Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Controversy Allowed! On Getting Kicked Out of a Middle School
For twenty-five years I’ve been a humane educator, someone who teaches about the interconnected issues of human rights, environmental preservation, and animal protection and encourages positive choicemaking and changemaking for a better world. These days, through my work at the Institute for Humane Education, I train others to be humane educators who can integrate critical global issues into their curricula and teaching, but periodically I still visit schools and give talks or teach classes.
I was invited to give presentations at two middle school assembly programs in New Hampshire, followed by an evening community talk, based on my book, Most Good, Least Harm, which explores ways in which we can each make choices in our lives that do the most good and the least harm to ourselves, other people, other species, and the environment. I was a little worried about maintaining the interest of one hundred and fifty 6-8th graders in a hot gym for the two hours I was scheduled to speak, but I was not worried about my subject matter. I’ve taught thousands of middle schoolers, and I’m pretty good at making sure my talks are age-appropriate, relevant, and interesting.
So I was relieved when I was able to keep the kids’ interest for the duration and make the talk lively while still being able to maintain some proverbial order. I thought it went well. So did the teacher who’d invited me who was thrilled by the response of the enthusiastic and fully engaged students. Imagine our surprise when ten minutes after the presentation we found out that the second one was canceled. The principal – who’d come in a few times during my presentation but wasn’t able to attend the entire talk – felt it was too political and called ahead to stop me from speaking at any other school that day.
I asked to speak to him to find out what aspects of my talk he thought were too political. He could barely make eye contact with me. He was so anxious and upset. He told me that there were some words I used that were political, such as “war,” “healthcare” and “illegal immigrants.” While he admitted that I didn’t discuss current wars and the politics of them; health care reform or the various opinions about it, or the debates over how to handle illegal immigration, the very mention of these words was, he felt, too political. He worried that the kids would go home and share things from the assembly (whether accurately relayed or not) that would anger some parents.
It’s worth sharing the context of these so-called “political” words. I had begun the presentation by asking the students what they thought were the biggest problems in the world. One boy said “war.” I agreed with him that this was, indeed, a problem, and commented that we hadn’t yet learned to solve our conflicts without violence. The words “healthcare” and “illegal immigrants” came up in the context of a critical thinking exercise in which we analyzed the true price of two everyday items, a conventional cotton T-shirt and a fast food cheeseburger. I’d asked the students what the positive and negative effects were of these items on ourselves as consumers, on other people, on animals, and on the environment. I also asked what systems were in place that perpetuated these items; what alternatives might do more good and less harm, and what systems would need to change to make such alternatives ubiquitous. “Healthcare” came up because of the high healthcare costs associated with unhealthy diets, and “illegal immigrants” came up because so many are employed in slaughterhouses, considered the most dangerous work in the U.S. (Frankly, the points I made could just as easily come out of the mouth of a tea party activist angry that “illegals” were taking citizens’ jobs and then being treated for their injuries in expensive emergency rooms where they were unlikely to be able to pay the bills, resulting in a tax burden on Americans. But I digress.)
The main points of my talk had nothing to do with these “political” words. The take-home message included four key points:
1. Make connections about your choices and their effects
2. Model your message [a quote from Mahatma Gandhi] and work to change systems you don’t believe are right or good
3. Take responsibility for your actions
4. Pursue joy by helping others
The principal, softening a bit during our thirty minute discussion, said he appreciated the value of this message, but he was visibly terrified of the backlash he might receive. He also warned me that I could expect enraged parents at my community talk that night, and he said he was worried about me (I was not worried).
I recommended that he talk to each class and assess what they learned from my talk, so he spent the afternoon visiting each classroom to ascertain what the students took away from the presentation (and perhaps to undo any damage I had caused while having some base to cover himself if he got angry phone calls the next day). I was happy to hear that each class was able to accurately articulate the key points above.
No angry parents came to my community talk later that evening, just eager and enthusiastic ones thankful for the opportunity their children had had to think about the consequences of their lives and choices and their capacities to take responsibility for making a positive difference in the world. And no parents called the principal in the ensuing days to complain.
