I visited St. Paul last week for the annual Lobby Day for our region of professional educators who are part of Education Minnesota, our teaching union. It’s a fantastic day where we have meetings with some local legislators and also try to find others in passing, pushing ideas of our profession that we feel merit legislative approval.
Everyone we talked to that day seemed sure that something would get done this session in regards to school safety. At the least, it looks like schools should get some money to upgrade security measures, though a number of our politicians think the state needs to provide the resources so all schools could have a school resource officer on site. This certainly helped in one of the latest school shooting cases in Maryland, where an SRO helped contain the violence.
While we had great discussions about school safety and what a waste of time standardized testing is (what a shock that I volunteered to lead that charge!), one item came to the attention of the teachers present which provoked a fierce response.
Our Education Minnesota representative told us of a bill making its way around the legislature which seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to something that happened last year. Some students in various schools in the Twin Cities felt they were denied rights to protest something they didn’t believe in that was occurring. It’s unclear if this had to do with dress code, respect for the flag, or something else, but when teachers tried to turn this into a teachable moment, some kids and parents found cause for a grievance. How dare you make my child do an assignment for credit about something they disagree with?
So now there’s potential legislation, called the Academic Balance Policy, which would make it illegal for a teacher to make a student do an assignment in which he or she would have to acknowledge that there are two sides to issues. Students could write a paper about something they believe in, for example, standing for the National Anthem. But they could refuse to mention the viewpoint of those who choose not to stand and teachers couldn’t dock them for that under penalty of losing our teaching license!
Whoa, time to slow down here. I’m not the biggest supporter of the Common Core Standards that are in place to guide our teaching; regardless, that’s what we’re using, and in many locations, the standards talk about having students analyze issues and problems. It’s virtually impossible to analyze anything unless you look at it from all angles.
My 8th graders are starting some persuasive writing at this time. One of the tenets I hammer home every year is the necessity to acknowledge the opposing point of view. If a student writes a paper about why his curfew should be later, he might say, “Mom and Dad, I understand you’re concerned about some of the negative things that happen around town when it gets dark, but I want the chance to prove to you that I hang out with good kids.”
By using the other side of an issue to springboard to your own reasons, it builds a level of respect between opposing sides. You want to show that you’re listening to the person who has established this rule you don’t like. You also need to understand their reasonings to formulate a proper response. It’s a little like coaching; if you scout a team, you understand what offense might work best against them.
To use my first example from above, if I’m writing a paper to say that everyone should stand for the anthem, I might write, “While some people believe the Constitution gives them the right to protest the National Anthem, there are flaws in this thinking, such as respect for the people who earned us our freedom.” I’m telling you I know your reasons, but here’s why I think you should change. When done in a respectful way, people can have an open communication and maybe try at least to reach a middle ground.
My students blog every couple of weeks. They are required to reply to others’ blogs as well. After the shooting in Florida, I posted a topic for their opinions on gun control and school safety. Students had very strong opinions on both sides of gun control, from the thought that we should eliminate most guns to the pry it from my cold, dead hands stand. However, the discourse was respectful among students. Through our constant writing in this manner, they have learned that not everyone will agree with them, but these are their friends and classmates who might have a differing opinion. Hopefully, they are learning to bring that into their everyday lives as well.
But in one fell swoop, that could all go away. My kids wouldn’t be allowed to think deeply about relevant topics. They couldn’t develop the analytical skills which help make them stronger members of society and allow them to understand more complex issues and ideas. Nope, because some people got mad and knew the right lawmakers, this has the potential to handcuff teachers in many areas.
I wrote last week that if we want change, we need to become involved in the process that would enable that change. As soon as I heard about this, I adjusted parts of my strategy when engaging with Rep. Jeremy Munson and Sen. Julie Rosen to include this vital bit. It’s something that might slip by, hidden among so many other ideas, but I used those same persuasive skills I’ve been teaching to do my best to continue to give our students the best opportunities to succeed.
Word of the Week: This week’s word is inviolable, which means safe from attack, as in, “The legislator thought her bill was inviolable until a group of teachers showed the flaw in her thinking.” Impress your friends and confuse your enemies!