In the Classroom

Curriculum Controversies Confronted

by Mary Tamer

As the students slowly stream into Gutman 440 for their weekly three-hour session on curriculum controversies, there is lively chatter and no shortage of Starbucks coffee cups, filled with the fuel needed to aid the even livelier conversations that will follow once class begins.

Lecturer Janice Jackson, Ed.M.’92, Ed.D.’01, is more than ready to moderate these discussions, as well as participate in them, once class is under way.

“Let’s wait a few more minutes, as I know some folks are missing,” she announces, taking to the blackboard to document the day’s topics: the purpose of schools; curriculum theory; who we teach; historical perspective; and Western canon. After two more students arrive, Jackson begins the class, as she does each week, with mention of some general housekeeping items — “There’s a lot of reading, as there are several controversies for each subject matter” — and then a quote from the aforementioned multitude of readings required for the course.

“Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it, and by the same token, save it from that ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and the young, would be inevitable,” reads Jackson, quoting Hannah Arendt from a 1999 paper written by William Ayers. “And where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”

It’s a strong quote that sets the tone for the day’s first discourse on establishing “norms” for class discussions, a topic carried over from the previous week. The norms are needed to help the class preserve and maintain a level of mutual respect as they begin to delve more deeply into the plethora of controversies at play in classrooms around the country. Jackson stresses that it’s about the use of intellect, not emotion, when making a point to peers.

“Everyone has emotional responses, and some are neutral, and some are not,” she says. “What’s one norm you would suggest for our class? What might a norm be where one person needs one thing and one person needs another?”

Before the questions are answered, the class separates into four groups. Each group has to come up with two norms.

“You can be passionate about what you are saying without making it about the other person. It’s passion versus confrontation,” says a member of group one.

“Assume the best intentions of the person,” says another.

Other norms are thrown out: “Keep in mind cultural differences.”

“Accept silences organically.”

“Practice active listening.”

“Part of this is taking responsibility for yourself,” says Jackson.

“Does anybody have questions as to why we’re taking time with this? Are anybody’s guts churning?”

There are a few laughs but no audible answers. It is clear that the class has developed a good rapport in the relatively brief time they have been together, a quality that is not lost on their instructor.

“They’re a great class and they’re thoughtful,” says Jackson. “My hope is, when folks walk out of here, they’ll have some time to reflect on who they are and what kind of leaders they want to be and how to lead these conversations in a school or a district.

“Sometimes,” she says, “you’ve got to dig deep.”

About the Article

A version of this article originally appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Ed., the magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Illustration by Tim Walker