Freedom of speech: Should teachers be "neutral"?

Can teachers take stands on issues, or should they remain "neutral?" Should teachers lose their right to freedom of speech when they walk into a school building? Check out this short news article from teachermagazine.org and see what you think:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom.

The case was notable because it led to a fairly broad ruling by a federal appeals court that teachers have virtually no First Amendment protection for statements made in the classroom, even on a topic of such public importance as the war.

Deborah A. Mayer was a first-year teacher in the 11,000-student Monroe County, Ind., school district in January 2003 when she used an edition of TIME for Kids in a current-events discussion about the then-impending war.

According to court papers, the magazine reported on a peace march in Washington to protest the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Ms. Mayer was asked by a student in her multiage classroom of 3rd through 6th graders if she would ever participate in such a peace demonstration. She told them that when she had driven by recent peace marches in Bloomington, Ind., related to the Iraq situation, she had honked her horn in response to a sign that said, “Honk for Peace.”

“And then I went on to say that I thought it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war, and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems,” Ms. Mayer said in a deposition in the case.

Some parents complained to the principal about the brief discussion, and the principal barred Ms. Mayer from discussing “peace” in her classroom, according to court papers. The principal also canceled the school’s traditional “peace month.”

“We absolutely do not, as a school, promote any particular view on foreign policy related to the situation with Iraq,” Principal Victoria Rogers said in a memo to school personnel at the time. “That is not our business.”

The school district decided in April 2003 not to renew Ms. Mayer’s contract for the next school year. The teacher alleged that it was because of her comments on Iraq, and she sued the district on First Amendment and related grounds.

A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis granted summary judgment last year to the school district. In a Jan. 24 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, ruled unanimously for the district as well.

“The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system,” the appeals court said.

What do you think? Should teachers have the right to express their opinions in classroom discussions? Should freedom of speech for teachers be regulated? Where should we draw the line?

Discussing Gay and Lesbian Issues in the Elementary Classroom (revisited)

Hi everybody,

I'm bumping this post from Anna up because it kind of got buried amid some other topics, and I'm hoping that some of you have more to say on this issue -- especially after reading the two pieces from Rethinking Our Classrooms. Anna raises some interesting points and a few important questions as well. See what you think, then weigh in.

Anna said:

I think that the two articles we read from the "Rethinking Our Classrooms" book for this upcoming class meeting were quite interesting. They both brought up some really interesting issues regarding gay and lesbian education, particularly for elementary school teachers, and gave some really good tips on how to discuss these issues in the elementary school classroom.

For starters, I definitely agree that, like Mary Cowhey said, "When schools do get involved in promoting gay-straight alliances and so forth, it is usually at the secondary level" (173). In my own experience, I don't think that discussion about gay and lesbian rights and issues began until late middle school; and gay-straight clubs and groups were definitely not part of extracurricular activities until high school. I wonder why that is, though. I never gave it much thought until reading these two articles, but it definitely seems like although children are beginning to use hurtful words relating to gays and lesbians, like "faggot" or "dyke," at an early age (Gordon claimed even by 1st grade students are using these words to be hurtful towards one another!) the issue is not being addressed until much later in their schooling.

I think that part of the problem might be that we as educators are ourselves still a bit uncomfortable with the issues regarding gays and lesbians. I don't think that there is much of an emphasis in our preparation within the Education program that shows us how to deal with gay and lesbian issues as much as with issues of racism and intolerance. As the articles reveal, however, the issues of anti-gay language and behavior in the classroom are just as much issues of intolerance as anything else that we discuss in the classroom. This is where the other part of the reason comes in ...

Another part of the reason is that parents are also uncomfortable, especially at the elementary school level. I genuinely think that if homosexuality was discussed in the elementary classroom much like issues of antisemitism, racism, womens' rights, etc., there would be a number of parents who would be outraged. Even if the problem of children calling one another "faggot" was dealt with in the proper, educational way, much like Gordon suggested, I don't think that parents would be too pleased. I think that our society is still too deeply rooted in thinking that being gay or lesbian is "wrong" and "taboo." Therefore, until our society accepts being homosexual as just another way of life, then I don't think that we will be seeing these issues discussed as much as other issues of intolerance.

