Susan Graseck
Senior Fellow, Watson Institute;
Director, Choices for the 21st Century Education Program
Main |
Interview |
Biography
Interview
Page 2
(OH)
Have any of the teachers ever met resistance to bringing
this curriculum into the classroom, either from school districts or
parents?
(SG)
It’s an interesting question, but let me back up for
a minute, because that may help to answer it.
We work very hard at developing curriculum materials that are balanced, that
present a wide range of views without biasing any one of them. We pull the
topic in multiple
directions
so that it’s not just a discussion along political lines. At the heart
of all of our curriculum units is a framework of policy options, or choices.
In our current issue units these are intentionally driven by different underlying
values, but by values we all can recognize. For example, I believe in democracy;
I also believe in self-determination. So where do I come out when we start
to talk about exporting democracy? I have to wrestle with that.
We don’t want to avoid the controversy. In fact we want to pull kids
into it, engage them in exploration of multiple perspectives, whether they
are dealing with a current issue or analyzing a historical turning point from
the perspective of those who lived it. We want them to find that they have
to wrestle not only with the views of others but also with their own internal
conflicts on the subject. In addition to the policy options in our units, we
also
provide
carefully crafted background readings and lesson plans that together provide
the content students will need when they address the options. Thus when we’re
raising controversial issues in a classroom—and there are a lot of teachers
who want to be doing this—we’re seeking balance and providing content
while trying to maintain all of the controversy. The idea is to make sure there
is room for everybody. There’s no student sitting there in class and
thinking there’s one right answer to this. No kid should feel that way.
They should feel that this about analyzing multiple perspectives in light of
solid information, and wrestling with competing values in order to sort out
what they think.
So, to ask the question, are there teachers who run into trouble doing this:
I’m sure there are some, because not all school administrators are going
to understand or approve of the purpose or the method. But for the most part,
people have really welcomed both our approach and our materials as a way to
bring this kind of controversy to the classroom in a responsible way, drawing
on scholarship, connecting to values and making room for all points of view
in the dialogue.
We talk about deliberation rather than debate—particularly when dealing
with contested current issues—but we apply this same approach to putting
students into a turning point in
history.
Debate is about winning and losing. Deliberation is about listening and building.
You have some values that matter to you; I have some that matter to me. It’s
not a question of whether you win or I win; it’s a question of how we
can learn from each other, respect differing views (as long as they are well
thought through) and move our thinking forward. Because some of the things
you value, I value too. Let’s help you to clarify what you think, me
to clarify what I think, and let’s find common ground to move forward
together. That’s our purpose.
(OH)
And the students enjoy the curriculum?
(SG)
Yes. The curriculum has very content-rich material
but it’s designed to be student-centered. Kids want to
be involved in it. They get excited about the issues. And they’re
still talking about it when they head to the lunchroom. In high
school that’s very good. Every student is someone who should
be engaged in these issues, and a lot should be expected of them.
Because after all, every one of these students is a candidate
for citizenship; every one of them is going to need to be involved
with these issues over the course of a lifetime. If we are going
to have a democracy that works, it takes everybody.
Read More »
Page
1 | 2 |
3 |
4
