Controversial Issues in context of Democratic Education Controversial Issues in Secondary School Controversial Issues Secondary When and What |
Controversial Issues in the Primary Classroom |
Since the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, the world has become an increasingly polarised place. Australia is engaged in a partnership with the United States in a ‘war against terror', where actual enemies (‘terrorists') are few in number but whole countries have been targeted as part of an ‘axis of evil'. Knee-jerk reactions to devastating events have resulted in racist rhetoric on a government level and, sometimes, amongst ordinary people. It appears that our society is becoming less forgiving, less tolerant, and more suspicious. The role of education, or mass schooling, however, should be to nurture the opposite of all this in our students as citizens of today and voters of the future.
It is timely to ask, then, where do we as teachers, particularly beginning teachers, stand in this global debate? We all have our own opinions: how should we use them? How should we look after our students who are affected emotionally by devastating events, or are victimised because they share a religion with terrorists?
This article has been written to assist beginning teachers in negotiating this complex path of controversial issues in the classroom. It has been assembled collaboratively by four education students and attempts to cover the issue from a theoretical and practical perspective. We believe, as a result of our research and dialogue with experienced teachers, that controversial issues should be discussed as a fundamental principle of democratic schooling and to ensure students' emotional well-being. Our article is structured around four key areas. In Section One we explore the role historical role of education in democratic societies as a means by which to contextualise recent events and teaching practices. In Section Two we consider how secondary teachers should approach the instruction of controversial issues, both from the perspective of curricular relevance and classroom practice. We focus particularly on the fostering of democratic discussion and public participation as a means by which students can engage as citizens (rather than citizens in the making) with controversial social and political issues. Section Three is concerned with the kinds of classroom activities primary school teachers can adopt to help students work through controversial issues and deal with children's psychological reactions. Finally, in Section Four we outline in more detail the kinds of psychological impacts controversial issues can have on students and we outline a framework with which such effects can be identified by teachers.
Firstly, we need to define what controversial issues are. This appropriate definition was found in a British publication:
A controversial issue is a matter which different individuals and groups interpret and understand in differing ways and about which there are conflicting courses of action. It is an issue for which society has not found a solution that can be universally accepted. It is an issue of sufficient significance that each of the proposed ways of dealing with it is objectionable to some sections of the community and arouses dissent, opposition or protest (Carrington and Troyna, 1988: 2)
Some major controversial issues that facing Australian teachers at the moment include:
As teachers, we are faced with a number of constraints on how we should represent issues such as these in the classroom. We might have our own opinions that we feel entitled to be open about as members of society. The government may be telling us to do one thing, while our union is telling us another. For example, when Australia participated in the U.S.-led war on Iraq, the Department of Education sent a circular to each school, reminding them of the Departments Guidelines on Schools and Controversial Matters:
Teachers are reminded that they should not construe the need to provide support and understanding to students as an opportunity to present their own views.
Teachers must not promote their own personal preferences in these matters. They should refrain from deliberate acts or words that attempt to impose upon students, or to use students for propagation of their own beliefs, opinions and practices. (DEET Circular 075/2003)
On the other hand, the Australian Education Union (AEU) sent a directive to members asking them to read the following statement out to their students:
Our country has joined an attack against Iraq, a country in the Middle East. As educators we teach ways to resolve conflict between people without violence. The Federal Government says that we must join the attack on Iraq because it will prevent war and terrorism in the future. Many people in Australia and around the world think that diplomacy should be given more time. Diplomacy means that it is better to talk to achieve a peaceful solution.
We must join together to work for peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world and the building of strong bonds of friendship with people from other countries within our own community. If there is anything you don't understand or want to talk about, we now set aside some time to think about it and discuss it. (AEU Schools Bulletin No. 4, 2003)
These are two very different approaches that teachers are being asked to take in regards to controversial issues. Whilst the Department could construe any opinion that is the teacher's own as ‘propagation' (or ‘indoctrination'), the AEU takes a proactive stance that the role of the teacher in a democratic society is concretely to promote peace and diplomacy.
It is our overriding goal in this article to outline the kinds of approaches beginning primary and secondary teachers should take in exploring such issues with students so as to promote their development as citizens and, equally, to ensure their psychological well-being.
In order to better understand the nature of controversial issues in the classroom, and why they should be discussed, it is beneficial to examine some of the broader, structural questions related to the role of schooling in a democratic society. We need to ask ourselves: what is the point of education for these students? What is our role as teachers in democracy training? Most crucially, how do we navigate the ideological landmines evident in public discourse and state policy about schooling and the education of young citizens? Open discussion of controversial issues is fundamental to mass education in a democratic society.
Firstly, it is useful to ask, why does everyone go to school? Like every institution that has evolved in a society, mass schooling did not just happen because everyone agreed at some stage that it was a good idea. In our British-derived system, mass schooling was a product of political and social tensions related to the industrial revolution. Disparate small-scale farming and cottage industries were being replaced by masses of workers (including children) in large-scale production lines. The parochial focus of daily life was being replaced, through economic restructure, urbanisation, stark poverty with broader interests of how society was run.
Aristotle said in Ancient Greece:
“It is useless to have the most beneficial of rules of society fully agreed on by all who are members of the polity, if individuals are not going to be trained and have their habits formed for that polity, that is to live democratically if the laws of society are democratic, oligarchically if they are oligarchic.” (Harber: 1997, 1)
Thus, here in Australia, students need to ‘have their habits formed' for our political system: or else those who do not understand the benefits of the system would threaten its existence. There is an embedded theory of self-preservation in political systems; they have an inbuilt instinct to preserve themselves. Whilst people benefit from a political or social system, there will always be safeguards to defend them. Education is one of these methods. Our society is based on an interdependent system of rights and responsibilities. We have a legal system based on the principles of fairness and justice: and we have a political system that espouses the right of each citizen to have an opinion and intervene (responsibly) in political structures accordingly. In order to have faith in our political system, we need to understand that tensions exist between ideologies and parties but that this tension is inherently good: as it is referential to public freedom of thought. Henry Giroux summed up the contradictions between the original goals of education and the equalizing factor:
“the norms and values represented by the schooling process are not just those of business ideology. They also contain democratic, mass ideals of equality (even in terms of outcomes), participation, altruism, public service, and a just state that corrects the worst excesses of the free market.” (Giroux, 1989, 20)
Consequently, in order for democracy to survive in a free market economy where profits come before all, including human rights, there are inbuilt functions to defend principles whereby people can exist and be satisfied with their livelihood. In order to maintain the status quo, citizens needed to have an understanding and more importantly, an appreciation, of their society and its institutions. They needed to have faith and loyalty in the system of government. Whilst activists lobbied in and outside Parliament for what we would now call human rights, the “educated” elite realised that some form of social or citizenship education was required. A fear of social upheaval was the most influential factor in the introduction of mass schooling for ordinary people. Today's schools are based on private institutions for the wealthy, and religious institutions that aimed to preserve and disseminate religious precepts.
This ideological tension is further enhanced in Australia because of an evolved two-party system. The two major parties have evolved from the class divisions of the Industrial Revolution. The Australian Labor Party represents the realisation of the working class attempt to intervene in formal political and governmental structures, while the Liberal Party has evolved from the original class that owned and controlled the means of production. These two parties interchange regularly both federally and in each state. Each party struggles to conquer the hearts and minds of voters, and jealously watches for ‘bias' towards the other in non-partisan public institutions. Institutions that have power and influence in how ordinary Australians think and what they believe are the most crucial in this battle for dominance. These institutions, in case they privilege the ideology of the other party, are constantly accused of ‘bias'. State schools are, of course, the most pertinent example here: although current issues surrounding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) can be analogised.
Through this battle, somehow a covert notion has evolved that for state school education to be ‘fair', controversial issues, particularly those that are currently contested by politicians, must not be visited. Whilst understanding that, when in government, each party implements policies that privilege their own ideology, the tension constantly remains.
In Victoria, compulsory education up to the age of fourteen commenced with the passing of the Education Act in 1873. In the Victorian Parliament, it was argued for on the basis that:
“Our future political prosperity depends upon the educated insight and forethought of the people. Our liberty is susceptible of abuse, and will be fatally self-destructive in hands unfitted to use it; and if a large percentage of the youth of the country are permitted to grow up uneducated, I have no hesitation in saying that then manhood suffrage will be worse than a mistake, it will be a curse. But if, by a liberal education, their minds are early developed – if they are early taught the duties, responsibilities, and obligations attaching to them as citizens – then may they early be entrusted with political privileges.” (Austin, 1972: 197)
Note here that the qualities state education was supposed to inspire was not yet related to academic results: or indeed, the notion of schooling as an equalising force in society. Education was simply imposed on people to maintain order. At this stage, social class was still regarded as inherent rather than an entity that could be transcended. It was only later that mass schooling took on the idea of providing employment or further education opportunities, or that your achievement at school defined your future income, career or social class.
A more transparent definition of the purpose of schooling can be found in colonial records. Education was not intended to benefit or equalise colonial society, but rather reflected the economic and political concerns of colonial governments. The discourse of colonials in the coalface represents an indication of such beliefs: a missionary's arguments replicate Pastor Forbes' objective in Australia, “for its development…the country does not need ‘educated negroes', but competent, intelligent workers. The main emphasis will therefore be on education for obedience, order, punctuality, sobriety, honesty, diligence and moderation rather than academic learning.” (Harber, 1987: 114) Altbach and Kelly noted that similarities existed in the implementation of mass schooling both in the colonies and the metropole:
“far from acting as a liberator, western formal education came to most countries as part of imperialist domination…The educational system was no more just or equal than the economy and society itself – specifically, we argue, because schooling was organized to develop and maintain, in the imperial countries, an inherently inequitable and unjust organisation of production and political power.” (Altbach & Kelly, 1984, 3)
Education in the era of colonialism reflected the needs and aspirations of the society's leaders. If it has altered its function today from this original pretext, this is a reflection of the transition to democracy and the changing economic needs of industrial society.
From this historical foray, we can understand that one of mass education's prime functions is to educate children into their role as future voting citizens. The 1999 Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century confirmed this function, agreeing that:
“Australia's future depends on each citizen having the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and values for a productive and rewarding life in an educated, just and open society.” (MYCEETA, 1999)
Students need to be able to engage critically with the major issues of their society in order to maintain the vision of ‘educated, just and open'. Teachers have a crucial role in educating students to achieve this vision. However, as Paul Labaree points out, there are three approaches to mass schooling that conflict with each other and battle for dominance. (Labaree, 1997) He argues that the problems with schools can be seen as not pedagogical or social (et cetera) , but political.
The first notion, democratic equality , argues that effective citizenship needs training. Education is seen as an equalising force and a ‘public good'. The second, social efficiency, relates to education as training for an economic role: students are all expected to eventually be workers, and is “the perspective of the taxpayer and the employer, from which education is…designed to prepare workers to fill structurally necessary market roles.” (Labaree: 1997, 42) The third is the idea that schooling creates opportunities for social mobility : that its only purpose is to benefit the individual and give them a competitive advantage. Labaree summarises by arguing that whilst the first contains a political goal, the latter two approaches “portray education as a mechanism for adapting students to the market.” (Labaree, 1997: 43) It seems clear that as teachers, we need to decide whether we prioritise educating our students for the benefit of society, or prioritise the notion of assisting employers to profit from compliant and well-trained workers. Certainly, we cannot ignore the economic function of schools – but we can ensure that we create competent and critical citizens who are well aware of their rights in the political and economic arenas. Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves whether we are educating students for the present – to maintain the status quo – or the future, to give children the capability to change the world as they see fit.
Within this framework of the function of schooling in democracy, we can better examine controversial issues. Firstly, how do teachers deal with this issue of ‘bias'? What does a teacher do when they have their own well-formed opinion on a controversial issue? In answer to these questions, I propose that, as teachers are citizens too, in a democratic society, they are entitled to be open about their opinions and be ready to justify them. Children do not exist in an idyllic, politics-free bubble to be burst when they turn eighteen. In order to be fully functioning democratic citizens, they need to be exposed to arguments and contentions during their schooling. Professor Bob Connell, Professor of Education at the University of Sydney, wrote recently concerning the triumph of neo-liberalism as the dominant paradigm in our society. He argued that the needs of the free market are increasingly intervening in schools again, threatening the democratic value of schooling:
“The creation of a socially inclusive curriculum requires an interplay of knowledge and experience from diverse points of view…Common ground in the curriculum cannot be defined in advance without privileging one point of view – usually that of the most powerful social groups. It emerges from the process of encounter and can emerge to the extent that democracy is being realised in schooling…We should also pay careful attention – difficult as it may be when we are bombarded with images of ethnic and religious hatred – to situations where multiculturalism works, where people do speak across difference and conflict is open to negotiation. Public schools are among the best examples that I know and teachers' experience is an important resource for wider democratic practice.” (Connell, 2003)
Connell makes an important point that can be built on here. Opening debate, and evaluating both sides or multiple sides, of an issue, is important if democracy is to survive. Students as future voting citizens, need to understand the ideological basis and historical background of arguments in order to understand them. In order to prepare children for participatory democracy, they need to have an understanding that viewpoints should not be automatically acquired without reflection. Presenting an issue without a value-based opinion from a teacher does not work for students to draw their own conclusions. Children are not only subjected to viewpoints within the classroom, but influenced by dominant culture disseminated by the media and other cultural and localised forms.
So far, we have discussed the benefits of schooling for democracy in the framework of maintaining democratic structures. But, as always in a democratic tradition, we need to call into question our own society and argue that whilst it has relative benefits compared to many countries in the world, it is not as democratic as it could be. Indeed, many government decisions are clearly undemocratic, decisions that occur not because of the interests of ordinary citizens, but because of undue pressure from sophisticated and well-organised corporate lobby and pressure groups. So there is also the point that we should not only struggle to help students maintain what democracy we have, but also to improve on it: to make society more just and equitable. A clear tension exists between education as maintenance of the status quo, and educating for a better future. The latter is clearly more progressive, and supports the need for controversial issues to be discussed. Following are some examples of how such debate should be framed in both the primary and secondary school classroom.
On the morning of September 12 th , 2001, Christopher Blackman arrived at school to find his year seven students huddled around a TV set, mesmerised by the image of two passenger jets ploughing into the World Trade Centre time and time again. [1] Some of the students were angered, others quietly wept, and others still were deeply perplexed. One girl blamed herself for what had happened. Christopher Blackman believed that schools should function to foster good citizenship behaviour in their students, and he accepted the responsibility of providing support to his students in times of need. At very short notice, Christopher Blackman was caused to ask, how will I teach today?
In this section, we will consider how secondary teachers should respond to social, political and military events that generate widespread controversy. We will investigate how teachers can act to ensure student well-being and how they should integrate controversial issues into the curriculum so as to satisfy students' social and political need to engage with world-shaping events. Our overriding objective here is to outline a ‘socially responsible' means by which teachers can engage with such issues so as to foster good citizenship behaviour in their students. To this end, we will reflect upon the context in which controversial issues can be explored as well as the instructional approach teachers should adopt in such explorations. Further, we will propose how classroom inquiry can be linked to real world engagement so as to encourage students to adopt a ‘maximal' citizenship role and, finally, we will consider the implications of all this for government and school-level policy.
In the wake of events such as the World Trade Centre (WTC) attack, the Bali bombings and the war on Iraq, teachers must accept the incredible responsibility of managing the events' social and political fallout at the classroom level (Kozbial-Hess, 2003; Schroeder, 2002). Contrary to media representations of youth as naïve, self-interested and politically ignorant, secondary students are generally eager to discuss controversial issues and often initiate such discussion in the classroom context (Davies and Thorpe, 2003; Smith, 2002; Blackman, 2003: pers. comm.). But even if teachers believe in the value of open discussion, they must question whether it is productive for all or even most classes on any given school day to centre upon the issue in question. It is widely accepted that teachers are best able to explore controversial issues with their students when they have had time to reflect on the issue and develop a range of structured class activities through which the controversy can be unravelled (Arthur and Wright, 2001; Carrington and Troyna, 1988).
When an issue or event is current, however, the experts often understand little about its causes or likely social and political effects, rendering it all but impossible for teachers to reflect or prepare for their teaching in any meaningful way. In the days following the WTC attack, for example, the local and international media was rife with hearsay and speculation while knowledge and evidence where somewhat thin on the ground. In such contexts, classroom discussion can actually compound the level of anxiety and the sense of helplessness felt by students, and this is all the more likely if well-meaning teachers permit such discussion to dominate each and every lesson (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 2003a; Blackman, 2003: pers. comm.). Indeed, it is for this reason that more traditionally-minded educationalists avoid controversial issues at all costs; they claim that they are simply ‘too contemporary' to be approached in any meaningful way in the classroom context (Arthur and Wright, 2001: 75).
But if controversial issues are consigned to the proverbial ‘too hard basket', we are left to question the relevance of secondary education students. For it is surely the purpose of modern education - and particularly in the case of disciplines such as History, Geography and English - not only to help students understand the world as it once was but to help them develop the skills needed to interpret it as it is today (Davies and Thorpe, 2003). In absolute terms, there is no issue or event about which we have complete knowledge; human understanding is never more than the product of subjecting limited factual information to a process of reasoning. In situations where a controversial is personally confronting and has affected students emotionally, therefore, we ought to encourage students to express what they are ‘going through' and, further, help them construct an understanding of the event based upon what evidence is available (Brooks and Siegel, 1996; Kardia, Bierwert, and Cook et al., 2002; NCSS, 2003a; 2003b). The need to provide students with a context in which explore the event personally and intellectually, however, should not be permitted to undermine our overriding objective of fostering a sense of safety and normality. Rather than permit students to engage in endless speculation about the event during classroom hours and risk compounding their fears and anxieties, we should provide carefully planned extra-curricular contexts in which the event or issue can be explored in a constructive manner.
Christopher Blackman's response to the WTC attacks was particularly instructive in this sense. By initiating a lunch time history lesson on the recent political and military history of the Middle East, he provided students with an opportunity to express what they were feeling and, further, he helped them develop a sense of the broader context within which the WTC attacks occurred. By reassuring students that they would be safe and that as tragic as the events were, they were not world-changing (let alone world ending), Blackman reaffirmed students' sense of personal security – a security that had been all but obliterated by sensationalist media reporting during the previous twelve hours. It is of great import to note that Blackman's students responded positively to the lunch time lesson, showing clear signs of having calmed down and later claiming it to have been the most ‘important' history lesson they had ever had.
While such an approach may suffice to quell the anxieties of most students and help them begin to make sense of what occurred, we must also recognise that students more seriously affected by the incident may require personal help. If we consider the girl who felt implicated by the attack, for example, we should note that she formed strong beliefs about the cause of the event according to a seemingly aberrant logic. This suggests that a teacher's rational political and historical argumentation would do little to alleviate her concerns and that she would best be referred to a school counsellor or other professional (Roberts, 1999). [2]
Teachers are likely to respond differently to sudden events such as the WTC attack as compared with protracted controversial issues such as the war on Iraq. In the latter, students are likely to have ‘accepted' that war is probable and people will be killed (NCSS, 2003b). While they may feel morally outraged by the behaviour of their government, they are less likely to be shocked or traumatised. [3] In such contexts, then, there is less demand for impromptu lessons in history and politics and there will probably be less need for the school counsellor to work with students individually.
Nonetheless, Australia's involvement in a any war ought to be considered a significant issue for all Australian citizens and, as debates prior to the war on Iraq proved, students are concerned about such issues and wish to be heard. Denying students a voice in such situations would be to disregard their entitlement to citizenship status and to ignore their nascent political interests. While students should thus be provided with a context within which to speak and act, a range of considerations should be kept in mind when responding at both the classroom and school level.
In response to the public debates spurred by the then immanent war on Iraq, a number of Melbourne secondary schools instituted policies that encouraged classroom debate about the war, but only when seen to be relevant to the curriculum. [4] By limiting discussions to spheres of curricular relevance, teachers were able to prepare a range of materials and develop constructive activities with which to shed light on the complexity of the issue at hand. This approach was also seen as an suitable means by which to prevent avoid students using discussion about the war as a means to ‘avoid getting back to work' (Blackman, 2003: pers. comm.).
While such an approach would certainly foster a sense of normality and providing students with an important forum for discussion, a problem arises, however, when an issue of clear social and political significance is not seen by a school as relevant to the curriculum. Indeed, if schools are not able to make the connection between what happens outside the school's bounds and inside the school's classrooms, students are liable to see school as irrelevant if not impotent. In such situations, we suggest that schools should adapt the curriculum to current events so as to realise their citizenship fostering responsibility. This problem is addressed by Parker (1996) who suggests that staff ought to regularly engage in a practice of ‘curriculum deliberation' wherein they determine the extent to which the school is educating students for citizenship responsibilities (Parker, 1996). Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how schools could secure the social and political relevance of their curriculum without regularly engaging in a practice of reflection akin to curriculum deliberation.
While we may presume that the kind of curricular receptivity as described by Parker is rare in schools, recent experience in Melbourne suggests otherwise. In response to the WTC attack and on-going tensions between Israel and Palestine, Massey Grammar, for example, developed a semester-length subject on the military and political history of the Middle East at year 10. Massey staff developed this apparently unusual subject having recognised that if their students did not understand the history of the Middle East region, they would be unable to understand many of the tensions and conflicts central to domestic and international politics in the post-WTC era. Massey's curriculum response represents an ideal means by which school learning can facilitate the development of an informed citizenry. In Pollard's terms, Massey's willingness to adapt the curriculum to current events is reflective of a ‘controversial curriculum', i.e., one which engages with issues about which no general consensus exists. This contrasts with the more common ‘routine curriculum' which, though easier to teach, often lacks real world relevance in the eyes of students (Pollard, 1988: 54-58).
In summary, when questioning where and when controversial issues should be taught, we must keep a few questions in mind. If the event is of a highly confronting nature, our primary objective should be to institute a degree of normality by running the school day as usual. This, however, should be complemented with the provision of structured extra-curricular opportunities for students to express their concerns and begin to develop a fuller understanding of the issue in question. In responding in such a way, we should also be conscious that some students can be deeply affected by such events and may need special attention from school counsellors or other professionals. Likewise, when teaching controversial issues that extend over a greater period of time, teachers should limit discussion to areas of the curriculum of direct relevance. Schools committed to the citizenship forming role of education need be prepared to reshape the curriculum in response to such issues so as to ensure that the education they provide is relevant to the students' social and political needs.
If we accept that schools should function to encourage the development of citizenship qualities in students and that controversial issues can be employed as a means of realising this end, we are left to question how teachers should approach controversial issues in the classroom.
We begin this inquiry with the preliminary assumption that classroom dialogue and debate should feature centrally to any instructional practice. While some critics of this approach fear that it is liable to become an ‘unruly, disrespectful, anxiety-provoking, and unproductive chaos' (Fine, 1995: 190), such assumptions betray a profound cynicism towards the human character and the potential of democracy itself. Democracy, we may recall, is founded on the presumption that controversial issues can be at least partially resolved through discussion, bargaining and compromise (Lipman, 1988; 1991). And, as we have seen, schools play a critical role in educating students for participation in democracy as active citizens. As Fine (1995) suggests:
[S]chools can, should, and must be an arena in which future citizens are prepared to deal with contentious issues and learn to make the kinds of moral choices adults are constantly called on to make (191)
By rejecting an approach to classroom inquiry modelled around discussion and debate, we not only prevent students from sharing the views they need to voice but we fail to promote the kinds of citizenship behaviours so critical to the maintenance of democracy in trying times (Jeffs, 1988; Fisher, 2003).
While writers such as Fine suggest that the task here is one of cultivating ‘future citizens' who, as ‘adults' will be able to make ‘moral choices', the futurity implicit in such views ought to be noted for it can greatly impact students' responses to controversial issues and their perception of citizenship more broadly (Holdsworth, 2000). If we proceed with the assumption that one's citizenship responsibilities begin when one is bestowed the right to vote, we betray a limited vision of both the citizen and of students' capacity to meaningfully engage with the wider world. It is only a ‘minimal' view of citizenship that equates participation with voting rights alone; what are termed ‘maximal' approaches, by contrast, emphasise the individual's capacity to ‘make informed and independent judgements about courses of action and encourage participation' in a range of social, cultural and political institutions and thereby develop a sense of personal agency (Evans, 1998: 116). Such behaviour, of course, is the content that gives meaning to the institutional structures of democracy and, importantly, secondary students are fully capable of acting as ‘maximal citizens'. That they should be encouraged to develop the skills and proclivity to do so is an issue we further consider below. [5]
If we encourage debate and discussion about controversial issues in our classrooms, we must consider the role we will play in this as teachers. More specifically, we must consider the perennial question as to whether we will express our personal views on the matters under discussion – a matter about which there has been a great deal of debate. Carrington and Troyna (1988), for example, list six different positions to describe the extent to which the teacher shares his or her position with the class. They suggest the teacher can adopt the ‘committed role', the ‘academic role', the ‘advocate role', the ‘devil's advocate role', the ‘impartial chairperson role' or, finally, the declared interest role' (Carrington and Troyna, 1988: 3). While there exists a good deal of variation between these positions, they can be categorised into two broad groups, viz., those in which the teacher explicitly states his or her position, and those in which the teacher maintains a veneer of neutrality.
Advocates of neutrality or what is oft-termed the ‘neutral chair' approach suggest that the teacher's role is to facilitate classroom discussion, not contribute to it. Accordingly, teachers must ensure that all students are able to contribute their viewpoints and that the discussion proceeds in a peaceable and respectful manner (Troyna and Carrington, 1988; Singh, 1988). By encouraging students to ask questions of each other, this approach is ‘seen as a means of developing the autonomy of pupils and thereby avoiding indoctrinating them into the values, morals or beliefs of the teacher or of society' since the overriding focus is the process of interaction rather than the content of discussion (Singh, 1988: 93-4). [6]
Opponents of the neutral chair, however, suggest that while such an approach does have the potential to foster democratic discussion about controversial issues, it can also prove problematic on a number of grounds. Callan (1985), for example, proposes a scenario in which students, having engaged in ‘cool and informed reflection (…) decide to become Nazis'; he then asks rhetorically ‘should we simply tell them to create the future as the see fit?' (Callan in Singh, 1988: 91). Similar issues are raised by the experiences of Nathaniel W. Smith, a secondary teacher in a Pennsylvania High School who, in the weeks following the WTC attack, was regularly confronted by students who in the middle of class would erupt into ‘20 minutes of diatribe about the necessity of “bombing Afghanistan to hell”' and executing all of the Afghani children since if ‘we let their children live, they will grow up to be terrorists' (Smith, 2002: 346). [7] Critics of the neutral chair approach suggest that it would be morally reprehensible for a teacher to remain neutral when subjected to pleas for Nazism or the murder of children, regardless of whether the teacher was in or outside of school bounds. [8]
Supporters of the advocate position suggest that when faced with such challenges, teachers should model particular forms of behaviour for their students, most importantly a genuine commitment to political principles. We are left to wonder, however, what kind of political commitment is appropriate since there exist an endless variety of ways individuals can be committed, and a great many causes to which teachers may demonstrate their allegiances. If teachers advocate any given perspective in the class, the uneven power relations between students and teacher are liable, as advocates of neutrality suggest, to undermine the openness of classroom debate. By way of example, Fine (1995) recounts a case wherein a Canadian teacher professed a commitment to a Nazi belief system and virtually all of his students either accepted his worldview or ‘kept low' so as to avoid confrontation (Fine, 1995). Such an scenario is clearly more illustrative than likely, but we can reasonably assume that in any debate within which a teacher is arguing a particular position the atmosphere of openness will be undermined and our ideal ‘student-centred' discussion will be replaced with a series of ‘teacher-centred' dialogues. If we consider such instruction from the parents' perspective, we may surmise that most parents would be uncomfortable with their children being preached to at school, regardless of whether they agreed with the teacher's political perspectives or not (Leckey, pers. comm.). [9] The implications of this issue need not be seen from the political angle alone. The kind of pedagogy we are advocating here is based around student inquiry and independent decision-making rather than traditionalism and what is termed ‘teacher telling' didacticism (Ross, 2003: 29). By reverting to a teacher-centred focus, we would be signalling not only a poor faith in the robustness of democratic processes but a profound uncertainty about the way we perceive our students. [10]
This question as to whether teachers should remain neutral in debate or advocate particular values is complex and often seen as intractable. [11] As a teacher, it is assumed that you are either neutral or an advocate, that is to say, you will either fail to model good citizenship behaviour for your students or, alternatively, you will undermine the democratic atmosphere in your classroom. If we shift our focus away from the teacher's political position and towards her citizenship behaviour, however, there may be an exist from this pedagogical impasse. Rather than conceptualise the teacher primarily as someone who is politically committed to a range of issues and either expresses her views or consciously silences herself, we could instead see the teacher as an ‘inquiring citizen' who has not reached a conclusion about the controversial issue at hand but is still seeking a resolution. During debate the teacher would be engaging with students' arguments, searching for their logical inconsistencies, uncovering the ethical assumptions on which the rest and exploring the real life implications if such arguments were acted upon. Such an approach, despite its lack of ideological grounding in leftist or rightist politics, need not represent a collapse into relativism wherein all arguments were considered of equal value. If the teacher were to assume the role of inquiring citizen, she could challenge students who advocated Nazism on the democratic values upon which all such classroom discussion is founded. For example, she may ask whether human rights should be abandoned entirely, and, further, what kind of society would emerge if this belief was acted upon. Such questioning would stimulate further debate on the matter and most probably undermine student commitment to Nazism as students became cognisant of its implications for daily life. While this approach clearly rests upon a value system – as must all classroom discussions, either implicitly or explicitly – the values in question here are hardly partisan, rather they are ‘democratic' in the most general and widely acceptable sense of the term. [12]
While such an approach would still require that the teacher suppress his or her political outlook, it would overcome the two primary criticisms directed at both the advocate and neutral chair roles. Firstly, the teacher would be modelling the kind of citizenship behaviour we hope all our students will adopt and, secondly, the teacher will not undermine the openness of classroom discussion in the process. Such an approach would be of particular value in immediately following an event such as the WTC attacks wherein no-one could reasonably assert a fixed opinion on what had happened. In a more general sense we may note that, as citizens, there are probably more issues about which we do not have a clear position as compared to those on which we do. If we were to engage with these issues, we would ideally search for logical inconsistencies in alternate views being expressed and we would reflect upon the values underpinning these views. We would engage in open discussion about the issue in question, share our views and, in time, reach a well-reasoned and soundly evidenced personal if not consensual view on the issue. If our students see us behave in this way and adopt something of it in their every day lives, we must surely consider our pedagogy to have been a success.
One of the recurrent issues raised by writers on citizenship and ethics education in schools is the gulf between what students profess in class, and what they practice in their daily lives (CEG, 1996; Lipman, 1988; Print et al. , 1995). According to such views, it appears that students are able to follow the ‘logic' of citizenship behaviour intellectually yet often do not feel compelled to apply this logic to their everyday lives. There is a good deal of debate as to how the problem of matching the citizenship ‘talk' with the citizenship ‘walk' can be achieved. Some behavioural psychologists suggest that the lack of action on behalf of students is actually caused by their engagement in discussion about political issues. This perspective is founded on the presumption that ethical behaviour is not ‘rational', nor something we engage in having concluded our deliberations about a problematic issue; rather, ethical behaviour is something akin to an instinct and, consequently it should be ‘drilled into students' rather than fostered intellectually (Bennett and Delattre, 1978; Wynne, 1986).
Such an approach, however, would run into difficulties in the face of complex moral problems. While it may be possible to condition a child to be respectful to their elders, blow their nose politely and observe a Victorian tea time etiquette, it is less simple to condition someone to respond ethically to a complex contemporary issue, such as one nation's decision to invade another nation. Even if it were possible to train students like Pavlovian dogs and have them respond in certain ways in external stimuli, this would not resolve the question as to what ends we ought encourage our moral automaton students to pursue. What is ethical or just is never a simple question in a culturally diverse, pluralist society like ours, and the suggestion then that we might condition students to act ‘ethically' is surely inept when confronted with a question which involves anything more than one's behaviour at the dining room table.
Perhaps it is due to the shortcomings of the behaviouralist model that most contemporary writers emphasise the importance of providing students not only with opportunities to discuss controversial issues, but opportunities to engage with them in an ‘experiential' fashion. The CEG, for example, suggested that the best means of bridging the gap between intellectual understanding and real life practice is to engaging in real activities which put into practice ideas explored in class (CEG, 1994), a practice oft-referred to as ‘education through citizenship' in contrast to ‘education about citizenship' (Arthur and Wright, 2001). As Bernard Crick, long time campaigner for citizenship education in the UK is said to have remarked: ‘constitutional structures are to politics what biology is to sex. It is not hard to imagine which students would prefer to learn' (quoted in Davies and Thorpe, 2003: 39). Indeed, it is by encouraging students to engage in the sex of citizenship that they can come to feel a part of society, contribute to its operations and breath life into its democratic institutions.
While there are some areas of citizenship education that can be put into practice without difficulty, others are less straightforward. Democracy education, for example, can be made meaningful by providing students with structures within which they can adopt real roles and real responsibilities (Holdsworth, England and Carson et al ., 2000; Holdsworth, 2000). Many commentators advocate the creation of year level and whole school student councils that are responsible for making decisions of clear import and through which students gain experience of what it means to act in cooperation with others towards the realisation of democratically negotiated ends.
Similarly, students learning about environmental issues in the classroom could engage with the issues in a great variety of ways; they may, for example, assist a local environment group in completing a hands-on restoration project or they could initiate a school-based recycling program (Bateson, 1996). On the matter of controversial issues such as the WTC attack and the war on Iraq, by contrast, it is less obvious how education can be made ‘real' because there is less scope for participation in the local community. In response to the WTC attack and the war on Iraq, however, a number of Melbourne schools worked to realise their school ethos, which, importantly, supported civic participation. In the days and weeks preceding the American invasion of Iraq, for example, Norfolk Secondary actively encouraged students to express their political beliefs publicly and join anti-war protests if they were opposed to the war. Such, it was argued by the school council, was only consistent with the school's ethos of encouraging its students to engage with the public in the creation of a more just society.
Massey Grammar also responded in a commendable way to the WTC attack. Staff at Massey recognised that a suspicion of people of Middle Eastern descent was spreading in Australian society following the WTC attack and they decided to organise a friendship program with local Islamic schools. Massey students and students from the participating Islamic schools visited each others' classrooms, shared their cultural heritage through talks and discussions, engaged in sporting and artistic activities and, most importantly, came to realise in an experiential way that despite their differences, they shared much in common and need not fear each other. Because most Massey students would generally have little opportunity to engage with the Middle Eastern community, it was thought that the program served as a important remedy to the influence of the media's often racialist representations of Middle Easterners. Massey students felt the program to have been personally enriching and, in many cases, found that their views underwent a substantial shift; in Davies and Thorpe's terms, this is because personal experience ‘gets under the skin' of students and helps them feel rather than simply think through the significance of a controversial social issue (Davies and Thorpe, 2003). [13] Indeed, developing curricula models such as this which are based on relationships with the community and which foster cooperation and participation ought not be seen as yet another burden for schools to grapple with, rather they should be seen as an opportunity to make learning real and, ultimately, as a means by which the study of controversial issues can students' lives.
It has often been said that the only certainty in life is change. Indeed, the experiences of fear, loss, grief and trauma are inescapable hallmarks of daily existence. Extraordinary events often shake our sense of security forcing us to reach out and offer one another support. However, primary school children may not have adequate coping mechanisms in order to deal with life's unexpected events and as such, require special care in building emotional and analytical armour. Accordingly, teachers as the primary daytime caregivers are responsible for creating a safe space in which children can process traumatic experiences. So, what can teachers do to allow children to feel safe and protected? What rules furnish the framework for socially responsible teaching in the face of major trauma? In this section we will attempt to address this serious pedagogical challenge and offer an alternative approach to expressing trauma.
Teachers may choose not to mention some major historical events, which unfold over a period of time, like the War on Iraq. On the other hand, world changing events which happen suddenly are impossible to ignore and inevitably become the focus of the school community. Like their counterparts in secondary schools, primary school teachers were forced to make some important decisions when they stepped into class on September 12, 2001. Commonly, teachers were instructed to answer questions that were asked, but not to initiate discussion, which could become controversial. However, they had to acknowledge that on some level the day marked the opening of a new chapter in history, with an imperative to restore their student's sense of security and stability. Although many young children might have been protected from watching news broadcasts, none could have been blind to the infamous images of planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
Teachers need to consider the developmental stages of their students in order to address the issues in a way that is clear and easily understood. Children of different ages need to be treated differently. Even in Prep, they children not too young to approach the issues, but how can knowledge be achieved without causing trauma and distress? As Brooks and Seigel suggest, ‘Kids of all ages are vulnerable to developing posttraumatic stress reactions when they are exposed to heavy media coverage of major disasters or violent crimes on television.' (Brooks and Seigel, 1996: 126) [14]
This experience can be illustrated by the reaction of Dylan [15] , a boy in prep, in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne, who began displaying unusual and provocative behaviour in the period directly following the September 11 attacks. An otherwise placid boy, he began picking fights with his peers and becoming increasingly emotional at school, crying without any apparent reason. When his teacher investigated his situation she discovered that Dylan's father regularly flew to Sydney for work and that since seeing the images of the planes crashing into the World Trade Centre in New York he had become anxious about his father's travels. The primary concern when dealing with children who are very young is to reassure them and re-establish their sense of security. The Principal of Dylan's school emphasized the importance of the teacher's presence in this context, suggesting that ‘Teachers of young (and small) children will be aware that they must engage with them in their physical space without overwhelming them.' As children feel secure in the teacher's presence, they will readily share their feelings and reactions which the teacher must endeavour to validate.
As well as the physical and developmental context of students, it is also important to acknowledge their social and cultural context. On September 12 2001, when the teachers of a grade 3-4 class sat with them in a small Jewish school in Melbourne they reported that the children expressed fears that World War III was beginning. They felt that as Jews, associated with Israel, they would be personally implicated in this war. The children discussed the possibility that they would have to hide, which may be the manifestation of ‘trans-generational trauma' as they placed themselves in the stories of their grandparents, fleeing from the Nazis. [16] Teachers in this school had a responsibility to discuss and contextualise the world situation in order to reassure students and allow them to process their fears. Both Dylan's teacher and the teachers of the Jewish children were dealing with children who were experiencing real trauma and had to choose an approach to each situation. In both cases the teachers allowed the children some time to speak about their experiences and responses, but could they have done more? Perhaps by giving these students alternative ways of expressing themselves the children could have more effectively processed their trauma and their teachers could have gained a better, clearer insight into what was affecting them.
There are a number ways of facilitating children who have experienced trauma. The therapist and educator Carl Rogers, for example, promotes the notion of ‘person-centred' therapy and learning. [17] He believes that the client or student knows best; they know what is hurting and how to move forward. He encourages therapists and educators to listen acceptingly to students and offer them what he terms ‘unconditional positive regard', in the hope of facilitating their understanding and processing their trauma. A pedagogical method which supports Rogers' belief is the ‘community of inquiry', used in philosophy for children. [18] This method requires that a safe environment is established in which a culture of understanding and respect prevails. Students are encouraged to share, delve into, and build on their ideas and to listen to one another attentively. The process of inquiry promotes a quality of sensitivity and respect which values each person's contribution. In this way it may be used as a tool for dealing with traumatic events in the classroom. A teacher may guide a discussion which allows students to be open about their thoughts and feelings, so that others are reassured by the commonality of their concerns and responses. By hearing each other speak they develop the confidence and insight to process their own thoughts. While this may appear to have positive pedagogical and emotional outcomes, it begs the question how much does a group derived notion deviate the child from independent thoughts?
Young children may not have the words to describe how they feel in response to traumatic events, and so they may choose to communicate their reactions and concerns through play, drama or art. Therefore the teacher needs to develop the skills to decipher these forms of communication so that she can help the child to process his thoughts and feelings. As educators teachers have a responsibility to make these different styles of communication part of the curriculum so that children will have more avenues through which to express themselves and process their trauma. What is termed ‘art therapy' can be integrated with Rogers' ‘person-centred theory'. By allowing the child to create her own art and interpret it herself the teacher/therapist gives the student the opportunity and power to generate her own healing.
The benefits of this type of outlet for communication are numerous:
· Artwork allows one to externalise internal worlds. Art is a different, safe way of expressing powerful emotions or unacceptable behaviours and desires which may be difficult to verbalize.
This process provides teachers and therapists with insight into the world of the child, an opportunity to experience her hopes, dreams, fears and fantasies in a poignant way. Toni Gross is a teacher in California who used this method in her classroom following the events of September 11. As well as using art as a way of understanding what some of the five year olds in her class were thinking and feeling she wanted them to express their feelings in order that they didn't later ‘result in knots of physical tension and pain.' (Gross, Gurewitz Clemens, 2002). She provided them with the space to work with paints, clay, drawing materials and music and observed that it served as an ‘antidote to violence in their lives.' On September 12th, 2001 a five year old, Joshua, drew a picture of a hurricane in her class. When Toni asked him what was happening in the hurricane he responded that it ‘hurts people and knocks down towers.' (Gross and Gurewitz Clemens, 2002). This illuminated to her just how close beneath the surface lay the feelings and traumas of young children and how effectively the medium of art could help them to be processed and released.
The arts may be an effective way of allowing students to express and ‘off load' their traumatic experiences, but they have broader implications for society according to Burnaford et al. They believe that ‘the arts teach learners to know themselves as capable citizens in a democratic society, observing, creating, reflecting, making choices and taking responsibility for actions in the world' (Burnaford et al., 2001). They emphasise that children are growing up in an increasingly mobile world, which requires them to be able to cross many different borders- real and virtual, social and geographic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. In order to be a successful citizen children need flexibility, creativity and tolerance for ambiguity, so that they can confidently manage the changes and conflicts of their lives and become effective citizens. Thus, as children are processing important emotional and psychological baggage through creative outlets they are also equipping themselves with the tools necessary for participation in their society.
However, as the teacher allows her students to open up and share their traumas, she treads delicately on the boundary of teacher and counsellor, and needs to be careful to maintain her integrity within her area of expertise. This may vary among teachers as some feel more comfortable to move between the roles, and some may be nervous to open a discussion they may not have the skills to guide. It also raises the question of teacher well-being; as teachers create the safety for their students to open up and reveal their traumas they need to be sure that they also have adequate support and the opportunity to debrief. Some would argue that it is not the teachers role to act as the therapist, but Steven C. Schlozman, clinical instructor in psychiatry, MIT, supports this kind of teacher involvement with student trauma. He believes that ‘teachers are ideally suited to help their students through this crisis,' (Schlozman, 2001) to build security and stability in the classroom, especially in these uncertain times, plagued by isolation and alienation.
Other ways of dealing with changes brought about by recent world events is to demystify the ‘other.' In an attempt to do this some programs have been established in Australian schools to promote world peace. Harmony for Understanding is a pilot cultural awareness project for middle school students which believes the ‘valuing of the unique qualities and contributions of each culture and religion through understanding, positive and mutual interconnectedness and participation will provide sound foundations for our future.' The project brought together schools with a variety of ideologies, religious affiliations and cultural identities in the hope that through workshops and dialogue a consciousness of understanding and awareness could be reached. The commitment of each religious and cultural group to Australian and the cultural freedom within Australia was emphasised.
Details of this program – including curriculum documentation – will be available free of charge to schools / networks of schools from mid January 2003 on the site: www.ourcommunity.com.au or by contacting the Australian College of Educators, Victorian Branch.
As teachers and students navigate their way through the certainty of change in an uncertain world they are sure to encounter trauma along the way. How it is dealt with in each case will depend on the nature of the event, the policy of the school and the confidence of the teacher to allow and encourage students to explore different methods of expression.
Long after the political social and cultural devastations of a large-scale act of terrorism such as September 11 has occurred, it is known that the personal trauma remains (Beresin, 2002; Black and Morris, 2002; Pfefferbaum, Nixon, Tivis, Doughty, Pynoos, Gurwitch and Foy, 2001; Putnam, 2002; Roberts, 1999).
In recent times it has been proposed that as a psychological construct, trauma has been misrepresented (Roberts, 1999). It has been standard practice for healthcare professionals to define children's and adolescents' trauma within the same criteria apply for adults (Roberts, 1999). As beginning teachers, it is not only useful to be aware of and sensitive to student's behavioural statuses, it is also beneficial to students' mental health that we are aware of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its symptomology. This is most timely, given the current worldwide political and social unrest.
As contentious issues find their voice in the classroom, teachers must be cognisant of the well-being of their students. This juncture must be approached with knowledge of what encapsulates teacher's duty of care, including when it is prudent to refer students to the appropriate services, such as the school counsellor or psychologist. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders IV, a widely used reference for the diagnoses of psychopathology for mental health clinicians, provides criteria for PTSD. For teachers, the DSM IV is a valuable reference when a contentious issue occurs. Teachers should have a workable understanding of the principles of PTSD so they are able to make an informal assessment of children that fall within these criteria.
It needs to be known that the DSM IV has been criticised for failing to consider and address the differences between adults and children and adolescents. It does not acknowledge that children and adolescent experience developmentally specific trauma. Table 1. Defines and states the criteria for PTSD as referred to in the DSM IV.
Table 1. The DSM IV criteria/definition for the diagnosis of PTSD.
