# data[].attributes.body
Rep. Tallman's Request to Leg.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pennsylvania lawmaker Will Tallman is not seeking re-election in November.

But if the Adams County Republican has his way, he will go out with the passage of a monumental bill that would re-write free speech rules in schools by banning discussions centered around modern-day civics, politics and science in classrooms.

On Friday, Tallman sent a memo to the 203-member state House seeking support for a bill he dubbed the "Teacher Code of Ethics," which legal experts questioned as unconstitutional overreach.

In the memo, Tallman said his bill would forbid public school teachers from endorsing, supporting or opposing candidates or incumbents for local, state and federal offices while in the classroom. On the job, teachers could not discuss enacted or pending legislation, regulations, executive orders or court cases involving any level or branch of government. They could not talk about activities "that hamper or impede" law enforcement actions or military recruiters on campus.

Our K-12 school teachers should not be using their classroom time spent on political or ideological indoctrination. - Will Tallman, Adams County Republican

His proposal most likely stands no chance of becoming law and legal experts panned it as an unconstitutional attempt to curb free speech.

"It runs roughshod over the cardinal principle of academic freedom," said David Hudson, a professor at the Nashville School of Law in Tennessee and ombudsman for Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C. "In certain classes, political speech and frank discussion is necessary. I mean social studies class, contemporary issues - you need teachers talking about current events."

According to Tallman's memo, teachers could not "introduce into class any controversial subject matter that is not germane to the topic of the course being taught; or advocate for any issue that is part of a political party platform at the national, state, or local Level."

Any teacher who broke the would-be state law could be suspended or lose their state teachers license.

"Our K-12 school teachers should not be using their classroom time spent on political or ideological indoctrination," Tallman said in his memo. "Doing so takes time away from instruction in the academic foundation subjects of mathematics, science, English, history, and civics, and prevents our students from receiving a high-quality public education for careers in the global, high-tech economy."

Tallman is a former Wellsboro Area School Board member. He was first elected to the Legislature in 2008.

As a school board member, Tallman said in an interview, he could not recall getting private or public complaints that teachers or administrators were pushing personal or one-sided political agendas in the classroom. As a member of the House Education Committee, he said, he has received "half a dozen to a dozen" complaints about teachers inserting their political beliefs into non-germane topics. His adult children and grandchildren also complained to him about the same issue, he said.

Tallman stood by his bill, saying four other states, which he could not name, have enacted similar legislation, and that it would be up to the courts to determine if the enacted laws and his bill are legal.

"That will have to play out in court," he said.

It already has.

Since the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings that both enhance and curtail the speech of teachers and other public employees on and off the job.

First Amendment law regarding public school teachers remains an unsettled legal topic, especially in the age of social media, said Robert Richards, director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State. But in the classroom, he said, teachers have more rights if the topic deals with a lesson.

"In general, schools can control curriculum issues and when teachers are speaking in their classrooms, they are acting as agents of the school rather than for themselves," Richards said. "They are usually on safer ground when the speech directly relates to their subject matter. Speaking about legislation ... in a social studies or history class may be particularly germane, so a blanket prohibition as such would be highly suspect, and courts would likely invalidate it if enforced against a teacher."

Emily Paine/The Morning Call

J. William Reynolds, a high school history teacher and elected Bethlehem councilman, said Talman's bill is a "ridiculous" attempt to curtail student learning in the classroom.

J. William Reynolds, a high school history teacher and elected Bethlehem councilman, said Talman's bill is a "ridiculous" attempt to curtail student learning in the classroom. (Emily Paine/The Morning Call)

As a citizen, Allen High School history teacher and elected Bethlehem city councilman, J. William Reynolds said he would hate to see students' curiosity thwarted in the classroom by a state law precluding teachers from answering questions or leading a well-rounded discussion.

