Below is our organization's reaction to the Anoka-Hennepin School Board's proposal to rescind the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy and add a Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy. First is our statement to the school board, then a summary of our position, and finally our full position statement.
President Julie Blaha's Address
to the January 9, 2012 A-H School Board Meeting
Chair Heidemann, Members of the Board, Superintendent Carlson:
My name is Julie Blaha. I am the president of Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota and I’m here to present our organization’s position on the proposed policy changes.
To start, let me say on behalf of the district’s teachers that we appreciate the work you all have begun on our policies. This discussion is a good step toward improving the school climate in our district.
You have a copy of our full position and for those watching. Here are the main points:
First, we agree with your proposal to rescind the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy. Despite the good intentions when the policy was adopted, it turned out to be more confusing and limiting than helpful. We teachers have all had that lesson that seemed so terrific when we planned it, but just didn’t yield results when we implemented it. Good teachers let those lessons go, and we’re glad to see you have that same instinct here.
Second, we don’t believe replacing the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy with the Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy is necessary. Our full position statement lays out the other policies, statutes and professional knowledge we believe better describe what we you are trying to accomplish. Redundancy can lead to conflicting policies, which can get confusing.
If you believe some sort of policy is absolutely necessary, the Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy can be made to fit sound educational practices with some changes.
- Delete the second paragraph about board adopted curriculum. That will take away the implication that teachers can’t take advantage of teachable moments not spelled out in a curriculum document.
- Change the phrase “an atmosphere free of bias and prejudice” to “in an impartial and objective manner” in the fourth paragraph. We believe that is more in line with what is realistic in a classroom. We took this phrase from a similar policy used in Howard County, Maryland.
- ·Delete the fifth paragraph. That would avoid any implication that all opinion is banned or that our professional duties end when the bell rings.
Third, the word “controversial” in the proposed policy needs to be clarified. We need to clearly differentiate between what is an issue and what is someone’s identity. We agree that teachers should not promote a personal agenda in the classroom – our role is not to tell students what to think, but to help them think more deeply. At the same time, our students’ identities can never be an issue. While we can be impartial on a topic, we value our students for who they are. Issues can be controversial, but our students’ identities can never be an issue.
The decisions you make in the coming weeks will have an impact, but the work we all do in the coming years can make lasting change. We hope everyone in our district will commit to long term work on our school climate. As we laid out last October, let’s use the same kind of approach we use to raise math scores or improve reading comprehension. Let’s start with a full assessment of our school climate. Let’s use the results to see where we are and decide where we need to go. Along the way, let’s regularly check to see if we are on track. Then, let’s come back together to decide if these actions had the effect we hoped for.
Thank you for hearing what teachers have to say on the matter. We invite you to meet with us in the next couple of weeks to discuss this in greater depth. Regardless of what you decide, let’s make sure the conversation continues.
Thank you.
AHEM Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy Position Overview
Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, the union of educators in District 11, has reviewed the proposed Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy over the past month. We began the process by taking input from our members, other Anoka-Hennepin staff, and community members via an open ended survey. A group of teachers then met to draft a position that was adopted at our Representative Assembly on Monday, January 9, 2012.
Here are some of the basic recommendations from our review:
· We support rescinding the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy.
o “Neutrality” was a confusing term and was applied inconsistently across the district.
o The policy’s phrase “in the course of their professional duties” caused conflict with other policies.
· We do not believe a new policy to replace the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy is needed.
o There are a number of other district policies, state statute, and direction from professional education organizations that better address these issues.
o Enshrining best teaching practices in board policy is impractical - it would take thousands of policies to cover all we do as educators.
· If implemented by the district, The Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy could be changed to better align with effective instructional practices.
o We agree with the goal of providing a safe and welcoming environment for all of our students.
o We do not want educators’ hands tied when it comes to teachable moments because they are not in a formal curriculum document.
o We agree that controversial topics have an important place in student learning.
o The term “controversial” needs clarification. We want it clear that an issue can be considered controversial, but our students’ identities are never a “controversial” issue.
o We agree that an educator’s role is not to promote a personal agenda in the classroom, but to facilitate students’ work to develop their own ideas.
o Our professional duties do not end when the bell rings. We believe the use of the phrase “in the course of their professional duties” takes the proposal beyond the scope of a curriculum policy.
o We suggest deleting the second and fifth paragraphs of the proposal and replacing the phrase “atmosphere free of bias and prejudice” with “in an impartial and objective manner” in paragraph four.
Ultimately, we understand the board is working to balance a number of reasonable interests. Our community is asking that every student and family is valued for who they are and that students are allowed to develop their own conclusions about controversial topics. Educators want to ensure we are able to use our professional judgment to the fullest extent and that our beliefs are respected at work. We do not believe those interests are in conflict. Every day, educators use their expertise to balance these interests. The reason we are able to do so is for all the different beliefs and opinions educators may hold, we value our students above all.
AHEM Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy Position
Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota reviewed the proposed Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy over the past month. We began the process by taking input from our members, other Anoka-Hennepin staff, and community members via an open ended survey. A group of members then met to draft a response. That draft was discussed and approved by AHEM’s largest governing body, the Representative Assembly, on Monday, January 9.
In short, AHEM supports rescinding the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy, but does not support adopting the proposed Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy. With changes, the proposed Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy could be made unobjectionable. Even with changes however, we do not believe the policy would be necessary.
We believe rescinding the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy is an educationally sound idea. This policy is problematic in that the term “neutrality” is not a common term of art in the field of education. As a result, the policies were confusing and interpreted inconsistently across the district. Also, the phrase “in the course of their professional duties” extended the reach of the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy beyond just curriculum and caused conflict with other policies. That overreach is evident in the district’s need to clarify that bullying policies trump the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy.
We believe replacing these policies with a new policy is unnecessary. We currently have 159 School Board policies in our district. The School Board has not set policies to reflect every teaching practice it feels is effective. To do so would swell an already large number of district policies beyond what can be practically implemented. Furthermore, we already have policies that express much of what we believe the school board is attempting to accomplish. For instance, the Multicultural/Gender Fair Curriculum Policy (604.60) describes the importance of multiple perspectives in our instruction and policies which list protected classes describe the importance of respecting our students’ identities.
In addition, the Code of Ethics for Minnesota Teachers, state statute 8700.7500, provides the direction that “a teacher shall provide professional education services in a nondiscriminatory manner. … A teacher shall not use professional relationships with students, parents, and colleagues to private advantage. … A teacher shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter.” With all of this direction, five more paragraphs may not add meaningfully to teachers’ understanding of the matter.
The proposed Controversial Topics Curriculum Policy has components that reflect solid educational practices, and components that could cause further confusion. Our reaction can be broken down by paragraph:
Paragraph 1: The Board is committed to providing a safe and respectful learning environment and to providing an education that respects the beliefs of all students and families.
We agree with the sentiment of this paragraph and also strive to ensure every student feels safe and welcome in our classrooms.
Paragraph 2: Anoka-Hennepin curriculum will meet the Minnesota state standards, and teachers shall teach the Board-adopted District curriculum.
While we agree that our role as educators is to work to meet state standards and teach district curriculum, we are concerned that this paragraph implies that we are limited to only teaching to standards and adopted curriculum. The idea that the school board may be trying to convey is better reflected in the district’s current Equal Access, Interpretation, Implementation, and Implications Policy (604.50). That policy describes how curriculum is adopted and includes the statement, “consistency does not imply…there is no provision for teacher creativity and variation in instructional approaches.” The phrase allowing for flexibility is key to ensuring the district does not promote one size fits all instruction or limit teachers’ ability to seize opportunities and teachable moments as they arise. This paragraph would be best deleted from the proposed policy because it is better stated in another existing policy and could be interpreted to contradict the Equal Access, Interpretation, Implementation, and Implications Policy.
Paragraph 3: The Anoka-Hennepin School Board recognizes the importance of providing information about controversial topics in a democracy.
We believe this is statement is an improvement over previous policies because it states not only that teachers can use controversial topics in their instruction, but that the study of controversial topics are a necessary part of a students’ learning.
The word “controversial” needs clearer definition. We believe the term controversial to mean issues around which there is disagreement or multiple differing perspectives. It needs to be crystal clear that our students’ and staffs’ identities can never be an issue. While an issue that arises can cause disagreement, who our students and colleagues are is never controversial to educators – we value everyone in our school communities unconditionally.
The decision about what is controversial needs to be made on a case by case basis at the classroom and building level. Singling out specific ideas as controversial on a district wide level would have a chilling effect on discussion in much the same way the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy’s singling out sexual orientation did. We have structures such as professional learning communities and departmental committees where it would be effective to have discussions about handling controversial topics.
Paragraph 4: The study of controversial topics shall contribute toward helping students develop techniques for examining controversy, be appropriate to the maturity and developmental level of students, be of significance related to course content, and presented in an atmosphere free of bias and prejudice.
The criterion listed in this paragraph makes sense to us. We feel a better statement of the last phrase “presented in an atmosphere free of bias and prejudice” can be found in a similar policy used in Howard County, Maryland. They use the phrase “in an impartial and objective manner” instead. The “free of bias” language is problematic because an atmosphere truly free of all bias cannot be created; bias exists inherently in all presentation. Thus, an atmosphere entirely free of bias is logistically impossible. However, impartiality is about fairness, which does not place an unachievable burden on a teacher, and objectivity designates the use of facts and logic and the relative removal of personal feelings and opinions.
Paragraph 5: Teachers and educational support staff shall not advocate personal beliefs or opinions regarding controversial topics in the course of their professional duties.
The idea that teachers “shall not advocate personal beliefs or opinions” in a classroom setting is already stated clearly in paragraph 4 in the phrase about atmosphere. To restate it is unnecessary. Such redundancy can create the suggestion that the school board does not believe teachers already carefully weigh if and when to share an opinion with students. Overstatement of this idea can lead teachers to believe that the school board is implying that they should leave all opinion at the door. That could cause teachers to avoid opportunities when expressing an opinion makes sound educational sense.
Teachers agree that we must ensure we are not using our influence with our students to promote personal agendas. Not only do we find that kind of behavior unethical, we also believe it is ineffective teaching. Our role is not to tell students what to think, but to help them think deeply. To tell students what to decide on a controversial topic would be akin to doing their homework for them. This is such a widely accepted sentiment that a policy to its effect is unnecessary.
The statement “in the course of their professional duties” carries the same problems it did in the Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy. The phrase’s inclusion in a curriculum policy implies that our professional duties end when the bell rings. This is not the case. Part of our work as educators includes advocating what we believe is best for our students when we talk to our building faculty, to district administrators, and to the school board. For the rigorous discussion needed to continually improve education for our students, educators need to be free to not only express our opinions, but to work actively to promote those ideas on our students’ behalf.
This paragraph would be best deleted from the proposed policy.
Ultimately, we understand the board is working to balance a number of reasonable interests. Our community is asking that every student and family is valued for who they are and that students are allowed to develop their own conclusions about controversial topics. Educators want to ensure we are able to use our professional judgment to the fullest extent and that our beliefs are respected at work. We do not believe those interests are in conflict. Every day, educators use their expertise to balance these interests. The reason we are able to do so is for all the different beliefs and opinions educators may hold, we value our students above all.
