HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, religion and so on… All of these
inevitably involve controversial issues when we try to address anything related
to them. First of all, before going on to the topic of cycle 3, I think I need
to explain some background and atmosphere of education in Korea. I never ever
heard any teachers talking about any issues mentioned above in class especially
sexuality when I was in elementary, middle and high school. Korean society has
been under the influence of philosophy of Confucius for very long time (about
more than 1,000 years according to Korean history) which greatly emphasizes
morality and common code of ethics, and that’s too strong to be broken, even
stronger in educational arena. I remember that my students were so surprised
(they were 11th graders) to hear the definition of “celibacy” a
few years ago. They showed a little jaw-dropping expression on their faces just
hearing the word “sex”. In Korean society, it is believed that schools should
be preserved as a sacred place to convey ideals and dreams to students which
makes teachers hard to deal with open reality. I agree with that, but shouldn’t
schools teach students reality of society where they’re going to live?
Teachers seem to be afraid of talking about controversial issues
in class because they know that other related things should be touched. For
example, as Jonathan Silin says in his article, HIV/AIDS is not just disease when we try
to let students know what that is. “Diseases are constituted through dynamic
interactions of biomedical, economic, psychological, and political factors.”
(Silin, p.245) In other words, if that issue is to be addressed in class, its
related problems should be come out en suite and they could be even more
controversial to say. But now this is 21st century and we’re
living in a globalized world where diversity and pluralism is prevalent. Even
if we cannot accept differences, we need to know there exist differences and
that’s someone’s life.
I believe that teachers need to discuss with students
controversial issues because that’s part of our world that needs our
understanding. We need to know that misconception and misunderstanding cause
unnecessary prejudice against what people think “different” people, and that
leads even to violence as in Matthew Shepard case. So when I listened to the
story of John Byrne’s coming out and his acceptance and understanding by his
students, I was touched so much. How much should we include dealing with the
issue in class? What purpose should we have in mind when addressing the issue?
One thing teachers should keep in mind is that we’re not exploring the
sensational aspect of the issue but knowing why there is difference in people’s
life and what to know about it to understand further. In fact, for me it feels
pretty far way to go in Korea where even mentioning taboo words may be regarded
as taboo. However, through various media and films, a lot of teenagers and
adolescents appear to know much more than adults imagine.
There are already controversial issues open in our society. Then
what should schools do with that? That’s where schools come in when it comes to
addressing the issue in a right way: introduce students how to see and deal
with it. Of course there’s a tricky problem when teaching kids about HIV/AIDS,
sexual orientation and so on because of its multifaceted property. It could be
like teaching students about drug and part of a negative way of life style.
Even though “heteronormativity” is common and constitutes a major curriculum,
we should not ignore the voice of minority because they have the same rights to
be educated and treated as equal. In Korean society, we’ve heard and seen gay
and transgender on TV (but never lesbian so far), but it took so many years to
accept the fact that there are a lot of people who choose to live differently.
I’ve never seen or heard that any of students have gay or lesbian parents so
far. Honestly, I can’t imagine what would happen if that’s open to the public.
While thinking about addressing controversial issues in schools, I kept
thinking about why we feel so uncomfortable about those issues and cling to
“traditional” eyes. We can’t deny that religion might be the core of the issues
and that spreads into political agenda. That’s another long story though. I
think schools should stand in a neutral stance in relation to controversial
issues, which might mean a lot of jobs go to teachers. Now I feel like I need
to find more controversial issues that I should know to understand people
better.
“What should schools teach?” It sounds so simple. But this is the
question I have been asking myself every time I enter the classrooms to meet my
students, some of whom may be anticipating something inspiring or just wanting
to pass another boring time. Since I’m working with high school students who
are spending a myriad of time sitting at desks to prepare for the college
entrance exam (for example, senior students are supposed to be at school at
7:30 in the morning and go home at 10 p.m), Geoff Mulgan’s 2011 TED talk was an
eye-opener to me. Can the idea of “Studio School” be combined with current
educating system in my school? The answer would be a no to me. This is not to
say that Studio School is not an appropriate idea here. It will contrast too
sharply with the current traditional “boring” education practices. Students
will get confused and lost between the two I suppose. I think it cannot stand
in one place because of the extremes of two different concepts, but in separate
settings it would be perfect for students who want to pursue their interests
and needs. Interesting thing is that the idea of Studio School doesn’t seem to
be new or progressive, but it comes from “apprenticeship”, the idea of
Renaissance and Dewey’s “learn by doing” idea. The students of that school do
look happy and engaging. (How envious! Mulgan’s ideal, “What kind of school
would have the teenagers fighting to get in, not fighting to stay out?”,
appears to come true.) It gave me the idea that schools should be the place
where students want to stay and learn something desirable. What should schools
teach? What students want to learn.
While I was reading about “Quest to Learn”, I thought it can be a
hot issue among those who suggest the detrimental effect of video games
especially for children. But there are some opinions about the benefit of
the video game such as Scott Steinberg and Mark Griffiths. Of course the
Quest to Learn explains that children aren’t playing the games just for fun but
designing and building games through discussion. In the article, the children
seem to be so engaging and enthusiastic about making their own games. They do
have interactions, active participation and problem-solving process but it
seems like they don’t have full verbal interactions but only simple reactions –
it’s not fair enough to judge only by the small portion of article though. This
school may give another answer to the question of Cycle 3 – What should schools
teach? 21st-century skills through contemporary media and
technology. I was a bit surprised to know that how clear I have my opinion
about education and curriculum. I thought I’m quite open to every possibility and
diversity of education when it comes to curriculum and method. But I felt slight
resistance to the process and the idea of Video Game School. I may think that
kind of school has a limited possibility of educating well-rounded individuals.
How about E.D. Hirsch? What would he think about this? I imagine that he
would emphasize the balance between “facts” and “skills”. As Hirsch pointed
out, “facts and skills are inseparable” (p.133). He claims that “facts” do not
deaden the minds of young children, but incoherence does. “Nobody remembers
information unless it is embedded in interesting material.” (p.130) In that
perspective, the ideas of Studio Schools and Quest to Learn are not heresy that
traditional value and humanities are neglected, because students should be
learning “facts” by practicing “skills”. The facts are just implicit and hidden
in the process of explicit curriculum. I noted that Hirsch persistently claims
the importance of integrating the contents of the subject. “English
compositions should not be conceived as a skill in isolation from subject
matter.” (p.117) “The greatest human individuality is developed in response to
a tradition, not in response to disorderly, uncertain, and fragmented education.”
(p. 126) According to Hirsch, What should schools teach? The common knowledge
shared with people throughout the history. In Hirsch’s words, “a curriculum
that is traditional in content but diverse in its emphases, that is pluralistic
in its materials and modes of teaching but nonetheless provides our children
with a common core of cultural information”. (pp.126-127)
We’ve heard so often that the world has never been more diverse and
fast-paced (I absolutely agree with that.) and pluralistic than now. But still
I don’t think that the world in the past was simple, slow-changing (maybe so)
and unitary. I believe that the world has shared common traits that human
beings have throughout the history, and that the world has only changed its
clothes named as system and cultural code. It may sound so vast, but I think it
could give significant implications on curriculum and accountability of
schools. It would be impossible to think of perfect way and best curriculum for
individuals. That’s why so many educators and policy makers have been trying to
figure out the best of “what” and “how”. Greenwalt suggests that “we might now
be entering a time where the pendulum of American education starts to swing
back away from mass standardization”. Reflecting on the history of education
policy, and that sounds so right; swinging back and forth between formalism and
realism, traditional value and contemporary one, and so on. I think schools
teach that and provide with both views so that students can have balanced
learning and choose what they want. There comes the important role of
accountability system, because it will make it possible to give consistency and
stability on implementing curriculum. That might be the trickiest part to stay
balanced continuously. It was interesting to know that teachers of untested
subjects such as music or fine arts are not considered as “real” teachers same
as in Korea. (We usually call them teachers of “outside curriculum”. It is
unofficial and unfair of course.) What should schools teach? I conclude that what we want and need and what the world we belong to needs.
Reference sites:
The Young Foundation by Geoff Mulgan
Quest to Learn - Institute of Play
A Brief History of Education in America (PDF)
