As I prepare to teach my certification unit, take the licensure
exams, and continue to seek that future teaching position that I now dream
almost every night, I find myself pulled back by something that could have a
very important impact on my future. There is a bill that is currently up for
vote in my state that “could lead to teachers facing criminal charges for
showing students materials that parents would consider harmful and offensive”
(kmbc.com).
The focus in the media and in water-cooler conversations has
been over the idea that a teacher could be prosecuted for presenting material
that a single parent may find offensive. As a future teacher, this idea is a
scary one. I have to ask myself if I am setting myself up for something that I
may not be prepared to deal with. I recently taught a lesson over Dr. Heidegger’s
Experiment by the well respected author of classic literature, Nathanial
Hawthorne. If the water-cooler rumors are correct, this story could land me in
the slammer.
The theme of magic and mysticism is heavily ingrained in the
story, and the plot contains allusions to prostitution, promiscuity, and even a
love triangle between three of the characters. The supplementary materials that
I used also include information regarding the 7 deadly sins –complete with 16th
central pictorial imagery that could be considered graphic by some, and an
introduction to Catholicism (list of 7 virtues that oppose the 7 deadly sins). While
elementary and middle school lesson plans may be slightly more restrictive,
high school educators have enjoyed the freedom to hand-select lessons and
materials for our students. Could this bill really change that?
The language of the bill states that:
“a) No person having custody,
control or supervision of any commercial establishment shall knowingly:
(1) Display any material which is
harmful to minors in such a way that minors, as a part of the invited general
public, will be exposed to view such material or device;
(2) Present or distribute to a
minor, or otherwise allow a minor to view, with or without consideration, any
material which is harmful to minors; or
(3) Present to a minor, or participate
in presenting to a minor, with or without consideration, any performance which
is harmful to a minor.
(b) Violation of this section is a
class B nonperson misdemeanor.”
The bill goes on to say (specifically pertaining to teachers
of minors) that prosecutable acts relate specifically to explicit sex acts and
depiction of nudity, and that nudity can be considered appropriate “for
scientific or medical purposes, educational purposes or cultural purpose for a
bona fide school, museum, or library.”
This sounds very purposeful and even appropriate to me.
However, the word “harmful” does concern me. Who has the right to say what I as
a parent or what you as a parent should deem as “harmful” and how do we
prosecute someone based on a highly varied and culturally or even a religiously
influenced moral idea? The bill does stipulate that “harmful to minors” can be
defined as “ the average adult person applying contemporary community standards
would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to
appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors,”…”depicts or describes nudity,
sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is
patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to
what is suitable for minors,”…”lacks serious literary, scientific, educational,
artistic, or political value for minors.”
So, a prosecution shouldn’t be based on the “offense” of one
person, but on the understanding of cultural standards within the community as
a whole. In this light, I think that the bill would only help support a
wholesome, age appropriate curriculum by making teachers think twice about what
texts they chose to use. This is something that we should be doing every day
regardless of the law. In order to be an effective teacher, each time I
consider a text for a lesson, I must ask myself the following questions:
Is this text relevant to what I want my students to learn?
Is this text engaging, fun, and safe for my students?
Could this text be uncomfortable or even emotionally painful
for any of the students in my class? If so, am I able to consult with them
prior to teaching this text or is there another text that may provide the same
kind of vehicle for my lesson?
When I perform this task, I am using Ralph Tyler’s model for
backward design. I am constructing my lesson based on my objectives for student
learning and not the text that I want to teach.
One of the best ways that we can prevent lawsuits and even simple misunderstandings
is to include parents in what we are doing. Keeping the lines of communication open
between parents, students (and their peers) with what we are doing in the class
room will help foster the kind of classroom community that is more likely to
support student success and overall well-being of the teacher, students, and
parents.
I have considered extending the on-line social media ideas
that we have discussed in my methods classes for communicating with parents to
providing a “pre-view” or even a “movie trailer” for texts and other media that
we plan to explore in our classroom. This would be a great way for parents and students
to see what we will be doing and to voice any questions or concerns in advance.
Getting written permission for some things might also be a good idea, but
creating the opportunity to preview a text might help parents feel more
comfortable and knowledgeable about what they are agreeing to. I have also
considered making it possible for parents to check books out of my classroom
library as well, to read what their students are reading or simply to explain their
own mental library for young adult literature. Perhaps this would be a great opportunity
for allowing parents to pre-read texts that we are going to cover, offer
feedback about the text, and even present ideas on teaching with the text.
What ideas can you think of when we consider teaching
materials that might fall into the “no-go-zone” of our state legislation?
References:
