Summary: 5.1 Journell; Making A Case For Teacher Political Disclosure

Read the summary and the most important questions on 5.1 Journell; Making a case for teacher political disclosure

• 1 Background

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• Journell starts with an example of a teacher being disciplined, why was she disciplined?

  For expressing political views in a way that is not representative of tolerant civic behaviour.

• Why are teachers afraid to disclose their personal political beliefs? Why is there a "disclosure dilemma"?

  They fear indoctrination accusations from students, parents, or administrators.

• Why does Journell offer a counterargument to this popular narrative on teacher political disclosure?

  Journell says "tolerant disclosure", or what Kelly terms "committed impartiality" is both:
  - pedagogically beneficial and
  - less likely to indoctrinate than attempts at neutrality.

• 2 The Myth of teacher Neutrality

• What is the argument for neutrality?

  As agents of the state, teachers have a moral responsibility to avoid proselytizing (bekeren) given their positions of power in the classroom.
  Public education should emphasize "how to think" rather than "what to think". 
  
  if there is no neutrality, there are attempts at indoctrination.

• What is the problem with identifying instances of indoctrination?

  It presupposes that neutrality is a binary state. 
  If one is not engaging in purposeful indoctrination, what Kelly terms "exclusive partiality", then one is practicing neutrality.

• Why is neutrality as a binary state inaccurate?

  Because teaching is an innately political endeavor. 
  
  A teacher who proselytizes (bekeren) could be accused of indoctionation. 
  So too can be a teacher who chooses to read derectly from a scripted lesson since that curriculum was created by individuals with political agenda's. 
  
  you can never be neutral
  - in choosing which students get to speak
  - and for how long
  - whether to address an inflammatory comment made by a student
  
  Some voices are privileged over others, remaining silent is a decision that ulitimately supports the status quo.

• What are the reasons why teachers choose not to disclose their political views and remain politically 'neutral'?

  - For fear of indoctrinating their students. 
  - For anxiety over the disclosure dilemma, due to a fear of being reprimanded by administrators or parents for appearing to deviate from the perceived political ideology of the school and surrounding community.

• Teachers who claim to be neutral aren't, how does this work?

  - they say or do things that indicate which way they lean politically
  - all teachers regularly make value statements about certain parties or candidates when teaching about election
  - they privilege certain ideologies or candidates based on materials they use in class
  - neutral teachers may marginalize certain aspects of the curriculum that deviate from their personal beliefs while accentuating aspects they support
  - teachers have greater difficulty maintaining neutrality when political issues cross into boundaries defined by personal identity, such as race, sexuality, and religion.

• Why can't teachers be politically neutral?

  Because teachers are political beings. 
  It is unrealistic to expect teachers to be able to remove themselves from their political personas onze they walk into the classroom.

• Why is Journell in favor of political disclosure by teachers?

  - it carries positive implications for instruction
  - it provides the necessary context to minimize the possibility of indoctrination.  
  
  The "neutral" teacher is more indoctrinating than the teacher who engaged in a shouting match with her students.