Among those articles
that you have been given an opportunity to analyze in the course of these last
few days is a piece published on the opinion pages of the Star Tribune on 22 March 2018 by social studies teacher and graduate
student Daniel Borman. 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.
As I have done with
several other articles, I now give that opinion piece again below, interspersed
with my own comments. Remember that I
have asserted that articles in the Star
Tribune should always be evaluated for subtext; coverage of K-12 education issues at that
publication is serviceable at best, so that the reader needs to be conscious of
underlying issues, many of which staff writers are not even aware. And those whose opinion pieces are published
in the Star Tribune rarely give much
evidence of understanding matters at the core of the K-12 dilemma; hence, in these cases, too, the reader needs
to glean what truly important information can be attained while reflecting how
if at all the authors’ own expressed
concerns may relate to truly important issues pertinent to K-12 education.
Please now consider again
Bordman’s article, this time interspersed with my own comments, 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 broader
community.
Often, stakeholders in education forget
that our stunts are also citizens. The
proposed Academic Balance Policy Bill in the Legislature does this and therefore
should not become law.
University of Minnesota School of
Social Work Profs. Ross Velure Roholt and Michael Baizerman write that “young
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.
My Comment >>>>>
Bordman’s characterization of the two
grade 6 students as engaging in civic discourse is overwrought.
I frequently find that students are not
really equipped to have meaningful discourse.
Students who come to me from the Minneapolis Public Schools have learned
or retained little knowledge of the United States Constitution; how legislation is proposed and passed; the specific roles assigned to Senators and
members of the House of Representatives in the United States Congress in proposing,
considering, or passing legislation; or the
comparable roles of members in the two houses of the Minnesota State Legislature. They have little understanding of
constitutional amendments, including the wording of, history behind, or specifics
of positions taken by participants in the current debate regarding, the Second
Amendment. Remember that I follow my
students when they transfer to other school districts, and that I have observed
many school settings. The poor quality
of instruction in history and government is pervasive in the schools of
Minnesota and throughout the United States.
Genuine civic discourse is difficult to
conduct in the absence of information on the pertinent issues and arguments on
both sides of a debate. Should Bordman
prove to have conveyed more genuine knowledge to his students than does the
typical civics teacher, then he should also know that the more abiding
mediocrity of civics instruction is nevertheless the real problem impeding
civil discourse in the classroom setting.
Citizenship cannot in fact be taught; students can only go forth to practice citizenship when they have obtained
the requisite knowledge for informed civic discourse.
Bordman’s referenced quotation from University
of Minnesota School of Social Work Profs. Ross Velure Roholt and Michael
Baizerman that “young 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” strikes me as having the same limited
value as proclamations produced by education professors. The statement is overgeneralized, platitudinous,
and murky. How are students confined to
the margins of citizenship? My reply to
the question would be that marginalization occurs when young people and the
adults that they become are not given the necessary knowledge for civic
participation. The gravest problem is
weak curriculum and teachers of limited knowledge and pedagogical talent, not
whether this particular piece of legislation will be passed by Minnesota
lawmakers.
Bordman continues
>>>>>
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 ,
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.
My Comment
>>>>>
Note the indicated inappropriate rendering
of “leads” where “lead” should have been used with careful writing or editing.
Observe another reference to
lightweight scholarship, this time indeed provided by education professors. There is deep irony in the fact that both
Walter Parker and Diana Hess are professors of social studies, she at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, he at the University of Washington-Seattle. This places them in the pseudo-professional
position that has sent so many ill-prepared social studies teachers forth to
K-12 classrooms. Social studies is a
field invented at mid-20th century in a shift from instruction in
the genuine academic fields of history, government, and economics to lightweight
fare trained on matters of family, neighborhood, and community familiar to the
student’s own experience.
Social studies professors and teachers
have done more to deny students proper preparation for citizenship than the
legislative bill of Bordman’s concern will ever deny if passed. Knowledgeable and creative teachers will find a
way to convey knowledge and encourage discussion. If teachers lack such knowledge or retreat to
positions as “guides” or “facilitators,” as encouraged by education professors,
then passage of the law to limit discussion will not matter.
Bordman continues
>>>>>
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 students. 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.
My Final Comment
Note another [sic] indication. The proper word selection at that point is “altogether,”
meaning “completely,” not “all together,” meaning ”in unison.”
I agree with Bordman
that legislation limiting issues for class discussion is not wise.
But more perilous is
the generally poor to mediocre quality of most social studies instruction, and
curriculum or lack thereof that generally prevails in this course of questionable
provenance; such classes typically fail
to impart strong knowledge sets from the truly important fields of history,
government, and economics.
Journalistic reports
indicate that students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida are
given the benefit of instruction from a teacher who is a specialist in civics, meaning
the fundamentals of United States government and applications for citizenship.
As unwise as the legislation
referenced by Bordman is, the greater lack of wisdom resides in our own timid citizenship for not demanding more such teachers of excellence.
No comments:
Post a Comment