Reflection on Teacher Leadership Standard 1: Moral Leadership

My preconceptions about our Moral Issues in the Classroom class focused mainly on the religious aspects of the course, but those ideas changed once I began the reading. Our first text, The Charged Classroom: Predicaments and Possibilities for Democratic Teaching, forced me to think about the various issues regarding social justice and democracy that flow through my classroom. Technically, Judith Pace (2015) defines a charged classroom as one “suffused with contradictions that create both friction and potential” (p. 4). This could be a teacher trying to entice students to perform well without embarrassing them in front of their classmates. Or it could be a discussion about a controversial topic where the teacher is trying to navigate between conflicting and provocative viewpoints. Then there’s the teacher negotiating the balance between a district’s curricular demands, state testing, and the unique needs of individuals within a classroom. The “charge” from these areas can be enough to ignite a spark, but the question is whether that spark will destroy confidence or create knowledge.

Pace’s (2015) discussion about face highlights a major charge within the classroom. Students appreciate high expectations, but they don’t want to lose face in front of their peers, and when expectations are not met, public criticism, even constructive, needs to be couched in a way that does not diminish the relationship between teacher and student. This isn't anything new to most teachers; nobody likes to be shown up in front of others, and the teenagers I work with are often at their most vulnerable. When an adult makes them lose face among their peers, they shut down and often fail to return to engagement. Culturally responsive teaching goes a long way toward maintaining a strong relationship; when teachers can empathize with their students’ unique circumstances, they are more likely to avoid face-losing situations.

Controversial topics provide another challenge in the classroom. Often the teacher has a desire to control these discussions to avoid offending students - and perhaps their parents or administrators. Yet the discussion of controversial and provocative topics opens students to new knowledge and is vital to democratic education (Pace, 2015). Teachers should not avoid these topics, but rather they should seek training in facilitating these discussions. Teachers and students must tolerate conflict, according to Pace; she recommends the use of peacemaking curriculum to promote a deeper understanding of conflict. Clary (2017) suggests using reflective writing to have students think about their religious or philosophical views and how they relate to the content. The reflection acknowledges the students' viewpoints without compromising the curriculum.

When I first started teaching about research to my Advanced Placement English students, I had one topic on the taboo list: abortion. I did not trust faith-based arguments, because I felt those arguments were not arguable - I cannot argue against the existence of God. Furthermore, one cannot point to the Bible and its commandment as empirical evidence, as many evangelicals seem to do. Basically, I did not want to deal with abortion, so my students wrote about global warming or animal rights or whether or not college athletes should be paid. After reading Religion in the Classroom (James, Schweber, Kunzman, Barton, and Logan, 2015), I felt that excluding a religious-based argument would limit my students’ ability to discuss those issues of faith in what I hope is a safe environment. This year I did not exclude any topics, but I focused more on making sure my students had arguable topics for their research, religious or not. When I explained this to one of my students who I know has strong religious beliefs, she was pleased with my explanation, a sign that I made the right move. Her research topic: the effect of religious beliefs on the adoption of scientific knowledge. Trocco (2000) actually has his students study topics on the fringe of science and health because "when students study fringe topics, they have to weigh evidence against testimony and claims against facts, and these responsibilities immediately draw them deeper into their work" (p. 628).

Finally, teachers should address curricular demands head on and demand an acknowledgement of their role as the gatekeeper of what actually gets taught to students (Pace, 2015). The teacher is the obvious choice to prioritize those demands, and while some priorities might be set aside, administrators should give teachers training that allows them to provide “access to challenging, meaningful, and multicultural subject matter” (p. 117). With an eye on the needs of the students, teachers should be trusted to manage this conflict, as well as the many others that will inevitably arise in the classroom.

References

Clary, R. (2017). Defusing discomfort: Bridging philosophical and religious conflicts through reflective writing. The Science Teacher, 84(2), 26-30.

James, J. H., Schweber, S., Kunzman, R., Barton, K. C., & Logan, K. (2015). Religion in the classroom: Dilemmas for democratic education. New York: Routledge.

Pace, J. L. (2015). The charged classroom: Predicaments and possibilities for democratic teaching. New York: Routledge.

Trocco, F. (2000). Encouraging students to study weird things. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 628-631.