4 Ideas on How to Teach in a Time of Curriculum Battles

Even in states with anti-"Critical Race Theory" laws, it's still possible--and necessary--to broach difficult subjects.

---

State laws against teaching certain concepts have understandably made teachers anxious. But there are ways to safely broach controversial topics in the classroom—and it’s vitally important that teachers continue to do that.

A growing number of states are enacting legislation prohibiting teaching about concepts deemed politically sensitive. The language can be vague, and in at least a couple of states, teachers who are found to violate the law could lose their teaching licenses. In others, schools or districts could lose funding.

Not surprisingly, some teachers say they’re steering clear of any content that might trigger a complaint. But that could leave students in the dark about important events—especially in history, an area where students’ knowledge is, on average, already seriously lacking.

Teachers in states that have enacted or are considering these ill-advised legislative bans can mobilize to have them rescinded or modified. In at least one state, Indiana, teacher rallies have succeeded in getting the most controversial provisions eliminated from a bill. But if political action isn’t possible, teachers need to figure out how to comply with the law—and, even in states without such laws, how to avoid or handle complaints from parents—while still providing kids with a meaningful education.

That may be challenging, but it’s not impossible. Here are four suggestions:

1. Know the Law

The laws focus on preventing educators from teaching that individuals of one race or gender are “inherently” superior or inferior to another, or that individuals bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by someone of the same race or sex. I imagine few if any teachers are actually teaching those concepts.

Even if a classroom discussion veers into that territory, the laws don’t prohibit discussion. Rather, they’re aimed at what legislators view as indoctrination. The Tennessee legislation that bars the teaching of 11 concepts, for example, also says it doesn’t prohibit “impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history” or “impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region.”

Some teachers, however, are still wary because of another common provision, which bans teaching that individuals “should feel” guilt, anguish, or discomfort on account of their race or sex. A high school history teacher in Tulsa told the publication Ed Week he would no longer teach about the Tulsa Race Massacre—even though the topic is included in Oklahoma’s academic standards, and the state law says it doesn’t prevent teaching about topics in the standards—because it might violate the “discomfort” provision. A Tulsa eighth-grade teacher said she would no longer teach about slavery because she might face retaliation “if a kid comes home and says they’re uncomfortable.”

But the laws don’t prohibit teaching about events that make kids uncomfortable. They prohibit teaching that students should feel uncomfortable. Parents may not be aware of that distinction. But if they complain, teachers—backed by administrators and school board members—should point out that the fact that a student feels uncomfortable doesn’t mean the teacher has violated the law.

2. Know Your Audience

A recent Washington Post article detailing teachers’ anxieties also mentioned that so far, the laws haven’t led to wholesale changes in curriculum, and “few educators have faced prosecution or punishment.” The article added, “Some teachers say they see no changes at all.”

In many classrooms, teachers’ fears about the laws, or parental complaints generally, may be out of proportion to the actual threat. Surveys show a high degree of consensus, across party lines, that schools should teach about topics like slavery—which 90% of respondents in one survey endorsed—the Civil War, and the civil rights movement.

People are more likely to approve of teaching those topics at higher grade levels. That’s unfortunate, because younger children can find them highly engaging—and because it’s important to lay the groundwork for historical learning early, so that students will be equipped to go deeper in later years. But it’s a far cry from not wanting those topics to be taught at all.

There’s more division on teaching about the present than about the past. The survey finding that 90% of respondents favored teaching about slavery also found that only 49% of that group favored teaching about contemporary racism. And it uncovered an unsurprising partisan divide: 77% of those who voted or leaned Democratic favored teaching about “the ongoing effects of slavery and racism,” as opposed to only l6% of those who voted or leaned Republican. Still, because many areas are culturally and politically homogeneous, that kind of disagreement may not exist within a given school district. In Tennessee, for example, teachers in some districts chose to “sit out” Black History Month this year because they feared complaints, while those in other communities saw no reason to worry.

Even when there are clashing perspectives, complaints may be few or localized. In that case, it makes sense to enable parents to opt their children out of reading materials they find objectionable. That’s not ideal, but it’s better than giving them the power to veto a text or even a curriculum across an entire district. In Williamson County, Tennessee, for example—where 31 books in the elementary curriculum have been challenged by a small minority of parents—administrators reported that 66 families had opted out of the curriculum. Over half were at a single school, and 12 of the district’s 28 elementary schools had seen no opt-outs.

3. Know the Difference Between Settled and Open Issues

Teachers have said the legislative bans mean they can’t “tell the truth” or discuss issues like police brutality. The Zinn Education Project has launched a “Pledge to Teach the Truth” campaign, which claims that legislators are trying to “require teachers to lie to students.” But these assertions overlook disagreements about what “the truth” is.

One history teacher, for example, told Ed Week that no one is teaching that white males should feel guilty. But she went on to say that teachers are teaching that “the laws and systems of our country were purposefully developed to elevate white, cis males. That is the truth.” And yet, as surveys indicate, a lot of people—including a lot of parents—would disagree.

Teachers may have absorbed perspectives during their training that aren’t shared by many members of the general public. And the traditional view is that social studies teachers should ensure that students acquire factual knowledge and teach them how to think about it rather than what to think. But two academics who train future social studies teachers have argued that those teachers “should begin with the premise that there is no such thing as neutral or objective knowledge” and “push students to take tangible steps” toward alleviating injustices revealed during teacher-directed “critical inquiries.”

Teachers don’t need to lie. They don’t need to exclude factual information about the darker side of American history, and they don’t need to stifle discussion. They also don’t need to teach “both sides” of a settled issue like the Holocaust—which all reputable historians would agree was a horrific event. But whatever the strength of their own convictions—and whether or not they live in a state with a legislative ban on certain topics—they do need to distinguish between perspectives that are widely accepted and those on which there is deep division. Perhaps they could ask themselves how they’d feel if their own children had a teacher whose views were diametrically opposed to theirs and who presented those views as “the truth.”

4. Ensure Students Are Prepared to Discuss Controversial Issues

The laws don’t prohibit student discussion. But having students just launch into a debate over a controversial issue from the past or present could lead to problems and may not advance their knowledge or understanding.

Ideally, students will first have a good grasp of the facts and the perspectives of those on each side of an issue before offering their own views. It also helps to start with issues that are less likely to tap into strong pre-existing beliefs.

Jon Bassett and Gary Shiffman, social studies teachers and creators of the Four-Question Method, have put forth a framework that can foster thoughtful, productive discussions of issues from the past—and the present. In a blog post, Bassett recounted debates in his high school class on the question “Who deserves a statue?” The first one came up in the context of Genghis (or Chinggis) Khan, the 13th-century Mongolian conqueror. That laid the groundwork for a later discussion, during a unit on European exploration, of whether the city of Boston was right in removing a statue of Columbus. In both cases, students had first determined what actually happened and had explored the perspectives of the actors.

Most members of the public agree that legislators shouldn’t try to control what gets taught in the classroom. And clearly, these laws are making a tough job a lot harder. Nevertheless, teachers owe it to their students—and to all of us—to find a way to convey the information and knowledge essential for informed participation in a democracy.

This post originally appeared in a slightly different form on Forbes.com.