Is rigid curriculum undermining academic freedom?

Glynda Rickard at Western High in Anaheim, shown here critiquing a class presentation by Gerardo Gonzalez, Justin Maneevong and Ythy Ho, fears teachers are avoiding problems by censoring themselves.

Teachers are looking over their shoulders these days. Many say there’s a definite chill in the air that has nothing to do with the weather. And — if nobody’s listening — they might even ask out loud, “What has happened to academic freedom?”

Academic freedom has been disappearing little by little for quite some time, quietly and unnoticed amid budget crises, elections and layoffs. While it may not receive as much attention as other issues, its impact is monumental.

Under the accountability movement, teachers have lost considerable academic freedom because of federal- and state-mandated standardized testing tied to curriculum. At the same time, curriculum has narrowed dramatically.

Many students today are subjected to a dumbed down, one-size-fits-all, drill-skill-and-test curriculum, which undermines critical questioning skills and diminishes the joy of learning. This creates a two-tiered system of education, one preparing students for low-level service jobs and one for students who will go on to college. What suffers in the long run is democracy.

Academic freedom is also being undermined by corporate influence in state and national government, believes Ann Berlak, adjunct professor of elementary education at San Francisco State University. She points to the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations, which played a major role in shaping the system of school accountability that relies on scripted curriculum tied to standardized tests.

“The Business Roundtable pushed the punitive No Child Left Behind assessment policies,” says Berlak, a member of the California Faculty Association. “Many corporate leaders have significant financial interests in the corporations that publish standardized tests and scripted curriculum. These policies do not serve the interests of our children or the common good; instead they produce docile students and workers who do not have the capacity to think or act for themselves.”

While academic freedom has been strongly defined for those who teach at the college and university level, it has been loosely interpreted for K-12 teachers, says Virginia Ann Shadwick, a professor at SFSU and higher education’s representative on the NEA Board of Directors. As a result, K-12 teachers are rapidly losing the right to exercise what she calls “professional discretion” in the classroom — the right to teach in the manner that they believe best meets the needs of their students.

“Although we have few of the pre-scripted programs that K-12 educators face, higher education faces other challeges to our academic freedom,” says Dián Hasson, a Butte College professor who represents higher education on CTA’s Board of Directors. “Some of these are indirect, such as the large number of part-time faculty who work with little job security. They are the most vulnerable to pressures, and by protecting their due process rights we improve our students’ learning conditions and the profession.”

Colleges and universities have traditionally been exempt from academic freedom issues in America, but this is changing — especially when it comes to teacher education. Some CFA members say there is tremendous pressure for “de-skilling” the curriculum to prepare future teachers for one-size-fits-all learning.

With this trend, says Berlak, teaching is perceived “as simply the acquisition of technical skills in the factory mode for the purpose of manufacturing widgets on an ever more efficient scale.”

“If other teachers in a university were treated like those in teacher education, they would be up in arms,” says Shadwick. “It’s appalling.”

John Halcon, a professor of education at CSU San Marcos, constantly hears education students saying they didn’t expect teaching to be so structured that they can’t be creative or come up with new ideas.

“But I think we have an ethical and moral obligation to make sure these teachers are the best they can be — regardless of the political climate,” says Halcon, who believes rigid curriculum is driving future teachers from the profession.

The CFA member had the unfortunate experience of being secretly tape-recorded while he conducted his class. The tape was given to the dean in an effort to get him fired. The visitor, who was affiliated with a religious extremist group in Colorado, was not enrolled at the college.

“It had a chilling effect,” says Halcon. “It’s like when you jump into the pool, your mouth opens and you know you can swim, but you lose it there for a second. I always have been able to say what I wanted to say and always believed I had the right to say what I wanted to say. But now I’m starting to look over my shoulder.”

What happened to Halcon reflects a growing trend for conservative students to sue colleges over so-called academic freedom issues, claiming professors are violating their rights by, for example, not teaching creationism. Leading the movement is the group known as Students for Academic Freedom, which has chapters on 135 campuses. It has close ties to conservative author David Horowitz, who has published a list of what he considers to be the “101 most radical and dangerous professors in America.”

The group has also sponsored campaigns in several states for an Academic Bill of Rights, which requires colleges and universities to teach “all points of view,” including creationism.

With colleges and universities tending to hire part-time teachers who are not on a tenure track, faculty members are increasingly reluctant and fearful about speaking out and defending their right to academic freedom, says Halcon. It’s similar to what probationary teachers experience at the K-12 level. Also, even veteran teachers who have rigid curriculum imposed upon them may feel isolated and powerless and typically find themselves in the position of “reacting” to such changes rather than having a dialogue about them.

Teachers throughout California are struggling with censorship issues, says Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California. Whether it pertains to reading materials they assign in their own classrooms or their roles as advisers for student newspapers and yearbooks, he says, “censorship didn’t die in the 1950s and it isn’t something that happens only in Mississippi. In fact, it is happening a lot more now than in the 1970s or 1980s.”

Teachers acting as advisers to student publications are constantly having to remind administrators that California has one of the strongest statutes for protecting students’ First Amendment rights, says Eliasberg. “Unfortunately, a lot of administrators do not really understand the statute or its purpose, which is quite clear about what administrators can and can’t censor. We hear from teachers about this all the time.” [See related story]

As for reading material in schools, Eliasberg says, there is a “mindset” among some parents today that public school should not teach — or include material about — something that may be incompatible with their own religious beliefs or personal convictions. In addition to demanding that their child opt out of studying the material, they may insist that the material be removed from the school entirely or that the teacher be fired.

Books that have stirred controversy in schools in recent times include The Color Purple, Sophie’s Choice, anything mentioning sorcery or witchcraft, and such classics as The Catcher in the Rye  and  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Often, says Eliasberg, parents will object to something without understanding its context. For example, they might want a book like Huck Finn banned because of its racial slurs, not realizing that the author, Mark Twain, was depicting race relationships and pointing out the unfairness of slavery.

“Teachers should be thoughtful and careful when picking books that may be considered controversial,” says Eliasberg. “They should be able to explain why they are teaching this book, why students should be exposed to it and why it is a quality piece of literature. It’s the best position for teachers to be in so that administrators don’t knuckle under when pressured by parents.”

Perhaps the most subtle form of censorship comes in the form of textbooks that offer excerpts of important books. While students are not exposed to controversial passages, they don’t get the benefit of reading the entire book.

VirginiaAnn Shadwick	Dián Hasson
Ann Berlak	John Halcon

The textbooks offer “disconnected stories,” says Rick Kleine, a fourth- and fifth-grade combination teacher at Federal Terrace Elementary School in Vallejo. “Kids don’t grapple with ideas. And then they don’t want to read the whole book, because they feel like they’ve already read it.” Kleine, a member of the Vallejo Education Association, worries that students who have not read entire novels may not be adequately prepared for college.

“In a literate society, we want children to read, understand, form opinions and be thoughtful about what they have read. I don’t think reading part of a story and answering worksheets accomplishes that.”

Many believe it’s time for teachers to exercise their First Amendment rights by speaking out about the loss of academic freedom and how it adversely affects students and teachers. Teachers should begin to talk honestly to each other about what’s happening and then educate others — including parents and legislators — about the problems of one-size-fits-all instruction.

“Unfortunately, many teachers never thought about academic freedom or professional discretion until it was taken away,” says Shadwick. “Part of the problem is that collective bargaining never addressed the issue of curriculum. But I think we need a whole lot of discussion about this issue because what’s happening is hurting students — and it’s time for the public to be aware of this.”