What I wonder is - -
If we are to teach about gay and lesbian issues in the elementary school classroom, when do we do it? Do we make it part of our tolerance curriculum like any other issue, or do we wait until it shows up in our own classroom by a student calling another student an anti-gay or lesbian term that is intended to be hurtful?

(If you want to read a few responses that have already been posted on this topic, scroll down to Anna's original post below.)

Does Zinn matter?

We've spent quite a bit of time so far this semester with Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (that's him to the right). So I'm wondering: Do you think Zinn is relevant for elementary teachers? Is there anything -- in terms of his approach to history, the content of the chapters you've read, the voices that are heard in his text -- that will be useful for you as a teacher of social studies? Even if you wouldn't use A People's History with your students, has it taught you anything worthwhile? Or do you think the class time we've spent on Zinn would have been better utilized reading about/discussing methods or strategies that are specifically geared for elementary teachers?

Whatever your opinion, be honest. Don't just say what you think I want to hear.

The world in which you were born...

What, if anything, does the quote on this poster have to do with teaching -- and teaching social studies in particular?

Teaching Values in the Classroom

As the Wolk article states, there is much controversy in teaching values in the classroom. This is a concept that I have many mixed feelings about. I believe that many values should be instilled in the home. Parents have their own values and beliefs; it is their right to pass these on to their children. Furthermore, parents may have beliefs that contradict those of the classroom teacher. In teaching contradictory values, the teacher is inadvertently telling the child that his or her parents are "wrong." This can be very confusing for the child and may also introduce feelings of discomfort in the child.

My uncertainty comes about when a child is making decisions that are considered "poor" in a school setting. For instance, if a child is showing signs of violence or gang relations, schools often intervene in order to try and place the child on a different path. However, what happens if the child has parents who are in a gang? By interfering with the child, he is also being told to go against his parents' values. While it is obvious from a teacher's perspective that gang involvement is wrong, who are we to judge? I'd be interesting in hearing other people's perspectives on this subject matter.

"One nation under God"

Our Pledge of Allegiance states: "One nation under God;" and "In God we trust" is printed on our currency. Removing these phrases has long been debated. I am interested in what types of questions and discussions will follow this vision:

“Foundations can’t be moved, without destroying ability. If the foundation of this building we’re in right now were removed, what would happen to the building? It would collapse. Now you can move the building and put it on another foundation, but that foundation…it’s there, because foundations are secure. Because this nation we know what the foundation is. It’s all over the constitution; it’s all over the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial. It’s written throughout history. Regardless of what the politicians believe, regardless of what you and I attest to, treat this truth; the founding fathers built it on the truth of the word of God. Everything about the laws of this land were taken from the scripture of the Old Testament. They were right from the Old Testament books of the law. And so, you can’t move away from that foundation without destroying the nation. And so this whole debate and argument over what’s truth and what’s not truth, the only truth I found of this nation is we left a country of tyranny, for religious freedom to worship." -Sonic Flood

In response to the reading, do you believe these phrases should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance and/or our currency?

Columbus Day

As Columbus day approaches, many teachers are beginning to teach a little bit on the explorer. I wanted to see how teachers are currently teaching this subject and if you agree with the way it is taught or disagree. I know that my teacher is going to shed a little light on this topic and mention moreso the voyage and who Christopher Columbus was. I am in a first grade classroom and I thought that the way my teacher was going about this topic was just right for this age. She was going to focus on how long the trip was and what kind of ship he traveled with. She was also going to talk about explorers and other famous ones in the United States. She felt that it was important to talk about who he was since we do have a day just for him. I wanted to see how other teachers were going to portray this man and the whole topic of Columbus.

Discussing Gay & Lesbian Issues in the Elementary School

I think that the two articles we read from the "Rethinking Our Classrooms" book for this upcoming class meeting were quite interesting. They both brought up some really interesting issues regarding gay and lesbian education, particularly for elementary school teachers, and gave some really good tips on how to discuss these issues in the elementary school classroom.

For starters, I definitely agree that, like Mary Cowhey said, "When schools do get involved in promoting gay-straight alliances and so forth, it is usually at the secondary level" (173). In my own experience, I don't think that discussion about gay and lesbian rights and issues began until late middle school; and gay-straight clubs and groups were definitely not part of extracurricular activities until high school. I wonder why that is, though. I never gave it much thought until reading these two articles, but it definitely seems like although children are beginning to use hurtful words relating to gays and lesbians, like "faggot" or "dyke," at an early age (Gordon claimed even by 1st grade students are using these words to be hurtful towards one another!) the issue is not being addressed until much later in their schooling.

I think that part of the problem might be that we as educators are ourselves still a bit uncomfortable with the issues regarding gays and lesbians. I don't think that there is much of an emphasis in our preparation within the Education program that shows us how to deal with gay and lesbian issues as much as with issues of racism and intolerance. As the articles reveal, however, the issues of anti-gay language and behavior in the classroom are just as much issues of intolerance as anything else that we discuss in the classroom. This is where the other part of the reason comes in ...

Another part of the reason is that parents are also uncomfortable, especially at the elementary school level. I genuinely think that if homosexuality was discussed in the elementary classroom much like issues of antisemitism, racism, womens' rights, etc., there would be a number of parents who would be outraged. Even if the problem of children calling one another "faggot" was dealt with in the proper, educational way, much like Gordon suggested, I don't think that parents would be too pleased. I think that our society is still too deeply rooted in thinking that being gay or lesbian is "wrong" and "taboo." Therefore, until our society accepts being homosexual as just another way of life, then I don't think that we will be seeing these issues discussed as much as other issues of intolerance.

What I wonder is - -
If we are to teach about gay and lesbian issues in the elementary school classroom, when do we do it? Do we make it part of our tolerance curriculum like any other issue, or do we wait until it shows up in our own classroom by a student calling another student an anti-gay or lesbian term that is intended to be hurtful?

Promising Practices

On the first day of class, we talked about 15 "promising practices" for teaching social studies. They're described in some detail in the first document of your course pack. Are you seeing some of these teaching practices enacted by your mentor teacher (or by you, if you've taught a social studies lesson)? If so, can you share what you've seen? What are some examples of good social studies teaching that you see happening in your classroom?

Scary Columbus

I've been thinking about the discussions we had in class (both in Elgin and Wheeling) about the possibility of using the book Encounter, by Jane Yolen, with primary-aged kids as a way to enter into a discussion about Columbus. Some of you said you would consider using it, but many said you thought it would be more appropriate for older students -- 4th or 5th grade at least. One of the reasons that was given was that the illustrations (like the one of Columbus lusting after a piece of gold, above) were too intense and might scare small children.

That got me thinking: What about all the scary characters in Disney movies that are targeted for young children? There's almost always a villain, and whoever the villain is, he/she is typically depicted in pretty frightening ways. Yet we don't seem to feel conflicted about taking 6 or 7 year-olds to see these movies.

So why is Encounter different? Are we really concerned that it might scare kids any more than the average Disney film does? Or is the real issue that we feel a tinge of guilt about presenting the "hero" Columbus in less than flattering terms?

2 views on Chief Illiniwek

The Indian mascot issue seems to have struck a nerve with several people, so I thought you might be interested in reading an article ("3rd-grade lesson: Illiniwek has to go") I wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times about Chief Illiniwek in 2001. Also, if you'd like to read a response to my article written by Roger Ebert (yes, that Roger Ebert -- he's an alum of U of I), click here.

Native Americans as mascots

Our class had a great discussion about how being called an Indian as a team mascot seems to be degrading to Native Americans--that this is going too far. A question came up while I was thinking more about the discussion we had in class. I want to know your opinions to this question. Do teams choose minority groups as their mascots as their way of recognizing minorities? Is it a way for the majority to let minorities know they acknowledge them and "accept" who they are?
In my opinion, my answer to this is a surprising yes! It's no fun for your team to be named after your own ethnic group. What's the fun in that? By calling a team the Indians, that team is acknowledging this group of people. They are silently suggesting they want to be and act like Indians. Come to think of it, all teams have mascots named after strong or fast animals. I think I just changed my answer! Do teams name themselves Indians, perceiving Indians as animals? There are no other ethnic group mascots except for the Indians, right? I am ashamed to think that Indians are seen as animals like the rest of all the mascots.