Ann Podlipny of Chester is a retired teacher and social worker. She was a participant in the recent My Turn opinion writing workshop, a partnership between the Monitor, GSNC and NH Humanities.
During the 1950s when the baby boomer generation attended school, parents remained mostly on the sidelines. Our curriculum focused on core subjects: reading, writing, math, science and history. Fine arts were taught weekly, not daily, and guidance counselors helped us to behave properly and head toward college.
Sixty years later the “divisive concepts” bill prohibiting the teaching that one race or ethnic group is inherently inferior or superior to another has garnered parental support among conservative and religious organizations seeking to protect students from feelings of shame, discomfort and emotional distress. Books, too, have come under parental scrutiny as they appear to pose a threat to the standard historical narrative of American benevolence and exceptionalism.
Understandably, parents alarmed by the material they deem upsetting or inappropriate want more involvement in their children’s education. But an underlying question remains — from what threat in the core curriculum do they feel the need to protect their children?
A possible answer lies in Erik Erikson’s theory of healthy development. He proposes that in adolescence (11-19 years) youth are in an existential crisis trying to define who they are and who they will become. Their desire to become an individual often puts them in conflict with adult advice and expectations. Some parents encourage this journey of self-discovery as it leads to autonomy and independence. In short, to explore the world, to learn the hard facts of life is to learn how to fulfill responsibilities and increase sound judgment.
To other parents, identity is less a going forth than a staying put, a deepening of traditional family values. In this more insular domain exploration seems like abandonment or betrayal of cultural and religious beliefs. Perhaps, these contrasting views reflect a difference in degree of parental trust regarding teachers and students.
Take the following example. At one memorable town meeting I attended, a college history major and future social science teacher spoke about the need to teach facts so that students could form their own opinions. He described a typical history lesson about the “discovery” of America by Christopher Columbus, the same I was taught years ago.
No primary sources were referenced nor were Columbus’s character or savage actions ever mentioned. History was taught through the eyes of the colonizer, filled with Indian savages attacking defenseless settlers. Once this young man learned the facts, he felt betrayed. Out of respect for students, he emphasized, he desired facts so that they could make up their own minds.
Trusting teachers who are trained professionals to be inclusive, and to teach facts that represent diverse viewpoints would appear a natural counterpoint to parents who wish to protect children by controlling the curriculum and intruding upon the academic, social, and emotional life of the child.
Teachers can introduce broad perspectives, involving facts and ideas surrounding age-old debates between creationism and evolution, address the existential questions illustrated in literary, philosophical, and historical works, and even argue the facts of scientific advances as being both powerfully life-saving and potentially destructive to a healthy planet.
It’s up to students to interpret the facts and seek the truth. If not, they might just get bored. As my 5-year-old grandson remarked when I congratulated him on his new year in kindergarten, “I had school last year, I did it already so I don’t need to go back.”
He, like many other learners, is a little Huck Finn, eagerly embarked on an academic odyssey. Hopefully, he can take the helm and return safely with newfound knowledge and security.