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.