Was my talk political? Only if by political we mean that it ultimately had relevance to governance. It was certainly not partisan, and it’s preposterous (and worrisome) to suggest that words like “war,” “healthcare,” and “illegal immigrants” cannot be uttered in schools. What that implies about the learning that is permitted in school is frighteningly 1984-esque.
Was my talk controversial? It shouldn’t have been, but even if some thought it was, we should welcome controversial topics in school. What better place to grapple with differing ideas? If students cannot uncover and discover truths in school and explore systems in an effort to become not only better educated about the realities behind our choices but also gain the power to be conscientious choicemakers and future changemakers through their careers and professions, then what are we hoping to achieve through schooling? Questioning, thinking critically, assessing systems to ensure they are just and humane are deeply American values, built into this country’s DNA. Only in a totalitarian state would my talk have been too dangerous; it certainly shouldn’t have elicited fear in the U.S.
I do not blame this principal, though. He faces stresses and challenges in his job that I not only don’t know about, but can only imagine make his work as an educational leader difficult. We live in an educational climate that is terrified of controversy, making schooling blander with each passing year, and depriving our children of the critical and creative thinking skills they need to face a challenging and uncertain future. Despite all the evidence that shows that discussing controversial issues in school leads to greater educational achievement, skill, and learning, we shy away from the issues that may be most important and relevant to our children’s future.
Getting kicked out of a middle school raises a fundamental question, perhaps the most important question we can be asking at this point in history: What is schooling for? The prevailing view is that schooling’s purpose is essentially to provide students with verbal, mathematical, and scientific literacy so that they can find jobs and compete in the global economy. But in the face of grave global challenges, from climate change and species extinction to a growing population that lacks access to clean water and food to inequities and conflicts to a looming energy crisis to institutionalized cruelty and brutality toward both people and animals, it’s myopic to cling to such a meager educational goal as the ability to compete in the global economy.
It’s my belief that the purpose of schooling ought to be to provide all students with the knowledge, tools, and motivation to be solutionaries for a restored, healthy, and just world, and this is why I’m a humane educator. I believe our students need to be critical and creative thinkers who can solve global challenges with innovation, common sense, and a humane ethic. An inability to assess information critically and creatively, especially in an Internet age of massive information and misinformation, leads to an inability to participate honestly and realistically in a democracy and within complex systems.
Yes, such education would mean that students might question their parents’ beliefs. Yes, it means they might question their teachers. Yes, it means they might question entrenched institutions and systems, including economic, agricultural, energy, transportation, production, defense, and political systems. For some this is very dangerous. I, however, believe we should wholeheartedly welcome such questioning. Perhaps our children might then discover ways to ensure that these systems are just, peaceful, restorative, healthy, and humane for all.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
91 Comments so far
Show AllEducation, among other things, is training to enable thinking....or, more precisely, training to activate critical discovery.....if one is unable to critically
analyze matters, whether political, scientific, and so on, then one might as well
amputate one's brain.....it is moot, useless, and void....
If the educators, politicians, and so on refuse to apply critical thinking to the issues at hand, they should be banned from their positions...
If the leaders of society are unwilling to condemn blatant corruption or amorality, from their lofty perches, then society is condemned to atrophy and disintegration, I claim.....
They are phonies who are incapable of ''leading by example'' and have assumed positions of responsibility without actually being responsible.....
"phonies who are incapable of 'leading by example' and have assumed positions of responsibility without actually being responsible....."
There's a lot of that going around.
The "I'm not responsible god told me to do it and/or Satan made me do it, but I'm not responsible" is the false doctrines of the pretend christians adopted by politicians, businesses and people which gives "I'm not responsible.." legitimacy.The religionists use this doctrine to recruit new fools, suckers, for contributions. This is the appeal used to recruit new suckers for the harlot preachers in their towers of babble, churches. It provides a seemingly institutionalized, legitimate way to not be responsible.
