Cycle 4: Controversial Topics in Curriculum
First and foremost, I think that curriculum, on some level, is always controversial. Survey any number of teachers, scholars, or theorists and they may agree on the broad definition of curriculum but the finer points will produce a wide variety of discussion and range. What is controversial and how is controversy in the curriculum handled? In many cases, I believe geography and personal socialization account for some of the range in controversy. What may be absolutely scandalous in one location, may not raise an eyebrow in another. One issue that rocks local politics in one town might not be on the radar in other. Environmental or land use issues in one geographical location may cause an entire town to split along the proverbial Hatfield and McCoy lines while in another, it may be racial or LGBTQ+ issues that arise to the forefront of the community. In the context of this learning cycle, controversial topics are centered on LQBTQ+ issues. However, I think it’s important to begin with the caveat that, as with most things, context is key. Controversy is also grounded in context. For my children and their learning community, LGBTQ+ is likely the most valid and pertinent controversial topic. It would compete with mainly socioeconomic themes. In my personal teaching (which centers on teaching intern Chinese teachers), the main controversial topics that I encounter are questions about are how to teach/respond to controversial Chinese historical or current topics (such as Tiananmen Square, the One Child Policy, wet markets and the range of animals used for human consumption, human rights, environmental issues, etc.). Controversial topics in my personal teaching tend to center around navigating cultural differences.
I believe that representation matters and again, that context is key. All children need to see and feel aspects of themselves rooted in the curriculum and instruction they receive if they are to develop the growth mindset necessary to overcome obstacles and become confident life-long learners. Not only do they need to see themselves represented, they need to seem themselves in a successful and knowledgeable context. Thornton states, “Thus, a first step that social studies educators need to take is frank acknowledgment that differences in sexual orientation (and other taboo subjects such as religion) exist in America. To put it another way, educators must answer the question, Does everybody count as human?” (p.226). I believe that the answer is a resounding yes! The curriculum I teach in my classroom should reinforce the concept that everyone counts and everyone has potential and value.
While I believe that curriculum needs to represent everyone, it’s important even if “everyone” doesn’t appear to be present in the room at that moment. I want my curriculum to be as diverse and inclusive as possible, even if my classroom appears homogenous on the surface. One, I hesitate to say downfall, but one weakness of my own education was that I was basically taught that everyone was the same. You were not to consider yourself better or worse than anyone. This was colorblind, limiting, and very short sighted. On one hand, I did really internalize the “treat everyone with respect, everyone is the same” message, but it did nothing to promote understanding, tolerance, or celebration of difference. Nor did that message teach how to reconcile and promote difference (either in general or as a teacher). I believe that one role of controversial topics is that they enable teachers and curriculum to point out change, to highlight representation, and to showcase that different thoughts, cultural norms, or sexuality/gender issues enrich the tapestry of community, and they can help show people how to respectfully work together. In today’s political climate, learning to appreciate differing viewpoints, opinions, and cultural norms is a pressing issue and a delicate balance for teachers to address.
I think that curriculum today must address LGBTQ+ issues with sensitivity, truth, awareness, and grace. As a parent, I admit that I have struggled with just how much sexuality or sexual matters needs to be included in the curriculum but with the rise of bullying and teenage suicide, it is imperative that schools address how they become a safer and more inclusive space for all their students. Joel Burns’ TED talk highlights the growing need to bring understanding to these issues but also the need to address the growing bullying issues that are arising in our schools today. Best practices for overcoming prejudice is an area that I need to work on and am committed to in my growth as an educator. I’ve taught kindergartners and adults and their needs around LGBTQ+ issues have not been a huge part of my curriculum, so I must make sure that I am taking steps to ensure that I am providing opportunities for education, discussion, and greater understanding within my teaching but also to make sure that I remain open and inclusive to learning from all my students and their identities. Silence and omission are as much a choice as open and frank discussion regarding these issues. What we chose to include in our curriculum is vitally important but what we don’t include also says something about who we are. I want to make certain that my students internalize that I value everyone and that I value their whole selves.
References:
Joel Burns. (2010, October). Joel Burns Tells Gay Teens "It Gets Better.” Fort Worth City Council/TED Talks: Best of the Web. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/joel_burns_tells_gay_teens_it_gets_better.html
Stephen J. Thornton. (2003). Silence on gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum. Social Education, 67(4), 226-230. Available at: https://www.socialstudies.org/publications/socialeducation/may-june2003/silence-on-gays-and-lesbians-in-social-studies-curriculum
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteGreat to read what you are thinking--as always. Such a pleasure to have you in this course.
Having been the advisor to a student from Taiwan and a Uyghur student, I can sympathize. The delicacies here are enormous. I remember escorting a dear Chinese colleague out of my office, in tears, after we had happened upon the Japanese occupation during World War II. It was, literally, like this was happening NOW--to HER. I had never quite had an experience like that before. Clearly, you are right: controversial issues are bounded by context.
The issue, of course, is when we have a Chinese student, a Taiwanese student, a Hong Kong student, a Japanese student, and a Uyghur student--maybe even in a US-based class--taken up with "our" own issues. And to be honest, this is a mess. I couldn't even imagine. I'm the type of person that probably, out of habit, seeks to avoid conflict. But I also seek to understand and hear each person and make them feel heard. I have no idea how this would work in such a class. My political sympathies are always with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, and the excluded--but pedagogy seems to call for a slightly different approach that I can never quite put my finger on.
I grew up in an environment that was probably similar to yours--"everyone is the same" is an empowering message in a largely white small town environment where the main differences are those of social class. I grew up calling the most dispossessed of that society "sir" or "mam" and addressing the most powerful as equals (to this day, being called "sir" or "doctor" or "professor" bothers the heck out of me). It made sense, I think, in that time and place, but not necessarily in this time and place.
The idea of remaining open to the identities and concerns of all of your students is the best place to be, I think, as a curricular thinker. The other option is standardization. It's algorithmic. For this grade, we do it this way. In this subject, we do it that way. But what if we view life as a whole, and then take our pedagogical cues from what our students indicate to us? What if sexual- and gender-identity comes to this child or this community at age 5, but to this child and community at age 12? What if this Chinese student is ready to discuss Taiwan as having legitimate claims, but this one just shuts down? This is another way to determine curriculum--on readiness (emotional, intellectual, etc.). This is an old tradition--the learner-centered tradition. It is worth supporting. It does not give us anything generalizable, and it can lead to problems with we have a class of radically different learners, but it is, in my mind, the only place to start.
Thanks for your post!
Kyle