Cycle Three: Should the Curriculum Address Controversial
Issues?
“-and
the least educated are precisely those who are most inclined to be prejudiced
against gay people’” ( Thornton). This
quote answers that question for me. I
went to a diverse school on the outer limits of Lansing. It was considered suburban. I remember being surrounded by many types of
people whether referring to ethnicity, sex, etc. One Sunday I attended a youth group event in
Charlotte. Now, no offense to anyone
from Charlotte, MI, but I was taken aback by how narrow minded these kids
were. The minute they found out I was
from the area I told them, they asked me how I could handle being around
“blacks”. At the time I remember feeling
shocked at this. Here I was 50% Lebanese
and 50% Caucasian, and could have cared less what ethnicity anyone was. I was taught about culture though, and they
weren’t. I learned it implicitly through
the diversity my school produced, through my family, and my environment. They, however, were not educated on
acceptance, diversity, or the enrichment of different cultures. In reference to sexuality, I don’t want to
know what they would have to say about that.
This touches on the point that those lacking education on such
differences will be the first to judge.
We judge or question what we are unfamiliar with. This being so, we need to educate students on
those differences.
There
are ways to go about this. I don’t
believe a fourth grader should be hearing about anal sex as an option during
sex education. I do believe they can
hear a book read by their teacher about a boy with two dads, two moms, or
whatever the situation may be. Just like
we don’t teach kindergartners about sex at all, they learn body parts. So we need to teach sexuality in the same
method. Elementary sexuality should be
taught in broad terms. Times are
different and we have multiple families with married parents, divorced parents,
adopted parents, grand parents, gay couples, unmarried parents whom all raise
families. Yet in books we see mom, dad,
and two children with a dog. This is not
the typical family anymore and students with the non-traditional family need to
be represented so they don’t feel like outcasts.
So
when is it appropriate to teach students about homosexuality in a more specific
way. I personally believe 8th
grade is when we can start having discussions about teens and adults who are
homosexual and accepting it. This isn’t
a promotion saying, “Everyone should be homosexual!” It is merely teaching that you need to accept
everyone for who they are whether it be gay or straight. I agree with the article from New York Times
when a student mentioned it would be too late to wait until high school. Most students have awareness for
homosexuality by freshman year and by this point the teasing has started. Seventh grade may also be early enough. I wouldn’t begin with 6th grade
from personal experience as a 6th grade teacher. I think it is too divided by maturity level
and think some could handle it while others wouldn’t be able to.
Opponents
of this concept may think this is selling a certain life style, which is. The lifestyle it is selling is tolerance,
acceptance, and love of others. As the second
article mentions by Elliot W. Eisner, teaching is notoriously based on
tradition. This implies that what has
always been taught will continue to be taught.
So students are learning about sexuality by the implicit instruction of
school structure with teachers who aren’t saying anything when a student is
called gay, or via null curriculum and what is not taught which is devastating
in the end. The first thing I think of
after the quote referenced earlier is the fact teenagers are killing themselves
because of the lack of tolerance around them.
When will it end? To me a
student would feel accepted and normal by hearing that Alexander the Great was
homosexual, or by reading about those that fought for acceptance in the early
1900’s. This would make them realize it
isn’t just them and that sexuality has always had differences. This along with teaching students that
everyone is important through group discussions and moral curriculum focus
would create a safe environment for all because those feeling separate from
others would realize they are not separate and those judging would realize
nobody is an outcast. Safety is what
everyone should have in school and that is something that is lacking. We as educators must teach acceptance and
begin in a broad sense at young ages then expand on is as the students get older.
Resources
This article found in the New Yorker supports my theory of
having acceptance. It mentions that even
though lately it doesn’t seem like it, people have become more accepting of
open sexuality. It brushes on the topic
of those who believe educating kids is brainwashing them to become gay which
was expressed in my reflection as an uneducated viewpoint.
A district in California plans to add new curriculum to
their social studies content that reflects homosexual historical figures. It will have ample material that illustrates
homosexuality and gives teachers the freedom to decide when the grade levels
learn the information. This is similar
to my point that is should be taught but also with rational methods and in the
right format.
This blog is from the New York times and provides
resources/materials for teaching that includes homosexual people of
history. It is useful in that it provides many lesson
plans about gay history as well as links to articles and other resources.
This is a site that offers a curriculum in which students
learn in a social context. It teaches
how to deal with bullies and be an overall good person. The mission is to make each student fee safe
and prevent bullying. This can be linked
to the controversy of homosexuality because this program is meant to accept
everyone.
This site is fantastic for resources regarding
bullying. It has information for kids,
parents, and educators. I also noticed a
special section for those being bullied based on sexuality.
Jessica, thanks for sharing. You blended your personal experience nicely with your philosophical pedagogy, making for a clear post. I especially liked your anecdote about the school in Charlotte. It made me chuckle You call those students narrow minded but can you honestly blame them? It sounds as though they've grown up in an environment that's kept them sheltered from experiencing other cultures, so how do you expect them to act? We talk a lot about empathy and how important empathy is now as the world "shrinks" and I think that those statements shocked you because you are wise to this fact. Without actually saying it, I have a feeling you believe that these students should be taught empathy since they are not learning it naturally. The problem is, without experience, learning empathy is moot.