I went to a catholic school where I was taught that birth control and abortion were a serious sin, without exception, such as to save a woman's life. That was something I learned,( not reasoned,) through fallible, celibate teachers who were taught by fallible, celibate clergy. However my own experience and the experiences of others taught me that this was deadly wrong and the antithesis of the Gospel Message. High School students are not taught the realities of pros and cons of such controversial topics as abortion/antiabortion; war/peace; social safety net/ survival of the fittest; ect.They are taught to accept the theories of ancient dead religious fallible leaders. Adults do not discuss such topics at length afraid of offending someone's religious convictions. Therefore the positive and negative aspects of the issues never get debated to reach common ground for political unity and a better America.
One or another of those southern states was reported recently as attempting to pass a law making it illegal to even use the word "gay" in school, or mention anything at all about homosexuality except that it's bad bad bad.
GENIE: Of they get "debated" long after the indoctrination process has had a chance to set in.
BOGI: You make very valid points.
Good thing the dreaded "homosexuality" didn't come up.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/tennessee_senate_dont_say_gay_20110521/
Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/
Actually, your talk besides being what I wish I had heard in my school years, could be used as a hiring 'indicator'. Give the talk to a school and have someone check the principals reactions and them being recorded so as to lessen any ambiguity on his skills and demeanor as to handling kids and parents not comfortable with discussions such as you scheduled and gave. I sure hope you were able to give more of those discussions that the principal warned others to deny you your chance.
Closed minds are a severe problem.
Zoe, would you ask your students to define what makes a person a conservative and what makes one a liberal?
I tend to avoid "either/ors" and labels so I wouldn't ask students to define these terms, beyond reading and investigating how they're defined within our culture and by the dictionary if they were inclined to do so. I would much prefer students explore ideas for how to solve systemic problems, assess many perspectives, collaborate on new ways of thinking and acting, and so on. I personally think that these labels keep us from working together on practical and innovative ideas for positive change that benefits all. I feel this way about most labels.
At least within my dangerous mind, children go to school because they're going to be trained to be the boss. The PBS ad, "This belongs to you" should be more subversive than PBS thinks (or wants). Children should be trained to take over their own governments and to start companies.
Children should be trained to work together. They need consensus process skills. The school therapist should be on top of school bullying. The children don't need to chase easy "A"s by taking gut courses or by cheating on tests.
Children should learn about sexuality the honest way. Teach them. Then teach them relational skills early so that 50% of them don't get divorced someday.
If you want to raise inventors to stop and reverse climate change, start the children off on the right foot. A ballet dancer or a ball player starts at the tender age of 3 or 4 these days.
I could always say what's wrong with schools, but I'd rather say what should be right about schools.
Paul K:
"I could always say what's wrong with schools, but I'd rather say what should be right about schools."
Well-said. Perhaps I could have used that as a shorter response to Elizabeth H on the first page of this thread.
...students might question their parents’ beliefs.
It is prudent for Everyman to question inherited beliefs.
But if you're too little a kid, they get really mad at you for questioning their beliefs. When I was young, they'd hit you. Or take away a privilege, or give a "time out,"
Obedience trumps prudence all too often in that part of life. By the time most people have grown, they've lost the ability to see that there might even be a problem with inherited beliefs.
Paranoid: Your concluding statement is HUGELY important, and explains why so many end up under authoritarian control. From childhood, they are punished when they question "The Rules," or many standard, established beliefs, starting (for most) with religion.
The rebel has always been a problem for society. The church had all sorts of torture tactics it was eager to use when persons refused to conform to its strict, strident rules. Women, who had so few freedoms, if known to buck, or so much as question these deleterious mores, were quickly persecuted. Little more than the allegation of witchcraft, which essentially came down to challenging the patriarchal authorities of that limited time period, was required.
Behaviors are conditioned into people. Those of us who still managed to retain open minds and the courage to challenge official voices are the few that were able to fly over the cuckoo's nest. Because that came naturally to us, while others fought to gain that mental independence, some in the forum are impatient with the "sheep" who lag behind, those who continue to follow their masters' bidding even when the lies are blazing before them, inclusive of body counts and all. Truly they remain programmed, unable to shake off the shackles that have been with them virtually since birth.