A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following are present: 1) The person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death, serious injury or a threat to physical injury or integrity of self or others. 2) The person's response involved intense fear helplessness or horror. In children these symptoms maybe seen as ‘disorganised or agitated behaviour' evident in play, language writing and mood. (Roberts, 1999, p. 30). |
B. The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in one (or more) of the following ways: 1) Recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts or perceptions In early primary students, children may engage in repetitive play that re-enacts parts or the whole trauma (Roberts, 1999, p. 30). 2) Recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Children may have frightening dreams; dream material cannot be recalled. (Roberts, 1999, p. 30). 3) Acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were event were recurring (includes sense of the reliving of the experience, hallucinations and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated. In early primary aged children, trauma re-enactment play may occur (Roberts, 1999, p. 30). · Intense psychological stress at exposure to the internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event. Physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic experience. |
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of the general responsiveness (not before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following: 1. Efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings or conservations associated with the trauma. 2. Efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse recollections of the trauma. 3. Inability to recall an aspect of the trauma. 4. Markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities. 5. Feelings of detachment or estrangement from others. 6. Restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings). 7. Sense of foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage or a normal life span. |
Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma) as indicated by two or more of the following: 1. Difficulty falling or staying asleep. 2. Irritability or outbursts of anger. 3. Difficulty concentrating. 4. Hypervigiliance. 5. Exaggerated startle response. E. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in criteria B, C and D is more than one month. F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social occupational or other important areas of functioning. |
Prior to the war in Iraq, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) released a directive to their members recommending that children be removed from watching any television footage and witnessing or partaking in any adult discussions relating to the war. In line with the Roberts (1999) article on working with children and adolescents with trauma, the APS stated, prior to the war on Iraq, that behavioural changes were age and developmentally specific (Trinder, 2003).
During the war on Iraq, the APS posted a media release advising schools to adopt a ‘planned holistic approach' when dealing with the war (Trinder, 2003). This approach identified that the whole school community; students, teachers and parents would need emotional support and practical guidance to deal with the war. The APS also recommended that schools utilise a conflict resolution model to steer the school community away from bipartisanship, to an absence of ‘side taking'. An environment of empathy and understanding be encouraged and fostered. The APS was essentially concerned to take advantage of the war by having teachers utilise the valuable educational moral and psychological material that was present in the war on Iraq. Lessons about humility, mutual respect and understanding of difference could have been taught, but remained silent in State schools at the directive of the Department of Education and Training.
In this article we have explored the question of how schools and teachers should respond to controversial social and political issues. We have argued the schools play an essential role in modern democracies in providing students with the skills and disposition to act as active and engaged citizens, both now and in the future. If schools are to realise this citizenship-forming role, they must provide opportunities for students to engage in debate and discussion about world-changing events. As teachers we would do well to adopt the ‘inquiring citizen role' to facilitate open discussion and to reinforce and model democratic values where necessary. While encouraging such debate and discussion is important at both the primary and secondary levels, we must also recognise that major social and political upheavals such as the WTC attack, the Bali bombings and the war on Iraq can have strong psychological impacts on students. As teachers we must be carefully attuned to students' inner experiences of controversial issues. One invaluable means of gaining insight into student experience is by providing students with a range of mediums through which they can express themselves. By encouraging students to express themselves through art work, for example, teachers can develop an understanding about feelings which students are unable to articulate verbally. We must recognise too that some students may be severely impacted by controversial issues, and as teachers we should be on the lookout for tell-tale signs of deep psychological distress. By familiarising ourselves with the DSM Criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, we can develop an awareness of when students should be referred to a school counsellor or another suitably trained individual.
While teachers can do much to facilitate a productive engagement with controversial issues for their students, a good deal of responsibility rests upon schools and governments at the level of policy. So as to ensure that schools realise their responsibility of fostering citizenship development and the psychological well-being of students, we recommend that:
1. Schools make clear policy statements on their commitment to engaging with controversial issues. This would include encouraging the discussion of important social and political issues in the classroom where they are relevant to the curriculum and, where they are not, signalling a willingness to adapt the curriculum so that they can be explored;
2. Schools explicitly state their commitment to engaging with society in dealing with controversial issues. As we have shown, citizenship education is most meaningful when students actually engage directly with local communities and experience the issue at hand directly;
3. Schools provide adequate professional development programs to help teachers develop the kinds of skills they require to effectively engage with controversial issues in the classroom, both intellectually and psychologically;
4. State governments promote the engagement with controversial issues in a more open and explicit manner as a means by which to foster citizenship behaviour and ensure students' well-being.
Arthur, J. and Wright, D. (2001) Teaching Citizenship in the Secondary School . David Fulton Publishers, London.
See this work for a detailed and practical overview of issues relating to the instruction of citizenship in the UK context. It provides a useful historical backdrop for these issues as well as a wide range of practical suggestions for implementing citizenship education across the curriculum.
Carrington, Bruce and Troyna, Barry (eds.) (1988) Children and Controversial Issues . Falmer Press, Lewes, East Sussex.
This academically rigorous collection of articles on teaching controversial issues in primary and secondary schools covers a wide range of issues both at the theoretical and practical levels – despite its age it is highly recommended reading for all teachers.
Fine, M. (1995) Habits of Mind – Struggling Over Values in America's Classrooms . Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
This work explores a range of theoretical and practical issues relating to the teaching of values in the secondary classroom. It includes a number of detailed case students through which more general questions are explored.
Rubin, J.A. (1998) Art Therapy, an Introduction . Brunner-Mazel, New York.
See this work for a useful overview of the theory and practice of art therapy within and outside of educational contexts.
Altbach, Philip and Kelly, Gail (eds.). Education and the colonial experience New Brunswick [N.J.]: Transaction Books, 1984.
Anon. (2003) ‘Iraq: Answering Student Questions'. Social Education. 67(4): 190-194.
Arthur, J. and Wright, D. (2001) Teaching Citizenship in the Secondary School . David Fulton Publishers, London.
Austin, A.G. (ed.) (1972) Select Documents in Australian Education 1788-1900. Pitman, London.
Australian Education Union (2003) ‘A Statement About War'. Schools Bulletin . 4: 18 March.
Bateson, M.C. (1996) ‘Democracy, Ecology and Participation'. In Soder, R. (ed.) Democracy, Education, and the Schools. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Beane, J. (1995) A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality. National Middle School Association, Columbus Ohio.
Beresin, R. A. (2002) ‘Children's Expressive Culture in Light of September 11, 2001'. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly. 33(3): 331-337.
Black, N. (2002) ‘The Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist in the Pentagon Response'. Military Medicine. 167(4): 79-80.
Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C. and Cook, J. (1992) Negotiating the Curriculum – Educating for the 21 st Century. Falmer Press, London.
Brooks, B. and Siegel, P.M. (1996) The Scared Child, Helping Kids Overcome Traumatic Events . John Wiley Sons Inc., New York.
Burke, S. (2003) ‘Managing Children's Reactions To Events Of War'. Avaliable:
http://psychsociety.com.au/units/interest_groups/peace/current_issues.asp
Burke, S. (2003) ‘Media Release, April 9, 2003: Students Need Adults To Help Them Deal With Iraq War. Avaliable:
http://psychsociety.com.au/units/interest_groups/peace/current_issues.asp
Burke, S. (2003) ‘Parents Should Shield Children From The War Coverage'. Avaliable: http://psychsociety.com.au/units/interest_groups/peace/current_issues.asp
Burnaford, G., Aprill, A., and Weiss, C. (eds.) (2001) Renaissance in the Classroom, Arts Integration and Meaningful Learning , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (1988) ‘Children and Controversial Issues'. In Children and Controversial Issues. The Falmer Press, London.
Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (eds.) (1988) Children and Controversial Issues. Falmer Press, London.
Civics Expert Group (CEG) (1994) Whereas the People – Civics and Citizenship Education . Report of the Civics Expert Group. AGPS, Canberra.
Connell, Bob. ‘Rage against the dying of the light'. The Australian Higher Education Supplement , 23 October 2002.
Cook, J. (1992) ‘Negotiating the Curriculum – Programming for Learning'. In Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C. and Cook, J. (1992) Negotiating the Curriculum – Educating for the 21 st Century. Falmer Press, London.
