What topics would you consider controversial in a classroom setting?
Posted at 5:00 AM on December 9, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(28 Comments)
Filed under: Education
The Anoka-Hennepin school district might drop its neutrality policy about sexual orientation and replace it with a new policy that addresses controversial issues. The proposed new policy would bar teachers from advocating for one side or another on controversial issues in classroom discussions, but does not specify what those issues are. Today's Question: What topics would you consider controversial in a classroom setting?
Comments (28)
oferty bankowe kredyty
Just about any topic could be considered controversial by someone.
Right now there is a lot of heat and light on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math as the favorite solution to what, if anything, ails education in our country.
I think most of the problems in the world today are social problems. Too many people are too intolerant. I think we have a need to teach more social studies, especially in the context of how all cultures have historically been more tolerant, and could be again.
Science, Technology, Math and Engineering are great, but you're not likely to solve the global unrest we're seeing by supplanting the study of how societies interact with increased technical education.
I would find it disturbing to see creationism taught in school, alt least as a science. One might list the evidence, note the strength of it, and then leave the possible explaination OPEN to interpretation.
(Because clearly there is a lack of evidence... but that does not mean it has no meaning, or purpose. And by leaving it open, you have stated NOTHING... But best NOT to teach, leave that to priests and religious leaders...)
I would find NOT teaching about economics of people at different incomes as criminal on so many levels. Hard for someone at the top 1% to correctly state anything about the poor if they never had to deal with it.
And I also find it disturbing there is a lack of teaching Tolerance, anti-bullying just WRONG on so many levels.
Lastly teaching about Darwin's evolution correctly. Survival of the fittest does not mean ARTIFICIALLY killing people off, or bullying them, or economically killing them off ....
Money is still luck 99%, but if you do not try even you will not make it. Sad to say, most people who fail in money was on luck, they are just as likely tried as hard if not harder.....
So many homeless and jobless now... its a growing anger in the people.... This is why we show we matter and occupy so much to show we are here...
@Steve
Yes, how very inconvenient that global warming should be considered controversial. When my daughter was in the 5th grade virtually her entire curriculum revolved around global warming as presented uncritically by Al Gore. They studied it for reading, they studied it for social science and they studied it for "science". I complained to the principal as nothing was questioned-it was just pure indoctrination without any critical thinking involved. It was my daughters last year at that school.
"Life is not always fair.
You get what you work for."
Aren't those two statements mutually contradictory, James?
The crap posted by Jack Goldman | December 9, 2011 11:26 AM
That comment of his hatred and paranoia toward our closest ally, Israel, is as controversial as the progressive professor at iowa State University who wrote a letter for their paper demeaning our troops over them accepting gift packages from us while they are overseas. And that is exactly why the conservatives took the House last November and why today's polls show more Dems are leaving the party as they wake up to the fact that the far extreme Progressives took over the Democratic party.
I don't think any subject is off limits as long as both sides of certain issues are presented. We should be teaching our kids critical thinking skills and letting them form their own opinions and ideas. Not brainwashing them with certain ideologies.
Actually the new policy would prohibit teachers from advocating their "personal beliefs or opinions" which is different than "advocating for one side or the other" as Today's Question stated. It should also be noted that existing policies on both religious activities and sexual orientation curriculum would be replaced by the new controversial topics policy.
I think defining topics as controversial or not would be counter-productive to the policy's stated goal of "helping students develop techniques for examining controversy ...in an atmosphere free of bias and prejudice."
Conflict is caused by truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. Classrooms teach one sided truth about holocaust, Jews, Christianity, Islam, and government. The truth about currency debasement, taxing labor income, selling children into debt slavery, subsidies for allies like Israel are too much conflict. Class rooms seek ignorant peace.
The whole truth about the racism and terrorism funded by Israel, the whole truth about 9/11 and American racist biased foreign policy, will always be excluded from public discourse. Too much conflict in the whole truth.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is always reserved for secret court rooms and no where else. Too bad. This is leading to a degradation of discourse on television, mass media and the class room, leading the fall of rule of law in America and the world.
Vouchers might help. We need freedom to fix the system that is so badly broken.
"...any more than this forum allows diversity of opinion or tolerance for Conservative opinions without being attacked and name called by many posters."
If you choose to say provocative things, kimMN, you have no business complaining when people are provoked.
Jessica asks: what is too controversial for her classroom. Which grades do you teach? The age level determines what is appropriate for a child's understanding or exposure. Teachers should not over step what is a parental right for their kids. Elementary kids should not be exposed to How to use a Condom or other sex acts.
Other things include for example, only high schoolers and adults should be exposed to these current books because the truth is just too shocking and each assertion is fully backed by direct recorded facts.
Books NOT to be exposed to:
1. Culture of Corruption by Malkin
2. Radical in Chief by Kurtz.
Only adults should dare read those factual works.
I remember when my child came home from her third grade class. They had been learning about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. She had learned that Lincoln was the 16th president. She asked me why none of the earlier presidents had abolished slavery. This was not something that had been discussed in class, but kids are not stupid. They have questions; they have experiences. They want to know why. What a classroom discussion can do is (one hopes) is model curious inquiry, respectful discussion, and provide a space of students to be taken seriously as thinkers.