The evolution of the human spirit is a long work in progress. Ask the Grand Canyon, if you wish for perspective on that "time" thing. (If you listen closely, the answer will come on the wind.)
That would ferret out the abusive parents if the took it out on the kids by hitting them or punishing them in severe ways.
It was amazing this year, when I was talking to my homeroom of 8th graders about different topics, political and otherwise, one of the students added that you can't challenge the government, so why even try. He said that you will not find the conversation we were having in a lot of classrooms because the government doesn't want us to know what is going on and they will do what they can to make sure that it is doesn't happen.
This isn't the first time I've heard this form of crippling pessimism and cynicism from the kids. Critical dialogue has been effectively chilled with some of our youth, at our schools, etc (if hadn't been already for many years). And it is only going to get worse. My district, Los Angeles Unified, is marching forward with an Value-added model program. To placate critics, they claim that it will only be a "fractional" evaluative measure of 30%, but who are we kidding--teaching to the test will be 100% of the year, and 0% for critical thinking.
This is a big loss. So, for English class, for example, I cannot have the kids spend a month in the computer lab creating an interdisciplinary "solutionary" documentary response to the C-SPAN "studentcam" contest prompt offered to middle and high school students, which typically asks the kids to solve a governmental problem in the U.S. Nor could I deviate from the curriculum in U.S. History for a couple of weeks and have the kids critically analyze the Current Events section in the back of their history textbooks (copyright 2004) that claims that the U.S. achieved a "victory" in the Iraq war, celebrated with a picture of Bush shaking hands with Blair, and that International terrorism first originated at the '72 Olympics when the Palestinians attacked Israeli athletes. We could spend a week alone watching Pilger's "Stealing a Nation." And then, at the end of the that, I could ask the kids if they think the U.S. should be included chronologically first on the timeline before the Palestinians, Russians (in Chechnya), etc.
I have mentioned these examples before, but I will never tire of it as I think they're invaluable to giving some concrete examples behind the oft-mentioned term "critical thinking," specifically the latter.
I appreciate what Zoe is doing. I just wish there was a lot more intellectual freedom in the classroom, to do what she is doing. Most of the kids seem to really respect it when you challenge them with more intellectual matters, such as showing them the Madeline Albright interview, when she is asked if sanctions on Iraq are worth it if it means that 500,000 children are eliminated. And she says 'yes,' and then you look at her family history of being victimized by the Nazis--there are so many places you could go with this.
I had one former 6th grader of mine come up to me this year and say, Hey, did you hear that they got Osama bin Laden. When you elevate the discourse with the kids they seem to really respond and respect it and thus take their studies of the humanities a little more seriously. But who is going to take the risk to work with the kids like this? One colleague of mine said that she did not want to do a persuasive project around the "military" because it was too controversial of a topic, because some of the kids have family members in the military. So we ended up doing college brochures. Our district dispatched consultant supported the college brochure idea, and steered it towards her preference. Sure, encourage the kids to go to university/college, but what about critiquing capitalism or the MIC, something a little more substantive, comprehensive, and elevated (I always have a tough time articulating--or coming up with the right words as to-- how critiquing the MIC is more important to 8th grades than, say, creating making persuasive college brochures.)
Anyway, just rambling on.
Thank you, Zoe!
duplicate
I know it is pessimistic and cynical but it is uplifting to know kids that young know reality when they see it. Maybe these kids you have talked to and with will be the future that turns this secretive government off and gets things rolling. But that one thing about the reality is that when you know of a problem, looking at it and seeing it for what it is is the best way to do something about it.
I can remember as a poor student in college in a political class, the whole thing was so boring and from what I remember just a rehash from most of the histories in high school. The teacher always seem afraid and, will, it was a class that I wish I had the motivation to participate in at the time.
