep their jobs because not all kids are the same, but our system expects them to be.  I think it's a crime that we try so hard to make every child the same, when it is their differences that makes them so great, and has made our country great.

I may be biased, but ultimately, I feel that the Studio Schools and music teachers have a much better way of holding students, teachers and schools accountable, than standardized tests.  All those tests can tell is if you were good at taking that kind of a test that particular day, but there's so much more to any subject.  For subjects where product-based accountability like what is found in the fine arts and the Studio Schools isn't possible, I don't think there should be any real effort to hold anyone accountable.  I've thought for a couple of years now, that if we just let teachers do their thing, and gave them the reins, they could do some truly amazing things with their students.  But politicians and lawmakers keep sticking their noses in, telling teachers what, when, how, and why they should teach different topics.  What would be better is let education be more like the free market we have with capitalism.  The teachers and schools that are successful will attract more students, and so would become more successful.  Everyone has different ideas of what makes a success, so different teachers and schools would attract the students that were interested in their kind of success.