If a teacher believes that a sensitive topic cannot be addressed adequately in the classroom, or that extended answers would be inappropriate to the developmental level of the kids, I would encourage him or her to tell kids to talk to their parents about it. I was happy to answer my child's question, at a level I thought was appropriate for her at that age.
The issue that leads to this question is the bullying of sexual minority kids. I think we can all agree that bullying of any kind has no place in the schools. It should be consistent, though. In particular, calling a person with conservative opinions on sexuality a "homophobe" is just as inappropriate as some of the anti-gay slurs that get used. LGBTQ advocates hurt their own cause when they speak derisively about others. Turn-about may be fair play, but it's not effective in changing hearts and minds.
RIDE TALL, SHOOT STRAIGHT AND ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH.
Life is not always fair.
You get what you work for.
Pray often.
∑
DTOM
Nothing is too controversial for my classroom. I think the controversy is how a subject is presented. Some think that we should limit what the students should think, feel, and how they should react to information. I think that no matter how coddled our children are, their minds will find a way to think for themselves. Why not encourage freedom of experience from the start?
I really am interested in specific arguments against this idea.
There are certain topics that are too complex for certain ages, like politics and religious beliefs. I don't think you should bombard kids with topics on everything. Some subjects are definitely not what children of certain ages need or want to hear, let alone can understand.
When I was in the 5th grade I remember some serious events happening during the Vietnam war, and our teacher tried to engage us on our views. This wasn't some attempt to teach in understandable terms, it was more like he wanted our political analysis. I remember how confusing and weird it was. I still don't know if it was a misconceived attempt to broaden our minds or just a way of venting his opinions.
You shouldn't sugarcoat the world, but you also shouldn't force the more serious aspects of it on minds that are not fully developed.
I don't think anything has to be controversial. Kids need to know what life holds. Especially older kids. Anything can be taught as long as the truth is in the forefront. All sides of an issue should be presented. Being open and honest with kids is what should be important. They don't need to be "protected" from knowledge.
In our political and social science classes in high school we were essentially allowed to discuss anything we wanted, from sexual orientation to pornography to school prayer. I think this promotes mature discourse under the leadership of a teacher, and it is insane that any side would think it was a good idea to block this type of learning.
Theology, whether it be prayer or "intelligent design". "Intelligent design" is a philosophy at best and does not belong in the science classroom, science is the study of the natural world through observation and use of the scientific method of experimentation. Since "intelligent design" has the supernatural as a cause and is non-provable through experimentation it is not a science, period.
Our society is diverse. That generates a great deal of difference in opinions and priorities. In that matter, most everything schools do is controversial. It should be that way! The idea of a "controversial" curriculum policy sounds as non-sensical as the neutrality policy. The litmus I demand for any school policy is that it be reasonably applied to all parties. The neutrality policy was never "neutral" in that way. Curruculum elements which were straight were not challenged, it was only those with GLBT content which were problematic. If a parent wishes to insulate their child from the pluralism of cultures, ideas, values, and lifestyles in our society, I recommend they avoid public schools. Public schools must embrace diversity.
After the 9th grade my wife and I removed our daughter from Anoka-Hennepin school district and sent her to a private Christian school instead. It's one of the smartest things we have ever done.
I've been teaching at a socially progressive high school in this district and I can guarantee that our teachers will continue to advocate for tolerance regardless of any policy.
As Sue says at 6:51, but from the other side of the spectrum:
Prayer (to which I'd add any presentation of religion other than a factual, historical study of religious movements). As a non-Christian, I do not want government schools teaching my children how to pray, or even simply endorsing prayer. It's a fine, meditative practice that everyone should keep to themselves.
This new policy seems like a thinly veiled attempt to maintain the negative effects of the former neutrality policy namely that it is ok to think that GLBT people are second class citizens. How is not taking a side different from neutrality? Why can they not have an anti-bullying policy that prevents bullying from students of teachers across the board for no reason.
No subject is too controversial if it's affecting the children's lives in some way. The controversy comes from how it's dealt with. Burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away is not doing anyone any favors in the long run. The school has an obligation to teach critical thinking skills. Having all the facts is a requirement for that. That would go a long way to insuring the kids don't grow up to be bigoted adults like the parents the school is hoping not to offend.
Prayer. As a Christian, I do not want government schools teaching my kids how to pray.
Education needs discipline, needs attention and needs to be centered on the students and their uniqueness. This is a controversial subject, however we mustn't be rigid in what concerns our opinions about such issue. What I'm trying to express is that there is no miraculous recipe for education; it must include basic subjects such as English, math, geography, history, and some other subjects such as dance, art, sports to balance things. This will make school a place that kids and adolescents want to be a part of. Where is the place for discipline here? Simple! A teacher has to be seen as an authority figure, but does it means that he must be compared to military discipline? No, of course not! There are different ways to be respected, there's no need to exaggerate. If we talk about extreme cases, there has to be extreme personalized measures. People have to understand that they have rights, but they also have duties and responsibilities toward others.
Apart from sexual morality, a bigger problem is controversies around things that shouldn't be controversial, such as the science of evolution and climate change, and how to teach history and civics. Too many things get politicized. Remember the manufactured uproar over President Obama wanting to address school kids?
| December 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock