Cycle Three: Should the Curriculum Address Controversial Issues?

As we near the end of TE 818, the readings for this cycle accentuated the role of the hidden curriculum in schools.  The hidden curriculum consists of the “unspoken or implicit academic, social, and cultural messages that are communicated to students while they are in school.”  Curriculum is as much about what we don’t say as what we do say.

I feel that a disconnect exists between the formal lessons taught in school and the major social, cultural, and political movements within our society that impact the hidden curriculum.  It is as if we have set up a barrier in an attempt to protect the innocence of our youth from the (sometimes harsh) realities of society.  Let’s not address the latest landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage (although I truly believe that Obergefell vs. Hodges will become a famous case that will be grouped along with human rights cases of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and Roe vs. Wade).  Let’s turn a blind eye to the immigration issues that are sparking national debates among political parties.  Let’s ignore the fact that women only earn 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.  Let’s not teach about underlying racial issues that still exist in the 21^st century in this country as we acknowledge the one-year anniversary of the Ferguson, Missouri incident.

Is this barrier healthy for our children?  I would argue no.  If one aim of our pubic school system is to produce informed citizens who can productively contribute to the growth of our democratic society, then we are doing our students, and in the long-term our society, a disservice.  If we keep protecting our students from relevant issues in our society, some of which may be controversial, then we are limiting their opportunities to seek our valid and reliable information, examine and think critically about that information, and allow them to form educated opinions.  We hinder their ability to share their viewpoint with others and listen to different perspectives.  Keeping this barrier up forms a taboo of sorts on certain topics – teachers and students show reservations to talk about a topic, which means that when it happens to enter into classroom discourse everyone is uncomfortable.  This doesn’t sound like a productive learning environment to me.

So how do we break down this barrier between the formal academic curriculum and the socio-cultural hidden curriculum?  Silin suggests introducing “controversial” issues early on to promote comfortable conversation within the classroom, sharing information that is developmentally and experientially appropriate, as well as examining societal responses to issues and discussing the student role as a change agent.  In no way should the incorporation of such issues be contrived; the integration of these issues can be easily embedded within the formal curriculum.  For example, when talking about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, a class can discuss the reprecussions of the movement 50 years later.  Has racism been eliminated?  Students can talk about the effects of the movement on our political system (What does the election of our first African-American president in 2008 tell us about our current societal values and beliefs?), our justice system (the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri incident), and our school system (Do schools provide equal educational opportunities for all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, social class, etc.”).

Another example that comes to mind is the discussion of the family structure that often occurs at the elementary level of schooling.  The mainstream concept of a nuclear family – father, mother, and children – can no longer be assumed in today’s society.  With approximately 50% of marriages ending in divorce, blended families are becoming more prevalent among our student population and thus we extend the concept of family to include step-father, step-mother, step-sibling, and half-sibling.  Same-sex marriages are also becoming more prevalent, so it is likely that some of our students have two mothers or two fathers.  My sister works for a latchkey program at an elementary school.  One of the girls who attends has lesbian parents who divorced and both women got remarried.  This girl now has four moms!  We can also talk about how extended family members live together in one house, a common practice in some cultures.  Clearly, families come in many shapes and sizes and through discussion with our students we can share how there is no one structure that defines a family.

Silin claims, “While there needs to be a space for mastery (of course topics), there also needs to be a role for understanding and acceptance, emancipation and liberation.”  Addressing “controversial” issues through a critical lens, as described in the two examples above, can fill this current void in our educational system.

Although breaking down this barrier is important for our students and democratic society, Eckholm’s article “In Efforts to End Bullying, Some See Agenda” featured in the New York Times highlights resistance parents, religious groups, and political groups may exert in an attempt to keep “controversial” issues outside of classroom dialogue.  For instance, many Christian activists believe lessons about gay parents legitimize same-sex marriage.  I would argue that our students are exposed to some of these “controversial” topics in popular media through TV shows such as “Modern Family” and music such as “Same Love” by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis.  Why not provide students a safe environment in schools to process their thoughts on these issues and address any misinformation portrayed in popular media?  I support Messinger’s statement in the article:  “It is not about advocating a lifestyle, but making sure our children understand it, and I hope, accept it.”  Respect, tolerance, and acceptance are important values to aim for when learning about social and cultural differences and schools can be one institution that provides opportunities for children to establish these values.