I bought Howard Zinn's 'The People's History of the United States' a while back and have read about a 1/3rd of it and am absolutely amazed as to what Zinn presents versus what any history class taught in my middle, high school and college years. What is going on now is something that has been going on since columbus landed when he came to shore he said did not say to the Indians 'Hi there, how are you doing? Beautiful day isn't it?' about the first thing he said was 'Where's the gold?'. And the slaughter and enslavement began.
Another cutie I found out was the roman catholic's 'doctrine of discover'. What and arrogant insidious piece of skullduggery. It is just as bad as the current neoconservative's 'project of the new american century'.
http://www.danielnpaul.com/DoctrineOfDiscovery.html
Anyway, I have read enough to make me keep my eyes and ears open and to look and listen anything said by 'authority' with a skepticism on needing more than an average amount of verifiable proof for truth.
All in all, as I said, these young people recognizing a problem and the people involved with it is a start and hopefully they won't just go sit down and forget about is and go shopping.
Oh my gosh, thank YOU for teaching! I wish I'd had you as a teacher, and I'm very glad you are doing whatever you can, despite the obstacles, to help your students think, discover, and solve problems. It's inspiring just reading this. Zoe
MRI brain studies show conclusively that the brains of "conservatives" are diminished in regions that deal with complexity, while their fear centers are greatly amplified. These medical MRI results are supported by previous psychological studies of conservatives.
Does this medical condition cause the conservative mindset? Or does the conservative mindset cause the medical condition?
Really interesting question. The MRI results are most often interpreted as proof of a condition, although there is no reason this should be so. If while imaging the brain the subject is given a pleasant sensation, such as stroking something soft, changes in the image occur. This very simple fact puts into question the assumption that the MRI is recording a sort of configuration of the brain that could constitue a condition. Instead, it could well be imaging the way the brain has altered in response to thoughts, feelings, and experiences.
There is too much fear of angering parents, I agree with that.
I was bullied as a child, bullied terribly for years because of my orientation. Enough so that I now speak about it in middle and high schools. Sadly, my life story needs parental approval.
And so the kids who need to hear the message most are the ones excused to the library for the hour. I can't reach the bullies, but I can try to reach the others and convince them they need to stand up to the bullies. It's the way I have to do it, so we don't anger the parents.
SteveS - thank you for doing this work. It matters. Zoe
*Comment deleted by site administrators as spam: identical, repetitive comments posted on multiple articles*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
*Comment deleted by site administrators as spam: identical, repetitive comments posted on multiple articles*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
MINI: I'm pressed for time right now. So, in response to your inspired posts, two quick comments on that "empathy thing":
1. The power of P.R. in support of...
2. The need for the MIC to retain ownership of the Make-War State.
The purpose of 'education' is to develop critical thinking. Too often the purpose of public 'schooling' is to provide jobs - not only for teachers, but administrators, etc. This is especially true at the private college level which operates as a big business. Check out the salaries of college presidents.
For many, college is a 4-year-long keg party. A prestigious Vermont college has an annual 'dress-to-get-laid' night. Not too sure how that benefits education, OR respect for the other gender. A couple of days ago, an 18 year old student there was found dead on campus. The cause has not been released.
Home schooling might be the best way to protect children from the military propaganda common in most USA schools.
It seems that an overhaul of most lesson plans is in order....
Huge reform.....starting with the purpose of education....
the prevailing standard, is that education is training....
or worker-bee training for ever-submissive robot-slaves/servants....the words
slave-servant are closely related.....
Why develop technology? to reduce toil...
.that's it....
Why are general un-employment statisics mounting exponentially?
The answer, of course, is technology......
As K.Gibran observed....we invent machines to be our slaves, and then we in turn become slaves to the machines.....
This is obvious if one considers the ascendancy of the automobile ''business''...
which chokes both cities and respiratory systems alike....
...or consider software/computer, high-technology, which handles millions of mindless, mundane, routines, formerly assigned to legions of clerks, etc...........
Anyway, the blueprint for education is described well by the Japanese experience
before the apocalyptic, second, world war......
Students were taught with the deliberate goal of omni-state-submission.....
no different in essence from our own paradigm....
