By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
My hunch is that a significant number of readers of First Teachers will take issue with what I am about to say about the controversy that has erupted, most recently in Georgia and Tennessee, over how Islam is taught in American schools. Why do I say that? Because I have been following on Facebook the comments made by people on my side of the ideological divide, including some old neighborhood friends.
Almost all of them are adamantly opposed to American children being taught, for example, the Five Pillars of Islam and the central elements of Sharia Law. The complaint is that including these themes in the curriculum is a form of religious indoctrination and a violation of their children’s freedom of religion.
I’m sorry: I don’t get it. If a teacher were instructing his or her students that Islam is the one, true religion and that Muhammad is the one, true “Messenger of God,” as Muslims believe, that would be unacceptable. In contrast, merely informing students that this is what Muslims believe is entirely proper, and what should take place in a high school.
Making American students aware of the core beliefs of the world’s great religions is part of the public school curriculum in all of our states. I am confident that our Catholic schools see it as their responsibility as well.
I know it was part of the curriculum in the Catholic and the public schools where I taught from the mid-1960s to the late 1990s. And not just in regard to Islam. The schools where I taught also introduced their students to the core beliefs of Buddhism, Shintoism, and the animist religions of Africa. They were also taught about the beliefs of Christians and Jews — the Ten Commandments, for example — that shaped the nations of Europe and North and South America. We want our children to understand these elements in the world’s major cultures.
When covering these topics, all that is necessary for a teacher to do is insert the phrase “Muslims (or Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists) believe that….” before discussing the religious belief in question. All the high school textbooks that I have seen do that; they make clear that they are introducing the student to a belief of the society in question, not a universal truth that the student should accept in his or her own life.
If those protesting what is being taught about Islam in Georgia and Tennessee have encountered examples of teachers actually promoting a belief in Islam, or mocking Christian beliefs, they would have a point. In that event, I would join in their effort to pressure the authorities to put a stop to such proselytizing. But if what the teachers are doing is making an effort to familiarize their students with the beliefs that shape the cultures of the rest of the world, I applaud it.
There is a marked difference between introducing young people to what members of a certain religion belief, and pressuring them to believe it themselves. That seems obvious to me.
We should keep in mind the story about the boy who cried wolf. If we protest honest instruction about the world’s religions, people won’t listen if the time comes that we feel obliged to protest an actual case of a teacher engaging in religious indoctrination or expressing a hostility toward Christianity.
On another topic: the continuing debate over Common Core. Mary Clare Reim informs us, in the November 24 edition of the Daily Signal, the online publication of the Heritage Foundation, that the “state Board of Education in Massachusetts has decided to retreat from Common Core and develop its own state tests — to the dismay of Common Core advocates.” (Reim is a research associate in education policy at The Heritage Foundation.) Writes Reim, “It comes as no surprise that a ‘top-down, one-size-fits-all’ approach to education is not working for the people of Massachusetts.”
Reim continues, “Interestingly, this policy reversal comes at the recommendation of Mitchell Chester, one of Common Core’s main architects. When a program’s leading advocate admits that it is not working, it is time to give that program a second look.”
Reim points out that Massachusetts is not alone: “The sentiment held in Massachusetts is shared by parents, students, teachers, and school administrators all over the country. A recent poll found that approval for Common Core plummeted to 46 percent among teachers in 2014, a 30-point drop from 2013. Approval among parents indicates a similar pattern, with overall approval rates dropping from 65 percent in 2013 to 53 percent in 2014.”
A common complaint of those opposed to Common Core is that students can be drastically different from one state to another, Reim continues, and “require a different set of tests and curricula. Therefore, restoring control to states and localities to make informed choices for their communities will better ensure education quality.”
Common Core has come under scrutiny, Reim points out, “after the National Association for Educational Progress (NAEP) released especially dismal results for 2015. While Massachusetts has prided itself on its consistently high standardized test performance, their 2015 NAEP results showed declines in almost every category of testing. Massachusetts’ 8th-grade math assessment dropped to its lowest average score since 2005, with 8th-grade reading falling to 2009 levels. Massachusetts was not alone in its declining performance.”
Reim refers to the work of Russ Whitehurst of The Brookings Institution who, she writes, “found a statistically significant link between state adoption of Common Core and lower NAEP scores. While some argue that the decline in test scores may simply be because students and teachers need to adjust to a new system, Whitehurst is convinced that ‘the modest correlation suggests that more is going on than disruptions in instruction associated with the rollout of a new assessment system’.”
Reim’s conclusion: “As Common Core faces harsh criticism in light of recent NAEP scores and pushback from policymakers, it is time for more states to consider going the route of Massachusetts and say ‘no thanks’ to Common Core State Standards.”
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress