Oakland, Calif.
A group of California educators believes that schools should confront head-on the reality of living with nuclear weapons and should teach such skills as long division, for example, with word problems involving anti-ballistic missiles and their warheads.
That idea, put forth by California Educators for Social Responsibility, an anti-nuclear group, got a boost this month from a report prepared by the state department of education.
Statewide Curriculum
The report recommended that California become the first state in the nation to develop a statewide curriculum dealing with “nuclear-age issues” and encourage its use in its schools.
The schools “are the best possible forum for discussing the personal, political, environmental, and social implications of the nuclear age,” said Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, the author of the legislation that ordered the report.
He said schools have a responsibility to prepare children “to confront the fears that come with living in a nuclear age.”
Mr. Vasconcellos plans to introduce legislation that would provide resources for the preparation of the new statewide curriculum.
The report, which said the state should encourage but not mandate the use of the curriculum, was based in part on a survey of parents, teachers, students, and citizens.
Eighty-seven percent of the survey respondents supported the idea that schools should teach about nuclear issues, such as the power of nuclear weapons, how worldwide politics are affected by them, and the continuing arms race with the Soviet Union. Seventy-three percent responded that the schools should have a planned curriculum and regular instruction on the subject.
A ‘Political Agenda’?
But some argue that the presentation of nuclear issues inevitably becomes politicized and thus is not appropriate for schools.
The introduction of such issues into classrooms would amount to “an attempt to impose the National Education Association’s political agenda on children who are captive in the classroom,” said Phyllis Schlaflly, the activist for parents’ rights. Ms. Schlafiy’s Eagle Forum organization has urged parents in a nationwide mailing to oppose teaching about such topics as values, sexuality, politics, and nuclear issues in schools.
‘The schools have no right to use children as guinea pigs by teaching that we should accommodate the Communists or cut back on defense spending or that the U.S. is somehow guilty of starting a war,” she said. “They ought to be teaching 1st graders to read and 3rd graders to do fractions. Children should not be made to think they can solve adult problems.”
But Mitch Genser, executive director of the Oakland-based Educators for Social Responsibility said that “unless we give students the skills to analyze what is happening around them, they won’t feel capable of making a decision and won’t want to participate in our democratic society.”
Mr. Genser’s group was influential in the writing of the legislation calling for the report and participated in shaping the opinion survey.
‘One Point of View’
Bill Honig, state superintendent of public instruction, said he supports the teaching of nuclear-age issues but is wary of using the “peace curriculum” that has been developed by “liberal” groups such as Educators for Social Responsibility.
“Some of the materials are just pushing one point of view,” he said. “If the message is that there is no difference between the United States and the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is a great country, then I have a problem with it.”
“Arms don’t create conflict,” Mr. Honig said. ''They are a result of conflict.”
Assemblyman Vasconcellos said that “the matter is too important for propagandizing by either side.”
For some educators, however, the main curricular issue is not politicization but purpose.
“We have a primary job of preparing kids to go on to college or go on to work, and that will continue to be a major concern for us,” said Joel Thornley, superintendent of the medium-sized Hayward Unified School District. ''Discussing nuclear issues is wonderful, as long as you can read.”
Mr. Honig, however, said such compelling subjects can stir interest on the part of students in learning skills such as reading and critical thinking.
Risk Acknowledged
The education department’s report, issued in late March, acknowledged that “the public schools run the risk of politicizing the institution by taking up such a controversial subject.”
But Diane Brooks, manager of the history and social-sciences unit of the state department of education, argued that controversy is by no means unusual in school subject matter. “History has been the story of conflict, compromise, and controversies,” she said. “So there are many issues that may be considered controversial in the curriculum. If we took everything out that was controversial, we would have a pretty insipid curriculum. If you take everything out that is controversial you are avoiding the real world.”
She said the state’s forthcoming revision of the social-studies curriculum already includes a mention of nuclear issues. That mention could expand dramatically, pending the outcome of Mr. Vasconcellos’ legislation.
Should the new curriculum become a reality, Ms. Brooks said, she would urge teachers to “balance their approach, make sure the issue is treated in an age-appropriate way, and make sure that students have a broad background in critical thinking, getting facts, and making good decisions.”
Recent research by David Grossman and Hans Weiler of Stanford University found that students who were introduced to international issues and nuclear-war related issues in a classroom where discussion was encouraged learned more.
“There has to be a dialogue in the classroom where multiple perspectives are possible,” said Mr. Grossman. ''That is the only way you can get at the complexities and the subtleties of the issues.”
Because teachers are not always equipped to handle such discussions, Mr. Grossman recommended that the “state take its task seriously” and provide adequate teacher training and guidance in how to use whatever curriculum it develops.