Consider the 'pledge of allegiance'.....
Very nice article, Ms Weil.
One need only consult John Taylor Gatto and his many writings to learn the actual agenda behind all this public school shit - in case it isn't glaringly obvious when one's child, like mine, and when a parent, like me, is victimized by it.
I won't bother going into the story of how my now-graduating high school 12th grader, along with his music class-mates, was robbed of the oportunity three days ago to spend valuable time with a Grammy-winning composer by a principal who was blackmailing the kids into writing a math test so that the school could have its shot at more or some of the 'No Child Left Behind' money. Absolute politics, fuck-all education. This principal had a 3-week window in which to schedule the test; there was one day only that the Grammy-winning composer could spend at the school. CONTEMPT FOR THE CHILDREN, CONTEMPT FOR THEIR RIGHTS, CONTEMPT FOR EDUCATION. STATE SANCTIONED CHILD ABUSE.
Which could of course, be altered for the better if only the blobs of brainwashed consuming zombies would wake up and read things such as Ms Weil's article, Gatto's stuff, and get righteously enraged. Likelihood of this in an america in which such a significant percentage of these zombies believe the 9-11 lies and propaganda and that the only legitimate function of government is to provide military might, and so-called 'protection'? Zero, unless some goddamn magic happens.
'Only in a totalitarian state would my talk have been too dangerous; it certainly shouldn’t have elicited fear in the U.S.'
Alas, Ms Weil, What's Left Of The United States is rapidly becoming totalitarian.
It seems that the fascist-minded right-wingers in america (small 'a' - I'm a bit sick of giving the u.s. the distinction and basic respect of capitalizing the name), by which I certainly include 9/10ths of the 'religious', 'christian' right, the Scott Walkers and Bonehead in the House of Representatives, et., et. al. are really sorry that they missed Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Russia, or any of the truly fascistic experiments in the past 150 years, and are hell bent on manufacturing their own fascist shithole in the u.s. This is a good part of the reason for the garbage 'education' in the u.s. - thge removal of thinking, the knee-jerk response to propaganda, the readily offering one's self up as cannon fodder in criminally-initiated military enterprises by a state which regards hyper-masculinism as the only engine of meaning, social ordering, organized response to external threat, organizing religious worship and poulation control through religion, and as the only, final, total value of human life and of the state.
The further they take it, though, the greater the probability of very serious backlash and all-out civil war. That, of course, is why the community law enforcement coast-to-coast in the u.s. is being militarized.
The comment by pjd412 on Patch Adams and peace says it all about the united states. So does the fact that the day after 9-11, the enormous radio-station overlord Clearchannel issued a list of 'no-play' songs to its 50 million radio stations. The list, unsurprisingly for these fascist lap-dogs, included 'Bridge Over Troubled Water', 'Give Peace A Chance', etc.
And these silly little americans delude themselves into thinking they live in a free country! Sweet Jesus, given the size of the country and the gargantuan scale of the fuck-up, has there ever been a more fucked up country, in a proportional, per capita sense? In a systemic, deliberate, moneyed sense?
Sure, Afghanistan and Somalia are shitholes, where life expectancy is about 40. But what of a country in which Ms Weil's article speaks of injustices and crimes that are not the exception, but the rule? Where the money and technological infrastructure exists to legislate and enforce the poulation back into mediaeval serfdom, while convincing them that as along as they have enough iGizmos, everything is ok? While evilly relying, to ideologize and mechanize the agenda, on what is apparently the population's own infantile, developmentally-arrested historical predilection to believe in simplistic 'religious' fairy tales and to jesus-ify everything in sight?
Sorry about that Zoe, but we have created the 'nanny state' you know, the state that protects us from our selves, mostly it protects us from our ideas and makes sure that we never engage in critical thinking, to many dangerous ideas come out of critical thinking, cant have that, no sir.
I am willing to bet Zoe Weil and I disagree about a lot of things, but its a shame when an 'idea' or worse yet an ideal cant be brought up to students.