Davies, I. and Thorpe, T. (2003) ‘Thinking and Acting as Citizens'. In Roland-Lévy, C. and Ross, A. (eds.) Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent.
Department of Education and Training Victoria (2003) ‘Advice for Schools in Dealing with the International Situation.' Department of Education and Training Victoria, Circular 075/2003. Sent: Wednesday 19 March, 3:49 pm. From: DE&T Mail. To: All School Principals; All School Council Presidents; All Schools.
Evans, K.M. (1998) Shaping Futures – Learning for Competence and Citizenship. Ashagate, Aldershot.
Fine, M. (1995) Habits of Mind – Struggling Over Values in America's Classrooms . Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco.
Fisher, R. (2003) Teaching Thinking – Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom . Continuum, London and New York.
Gerzon, M. (1997) ‘Teaching Democracy by Doing It!'. Educational Leadership. 54(5): 6-11.
Giroux, Henry and McLaren, Peter L. (eds). Critical Pedagogy, The State, And Cultural Struggle. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989.
Gross, T. and Gurewitz, C.S. (2002) ‘Painting a Tragedy, Young Children Process the Events of September 11.' Young Children . May: 44-51.
Harber, Clive. Education, Democracy and Political Development in Africa. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1997.
Holdsworth, R. (2000) ‘Schools that Create Real Role for Value for Young People'. Prospect. 30(3): 349-362.
Holdsworth, R., England, G., Carson., Stokes, H. and Tyler, D. (eds.) (2000) Discovering Democracy in Action: Learning from School Practice . Australian Youth Research Centre, Melbourne.
http://psychsociety.com.au/units/interest_groups/peace/current_issues.asp
Jeffs, T. (1988) ‘Preparing Young People for Participatory Democracy'. In Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (eds.) (1988) Children and Controversial Issues. Falmer Press, London.
Kardia, D., Bierwert, C., Cook, C.E., Miller, A.T. and Kaplan, M. (2002) ‘Discussing the Unfathomable: Classroom-Based Responses to Tragedy'. Change . 34(1): 19-23.
Liebmann, M. (1986) Art Therapy for Groups: a Handbook of Themes Games and Exercises , Brookline Books, Massachusetts.
Lipman, M. (1988) Philosophy Goes to School . Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
National Council for the Social Studies (2003a) ‘War with Iraq – How to Help Students Cope with War News'. Social Education . 67(3): 126-133.
National Council for the Social Studies (2003b) ‘Iraq: Answering Student Questions'. Social Education . 67(3): 190-193.
Nelson, B. (2003) ‘Introduction – Ministerial Statement'. Discovering Democracy . Available: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/democracy/aboutdd.htm
Parker, W.C. (1996) ‘Curriculum for Democracy'. In Soder, R. (ed.) Democracy, Education, and the Schools . Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Pfefferbaum, B., Nixon, J.S., Trivis, D.R., Doughty, E. D., Pynoos, S.R., Gurwitch, H.H. and Foy, W.D. (2001) ‘Television Exposure in Children After a Terrorist Incident.' Psychiatry. 64(3): 202-211.
Polard, A. (1988) ‘Controversial Issues and Reflective Teaching'. In
Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (eds.) (1988) Children and Controversial Issues. Falmer Press, London.
Print, M. (ed.) (1995) Civics and Citizenship – Issues from Practice to Research. Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Belconnen.
Putnam, W.F. (2002) ‘Televised Trauma and Viewers PTSD: Implications for Prevention.' Psychiatry. 65(4): 310-312.
Roberts, M. (1999) ‘Working with Children and Adolescents Following Trauma: Not Just a Scaled Down Version of Adult Work.' Grief Matters. 2(1): 29-33.
Roberts, M. (1999) ‘Working with Children and Adolescents Following Trauma: Not Just a Scaled Down Version of Adult Work'. Grief Matters. (2)1: 29-33.
Rogers, C. (1977) Personal Power . Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., New York.
Roland-Lévy, C. and Ross, A. (eds.) (2003) Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent.
Ross, A. (2003) ‘Children's Political Learning: Concept-Based Approaches Versus Issues-Based Approaches'. In Roland-Lévy, C. and Ross, A. (eds.) Political Learning and Citizenship in Europe. Trentham Books, Stoke on Trent.
Rubin, J.A. (1998) Art Therapy, an Introduction . Brunner-Mazel, New York.
Schlozman, S.C. (2001) ‘The Shrink in the Classroom.' Educational Leadership . Nov: 86-88.
Scott, D. and Lawson, H. (eds.) (2002) Citizenship and the Curriculum . Ablex Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.
Short, G. (1988) ‘Children's Grasp of Controversial Issues'. In Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (eds.) (1988a) Children and Controversial Issues. Falmer Press, London.
Singh, B. (1988) ‘The Teaching of Controversial Issues: The Problems of the Neutral Chair Approach'. In Carrington, B. and Troyna, B. (eds.) (1988a) Children and Controversial Issues. Falmer Press, London.
Smith, N.W. (2002) ‘In the Belly of the Beast'. Anthropology and Education Quarterly . 33(3): 338-349.
Soder, R. (ed.) (1996) Democracy, Education, and the Schools. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco.
Turner, D. and Baker, P. (2000a) Developing Citizenship in Secondary Students . Kogan Page, London.
Turner, D. and Baker, P. (2000b) Activities for Teaching Citizenship in Secondary Schools . Kogan Page, London.
United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
http://www.hrea.org/learn/tutorials/refugees/treaties/udhr.html
Weiss, M. and Weiss, S. (2000) ‘Case Study (Group) Second Generation to Holocaust Survivors: Enhanced Differentiation of Trauma Transmission.' American Journal of Psychotherapy. 54(3): 372-385.
Wynne, E.A. (1986) ‘The Great Tradition in Education: Transmitting Moral Values'. Educational Leadership. 43: 4-9.
Go to top[1] Christopher Blackman is the Head of History at a suburban secondary college in Melbourne. His name has been changed here to protect his identity.
[2] For more on the children's' psychological responses to traumatic events, see the final section of this essay.
[3] There can be important exceptions to this, however. NCSS (2003a), for example, shows how students' whose parents served militarily in the war on Iraq were psychologically affected by news of the war and required special attention from teachers and school counsellors.
[4] The school names which feature in this article are fictional, the actions and activities outlined, however, are real.
[5] For a sophisticated historical and theoretical analysis of the relationship between citizen behaviour and the institutional structures of democracy, see Habermas (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[7] I extend my thanks here to Adam Szmulewicz for drawing my attention to this case study and suggesting its significance.
[8] For a case study outlining a similar scenario in the classroom and how the teacher responded to a student's morally reprehensible contention, see Fine (1995) 69-98.
[9] This is particularly true in the case of the New Right in the United States which argues that teachers have no right to impose any form of politics on students since students should grow to accept their parents' political position.
[10] For more on the student -centred curricula orientation by which this report is influenced, see Beane (1995).
[11] So intractable is this position, it seems, that some writers have written extensively on the teaching of controversial issues in school yet refuse to make a clear pronouncement on whether the teacher should remain neutral or advocate a particular view. See Fine (1995) as a remarkable example of this. Ross (2003) also avoids making clear pronouncements on how the teacher can overcome the ‘neutrality/advocacy' dilemma.
[12] Teachers may interpret what democratic values are from a range of perspectives. A useful starting point, and one that could be productively explored with students, would be the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
[13] Ironically, for all their advocacy of citizenship activities, Arthur and Wright (2001) suggest little more than role play activities as a means by which students can experience citizenship behaviour.
[14] For a more detailed account of the impact of violent television on young students, see Section 4 of this article.
[15] Names have been changed to protect the identity of individuals.
[16] For an explanation of ‘trans-generational trauma' see Section 4 of this article.
[17] For more information read Personal Power by Carl Rogers, Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., New York, 1977.
[18] This teaching method is discussed in further detail in another article of this publication.