ReplyDeleteMoving onto the point you make about homosexuality and your suggestions about how we can integrate these teachings into the curriculum, I think you're missing the big picture here. Just because students hear about these topics doesn't mean they're going to change their ways. I understand that it's a start, but it must come from all parties eg. parents, peers, media, etc. Now, it's gotten much better recently and sure, teaching students about LGBT issues is good and all because it forms open lines of communication and creates a safer environment but lets think about this from perspectives other than a teacher's. For example, a religious official may call teaching about homosexuality blasphemy, citing some obscure passage from the Bible, Koran, Torah, or other religious text. A bigoted parent may believe, like we read in this weeks article, that you're pushing a specific agenda and demand neutrality. A politician may construe the law and find that it's illegal to discuss such matters. The point is, what you believe may be quick fixes will take effort on the part of every single source of influence on the child. According to ecological systems theory, that means not only reaching the student, but reaching the world around the student as a whole.
Finally, on a lighter note, I totally agree with you on the whole fourth grader learning about anal sex debate. It just sounds ridiculous. I don't teach elementary school, but it seems to me that not only is that too early to talk to students about sex but it's a particularly vulgar and graphic aspect of sexual activity in the first place. What happened to talking about the birds and the bees or getting to first base??? Now we skip all that and jump straight to "anal penetration?" I feel like it's gotten to the point where we don't care about loss of innocence anymore. Soon we'll be talking about Santorum in elementary school!
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your first point – the least educated are the most inclined to prejudice. This is why education is so crucial and I don’t think we can always rely on families and the community to give children the education that is needed to be a well-rounded citizen. I had a similar culture shock when I moved from the suburbs of Detroit to Allendale, Michigan to attend college at Grand Valley State University. Being smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt, there wasn’t a lot of openness to different religious beliefs (or lack thereof), nor was there much awareness when it came to issues of race and sexuality. I too was shocked at how uneducated some of my classmates were (for example, my friend asked my Vietnamese roommate if he needed to wear special contacts because of his slanted Asian eyes). Now I don’t think that being uneducated makes someone a “bad” person – it often isn’t even their fault. But the problem once again is that children are not always going to be educated about diversity in their natural environment. This is why it is so important that schools step in and provide tolerance and diversity education for all students.
I think you make a great point that we need to be careful when it comes to age appropriateness and sexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality alike. I agree – 4th grade is too early to be talking about anal sex (and vaginal sex! – but unfortunately I think these conversations need to happen earlier and earlier nowadays). But 4th grade is not too early to start teaching students that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable way of life. I’m sure they already talk about Johnny holding Susie’s hand on the playground. It’s not a bad time to say that it’s okay if Johnny wanted to hold Bobby’s hand too. Obviously the conversations don’t have to be sexual in nature, but normalizing the idea of homosexuality at a young age is important (i.e. talking about different types of families, etc…).
I love your idea that the “certain lifestyle” that educators are trying to sell is one of tolerance and acceptance. I really wish there was a way to educate parents on tolerance as well. So often, I think the problems of bullying and intolerance begin with the parents. Young children learn their behavior and get their attitudes from somewhere and I think in this case, the parents hold (or should hold) a lot of the blame. They are the ones trying to pull their children out of “pro-gay” lessons. They are the ones who are surely making inflammatory comments at home. I wonder what good our education in the classroom will do if so many parents are willing to go against the lessons taught in school. Imagine a young child coming home and telling his parents he learned about families with two mommies and two daddies at school. If the parents tell the child that they don’t accept people like that, who do you think the child is going to listen to? I know we as educators can’t control what happens at home (and lord knows we wish we could!) but I think it’s important to somehow bring the tolerance education home.
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post! It generated a lot of great conversation!
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I personally don't think it's possible for schools--given that the issue of behavior is always at stake--to stay neutral on any of these issues. The problem of bullying makes them abundantly clear. By staying silent, we do harm to individual children and families, and make the schools unwelcome to a segment of our society. We simply can't do that.
So you are right--we have an agenda: tolerance, acceptance, and love of others (love as a goal of schooling is hardly talked about, but that is a pity).
People in their responses raised the issue of what to do about homes that don't support the schools messages. This is both a big problem, but also one that I don't think should side track us. If schools--teachers and administrators--came out more clearly and strongly about the type of atmosphere they were trying to create (implicit curriculum) and worried less about the content their were trying to teach (explicit curriculum), I do think this issue would go away.
Of course the issue of curriculum materials relating to families and society are vitally important. But I would think it is equally, if not more, important to make school actually welcoming places to all families. In fact, I would think one openly-gay teacher, well supported by the faculty and administration, would be a much more effective teaching tool than all the materials in the world. Schools are built on relationships--I sometimes think the content of the curriculum is a mere detail, best left to individual teachers to sort out as they see fit (an extremely unpopular view, right now, I know!).
Anyway, thanks for your great work here, and the conversation you have generated!
Kyle