As you scroll on down
this blog, you will come to a bevy of articles that I am posting for a
multiplicity of reasons. The overarching
reason concerns the low-grade quality of most of what gets published in the Star Tribune pertinent to K-12
education.
Star Tribune editorialists and staff members themselves have very little
knowledge of K-12 education and are largely ignorant of the inner workings of a
local school district such as the Minneapolis Public Schools.
Those who write
opinion pieces and secure publication in the Star Tribune focus on particularistic concerns of the moment but
rarely discuss the most fundamental factors abiding in the education
establishment that impedes movement toward K-12 excellence.
Because of the lack
of knowledge betrayed by both Star
Tribune staffers and most of the opinion writers whom the editorial board
opts to publish, readers must ever be attentive to subtext and the underlying
issues. This blog provides the
information that readers need to be properly informed about K-12 education generally
and the locally centralized school district represented saliently by the Minneapolis Public Schools specifically.
As you scroll on the
blog, you will observe an article written by Katherine Kersten that drew two
counterpoints published by the Star
Tribune on Tuesday, 20 March (today as I tap out this note); and another
from Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius on
Wednesday, 21 March. Before I post my
own response and interpretation of the Kersten article, please read these
responses and evaluate the arguments of writers who pose themselves against Kersten
and the very conservative Center of the American Experiment , with which she is
associated.
Also appearing as a
K-12 education article published on the opinion pages of the Star Tribune is an article by social
studies teacher and graduate student Daniel Bordwell. This article was engendered by a bill before
the Minnesota Legislature that would proscribe requirements that students
express personal viewpoints for class participation and credit.
Bordwell’s article
needs the examination for subtext that I have challenged my readers to
undertake in reading the aforementioned opinion pieces.
His article is given as
follows >>>>>
Daniel Bordman, “School Policy Balance
Bill Threatens Good Citizenship --- It
would neuter education in civic discourse just when is needed most.” (Star
Tribune, Opinion Exchange, 22 March 2018)
Last week, while observing a student
teacher teach social studies to sixth graders, I overheard a student ask whether
a friend was going to walk out in protest of gun violence.
Instead of talking about crushes, their
Snapchat streaks or what was on the math tests, these 12 year-olds were
engaging in civic discourse about a pressing topic concerning them and the borader
community.
Often, stakeholders in education forget
that our stunts are also citizens. The
proposed Academic Balance Policy Bill in the Legislature does this and therefor
should not become law.
University of Minnesota School of
Social Work Profs. Ross Velure Roholt and Michael Baizerman write that “yoing
people are systematically marginalized, if not outright excluded, from everyday
citizen work on issues meaningful and consequential to them, for others, and
for a community.”
Citizenship is not an innate human
characteristic; it must be taught and
practiced. Schools are one place where
students get to interact with their peers and other adults. If the Academic Balance Policy were to become
law, the ability of schools to be these sites of democracy would be neutered.
The bill says school districts must
create a policy that “prohibit(s) school employees, in their official capacity,
from requiring students or other school employees to express specified social
or political viewpoints for the purpose of academic credit, extracurricular
participation, or as a condition of employment.”
I understand that people go into
teaching to indoctrinate students. There
may be a few bad apples who do. However,
professionalism dictates that as teachers we treat our students not as pawns or
widgets, but as humans capable of their own agency.
There are two main problems that would
occur if the bill were to become law:
First, a chill factor would set
in; teachers would not know what was or
was not considered controversial. Is it
controversial to debate the legalization of marijuana in a social studies
classroom? To some, absolutely. To others, the debate is germane because it
is a replica of what is happening in state legislatures, including Minnesota’s.
How one teacher evaluates controversy
may differ from another, or from a student, parent, administrator, or
overzealous lawmaker. It is much easier
to avoid controversy altogether and not have a discussion.
But lack of discussion would leads [sic] to the second problem--- students leaving school not knowing how to
discuss current events and political issues.
Social-studies scholars Walter parker and Diana Hess have argued that
schools are a space to learn using discussion.
If schools are not sites where such skills are practiced, students will
turn to other influences around them. In
an age when, over and over again, we’ve seen that people are exposed to fake
news and cannot tell what is fake news or not, forbidding our students to
practice media literacy and argumentation---
both of which are codified in state learning standards--- would be educational malpractice.
I was a high school student in the
lead-up to the Iraq war. I had just
published a commentary in my high school newspaper saying I did not believe the
war was justified when my chemistry teacher went on five-minute tirade about
why Saddam Hussein needed to be bombed.
After all, he did 9/11, or so my
teacher said. I sat in that room
with no recourse, feeling targeted. I
take this memory into my classroom on a daily basis. I share it with my students who are learning
how to be social studies teachers.
That incident does not mean to me that
we should ignore controversy all together [sic]. Let’s remember that one of the reasons the
students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida have been so
effective at creating a movement is that their school allowed them the practice
to learn how to communicate a clear, articulate message. We have seen them organize matches, organize
support and challenge elected officials.
I understand why some in the
Legislature would want to avoid empowering studnets. However, as evident by the sixth-graders I
saw last week and the thousands who marched in protest, they do so at their own
peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment