For academic freedom and teacher professional judgment - Portland Teacher Statement Regarding Occupy Education Panel

 
We, the undersigned educators, are dismayed by the recent incident at Astor School where members of the Occupy Portland Panel, an educational branch of the Occupy Portland movement, were thrown out of a classroom of sixth and seventh graders after they began talking to students about U.S. foreign wars and house foreclosures. After a school employee interrupted the discussion, the Occupy Portland guests were told by the teacher that, “the school district is not comfortable with us having this conversation,” and then escorted out of the building. The decision to end the panel came from Astor Principal Karl Newsome. Portland Public Schools spokesman Matt Shelby is quoted in the Portland Mercury backing the principal’s decision citing a district procedure that calls for principals to sign off whenoutside groups are brought in and asserting that the teacher should have let parents know before inviting the Occupy Portland Panel to Astor.

We reject the idea that teachers would need to notify parents or obtain principal approval before bringing Occupy speakers to their classrooms. This is a violation of the professional discretion and academic freedom of teachers. Obviously, the permission of parents and the school principal is not always required when guest speakers come to class. So why in this instance? Can the school district cite any occasion when a principal required a teacher to notify parents prior to a presentation from a representative of a Portland area business, a government agency, or the U.S. military? Are parents notified when teachers use Junior Achievement curriculum materials, funded by large corporations like UPS, ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs? Is it school district policy that only individuals who are engaged in social justice activism are so profoundly controversial and threatening that their presence in schools requires parental permission? And what message does this send to students, when one group is singled out as so potentially problematic? As educators, we object to this attack on academic freedom and the discriminatory enforcement of school district policies.

We believe that too often the standardized curriculum teaches a particular point of view and that it is important for educators to bring in groups like Occupy to offer our students greater curricular balance. For example, theContemporary Economics textbook, adopted by PPS, teaches that income inequality is caused by differences in household sizes, that the best predictor of poverty is whether family members are employed, that welfare tends to create cycles of poverty, and that military spending has been decreasing while “income redistribution” has vastly increased. The global studies adoption, Modern World History, includes a single “critical writing” activity in its treatment of the war in Iraq: “Imagine you are a speechwriter for President Bush. Write the introductory paragraph of a speech to coalition forces after their victory in Iraq.” The text includes no critical perspectives from groups or individuals opposed to U.S. involvement in Iraq.The district should not place restrictions on teachers’ efforts to offer their students a rich and varied — and socially relevant — curriculum.

Lastly, the school district must live up to its commitment to equity. When one-fifth of PPS students live in poverty, one third in David Douglas and Parkrose live in poverty, and 55 percent of all American children live in families that are near poverty, we should be encouraging all teachers to invite Occupy activists into their classroom to discuss issues of inequality and social justice.

If you are an educator,  please state that in a comment with the school or organization you work for.