Should we teach controversial topics in the classroom?

Schools cannot avoid controversial topics, such as homosexuality, when it is both a part of and affects the school's educational agenda. In order for students to learn, they must feel a part of the school's community, and both physically and emotionally safe within the classroom. If I imagine being in a place in which I feel attacked, hated, threatened, or not accepted, I would be emotionally distressed. The majority of my thoughts would be dedicated to survival, rather than hearing or engaging in whatever or wherever I am presently attended. So how can we, as educators, expect students to attend to what we are teaching when they are dealing with issues that interfere with their open acceptance and engagement to the traditional curriculum? It is those issues that we must invite into discussion in our classrooms. The issues that prevent from having all students engaged in learning are worthwhile in investigating within the classroom. Furthermore, students need to be able to collaborate regardless of personal beliefs or lifestyle differences both in school and in their future workplace.  Lessons on tolerance and acceptance through education on facts, is necessary. Above all, while homosexuality or the stigma of HIV/AIDS may be considered controversial; there should be no debate against teaching tolerance and acceptance.
As a Science teacher, year after year, I am faced with questions of religion versus the theories of Science. I invite students to share their opinions, as long as they provide research to support their thoughts, just as how the Science textbook provides evidence to substantiate the many scientific theories. Although I allow students to share their questions or opposing thoughts, I also do not advertise this controversial debate. I do not believe the controversy of creationism versus evolution affects a student's ability to learn, nor does it affect their ability to be successful in any workplace. Therefore, it is not a worthwhile controversy in which I engage with my students for any great lengths of time in the classroom. It can be dangerous to impose my authority and power that comes with my role as a teacher to assert any opinion on my students that does not affect their learning. It is dangerous in two ways, one in which students feel the need to agree with the teacher in return for a good grade, and also dangerous in that the legitimacy of the instruction is lost when a student disagrees. These are consequences that do make the inclusion of the debate of creationism or other religious views not valuable in my Science instruction. Controversial issues such as my example of creationism versus evolution does not be investigated heavily in the classroom, however issues that are far greater and contribute to a functional society are worth instructional time.
So what are the controversial issues that should be discussed? Issues such as bullying, HIV/AIDS, especially in the context of homosexuality, or issues surrounding race need to be included in school curriculum in the context of teaching acceptance and tolerance. It is interesting to assert the previously mentioned issues are even considered controversial, because in my eyes, it is a matter of acceptance and tolerance which are concrete human values that cannot and should not be argued against. In contrast to the consequences of including creationism in a Science class, Joseph Silin, in HIV/AIDS Education: Towards a Collaborative Curriculum asserted a similar fear for teachers when addressing the controversies that lie with HIV/AIDS Education, "When teachers believe their ability to influence students rests n the control of information, the lack of that control can lead to lethal silence," (p. 11). However, this feared consequence is illegitimate, in that every teacher should feel confident and in complete control when addressing the issue of acceptance. Everyday, teachers encourage students to collaborate with their peers, not only to accept the differences for the sake of friendship, but also to accept the differences in spirit of learning. We are professionals at educating tolerance and acceptance, so educating those same themes through traditionally perceived controversial issues should be no different.
Why should we discuss these sensitive topics in the classroom? The purpose of education is to create global citizens that are prepared to make thoughtful decisions and perform successfully in a diverse workplace, therefore discussing and educating students on issues (be it, controversial) that they will undoubtedly encounter in their adult lives is apart of that purpose. Students need to be informed so they are prepared to make decisions that are substantiated with educational fact rather than misinformed opinion. Regardless of anyone's personal belief system, they will encounter controversial issues such as HIV/AIDS or homosexuality in their professional lives. It is illegal to discriminate at the workplace, and we must educate and inform our students so they will be able to work collaboratively and professionally with individuals, even those they may personally disagree with.

What should schools teach? How should they be held accountable?

          Statistics show that about 50% percent of new teachers quit the profession within the first three years. I thought I would be one of those statistics. My student teaching experience was in a setting far different than my first “real job” as a teacher. I student taught in an elementary classroom in an academically successful rural district, yet my first job was in a seventh grade classroom in a struggling urban charter school. During my first year of teaching, I was battling issues, problems, and making decisions that I was not prepared for. I questioned my four years of undergraduate work and its purpose. How could I spend four years at a University Institution studying education, and yet still feel like a failure and inadequately prepared to do my job.

As part of the teacher preparation program requirements, I had to earn many “pre-service” teaching hours, but those hours were inconsistent and structured differently than the dynamic of being the sole teacher in a classroom. My educational classes in the program were, however, diverse. I had many philosophical education classes, and other courses with more practical applications like lesson planning, strategies and techniques for teaching certain contents. But none of my courses required much real-world practice with those concepts or discussed (with any depth) classroom management or discussed and practiced (with any depth) parent-teacher conferences and other correspondence with student families. If teacher-preparation programs were held accountable solely to teacher success rates for staying in their field, then they would be failing.

So there I stood, standing in front of a room full of students, a moment I had always dreamt of yet so different than my dreams. The students I faced were high need, below grade level academically, and notoriously difficult behaviorally. I had little to none in terms of teaching materials such as textbooks for students, paper, pencils, calculators, etc. How do I apply what I had learned about proper lesson planning, differentiated instruction, and/or how to use the latest and greatest teaching strategies and technology into a classroom where I feel like I am drowning with challenges, in both student need and my school’s expectations?

Since that first experience, I had an opportunity for a fresh start at a new school in a new district. Although equally challenging in terms of student need and expectations of teachers, I was more prepared going into the experience. However, I still wish I had been as prepared for my first teaching experience, I wish I was able to give those students the same experience I am now able to give my students. I wish I would have had more time in my student teaching experience, and even more time with real and practical application during my undergraduate courses. Perhaps then, I would have not considered being one of the fifty percent. Perhaps I could have entered on my first day of teaching with a realistic expectation of how to address the needs of those students and thrive as a teacher in such a challenging environment.

The Studio schools featured in the TED video, proposed by Geoff Mulgan (2011), focus on learning through real-world applications that are directly connected to the work place. This nontraditional approach to learning prepares students to be successful professionally, while they instill many similar academic standards that traditional schools offer. Quest for Learning, as featured in Sara Corbett’s (2010) “Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom

” made learning relevant for students by presenting it in game format. Even though both schools, Studio and Quest for Learning, are different in how they teach their students, they also share some similarities in philosophy. Both schools place high value on making learning relevant and interactive.

E.D. Hirsch Jr.(1988) suggested in contrast to the progressive nature of Studio schools and Quest for Learning, that “The American school curriculum is fragmented both horizontally across subjects and vertically within subjects,” (p.116). Furthermore, the idea of transferability as mentioned in research from James Baker and Edward Thorndike according to Hirsch Jr. (1988) is inconsistent in how effective one can be in applying knowledge gained specific to one content into other disciplines or facets (pg. 122). Hirsch addresses these concerns regarding both of the traditional educational system and the idealistic proposition from John Dewey by suggesting a blend of the two. Where the focus is intensive in which students spend more time understanding content through more relevant and specific studies that apply to the same traditional learning standards, but with more depth (p. 128, 1988).

Had my own educational experience been as relevant as Studio school’s curriculum, or as interactive as Quest for Learning, or even as intensive and inquiry-based as suggested by Hirsch, then perhaps my real-world experience in teaching would not have felt as challenging and disconnected from my education. 
        In addition, accountability is not as intimidating and perhaps less demanding, when there are natural consequences to a successful curriculum, as discussed in The New Accountability: High Schools and High-Stakes testing by Martin Carnoy, Richard Elmore, and Leslie Siskin. Carnoy et. al explain the natural accountability with performing arts, specifically music. Traditionally music has not been a standardized discipline in which the students demonstrate what they learned on standardized assessments. Instead, the accountability of the music teacher is based upon their effectiveness to lead a good performance, in which an audience is there to witness and judge their ability (pg. 92). There accountability is relevant and applicable to the discipline. Yet when the discipline was charged with the same type of standards and assessments as other contents, its focus became less relevant to the discipline, the focus changed to how to pass the test. Instead of a school's success solely measured on a standardized test score, perhaps we need to also consider more relevant measurements to partner with the more relevant instruction. How many students graduate and go to college? How many students are employed in a desired career? Or in my personal scenario, did my teacher preparation program adequately prepare me for the classroom?

Resources

1. Check out this article by Greg Toppo featured in USA today about the ever-changing demographic of teachers. While the content is mainly about the culture of education as there are more new teachers in the field than ever, it also discusses the challenges new teachers face.
2. Some math game websites are far-reaching to math concepts, this website however seems relevant, interactive and fun.