Students appreciate when teachers - and more often students themselves - open a discussion linking current events, such as the nation's ongoing immigration debate and the Senate confirmation process of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, to past events or vice versa, Reynolds said. Students, he said, are free to take any side of a debate or issue and they do, leading to a "real educational moment" when all sides are heard in a respectful manner.

"No one is telling you how to think, but to understand how local, county, state and federal governments impact your life," Reynolds said. "It's the way we produce an educated citizenry."
Court rulings on teachers and other public employees' free speech rights
1925: Dayton, Tenn., jury finds high school science teacher John Thomas Scopes guilty of teaching evolution in violation of a law requiring the Bible's creationism story as the official curriculum. Scopes' trial, made into a movie, pitted famed attorney Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic presidential candidate and famous Christian fundamentalist.

1927: Tennessee Supreme Court overturns Scopes' conviction and allows law to stand.

1968: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Arkansas' ban on teaching evolution dubbed "Scopes II." The ruling prohibits a state from requiring "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."

1968: U.S. Supreme Court rules an Illinois School Board violated the First and 14th Amendment rights of a teacher who was fired for writing a newspaper letter to the editor critical of their school funding decisions. The ruling gave the teacher his job back.

1977: U.S. Supreme Court rules the First and 14th Amendment do not give blanket protection to public employees if their punishments or firings were not related to public speech. The case involved a teacher who had argued with co-workers and cursed at students.

1983: U.S. Supreme Court rules the First Amendment does not protect public employees if their speech or actions disrupt the workplace and do not concern matters of public concern. The ruling dealt with a fired New Orleans assistant district attorney who sent a questionnaire to co-workers asking for their opinions about transfers, morale and supervisors in the agency.

1987: U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana law permitting creationism to be taught alongside evolution in the classroom.

2005: Federal judge in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg strikes down Dover Area School District policy mandating "intelligent design," another phrase for creationism, be taught in ninth-grade biology courses.

2006: U.S. Supreme Court rules public employees must show they are speaking as regular citizens, not employees, when speaking about official job duties.

2018: U.S. Supreme Court rules public employees cannot be forced to pay union dues under the First Amendment's free speech rights.
steve.esack@mcall.com Twitter @sesack 717-783-7305

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pennsylvania lawmaker wants to ban teachers from talking politics, government in school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pennsylvania lawmaker Will Tallman is not seeking re-election in November. But if the Adams County Republican has his way, he will go out with the passage of a monumental bill that would re-write free speech rules in schools by banning discussions centered around modern-day civics, politics and science in classrooms. On Friday, Tallman sent a memo to the 203-member state House seeking support for a bill he dubbed the "Teacher Code of Ethics," which legal experts questioned as unconstitutional overreach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WOODSTOCK, GA - The Cherokee County School District is working to make sure its teachers and staff are familiar with state and federal laws that prohibit them from engaging in any political activity while on the job, after hours as an employee or using district resources to carry out those tasks.

In a message distributed Tuesday to all system employees, Superintendent Brian Hightower reminded those who make up Cherokee County's largest employer what their responsibilities are with regard to political activity. Hightower said activities employees are not allowed to take part in include, but aren't limited to, sharing their personal political opinions with students during performance of their job duties and responsibilities.

This particular note comes just days after a math teacher at River Ridge High School in Woodstock expressed her personal opinions about President Trump and his Make America Great Again campaign slogan. The teacher on Aug. 31 incorrectly told two students that their T-shirts adorned with the slogan were not allowed in her classroom, the district said.

The teacher, the district added, "inappropriately shared her personal opinion about the campaign slogan during class."

Following the educator's remarks, River Ridge Principal Darrell Herring met with the students and their families to apologize for the incident. In a statement released by the district, the superintendent also said he was "deeply sorry" that the incident took place in a CCSD facility, as it does not reflect his "expectation that all students be treated equally and respectfully by our employees."

"This speech can disrupt instruction; undermine authority, as well as trust and respect between the school and community; damage working relationships... and can infringe upon students' rights to express their political views," Hightower added in the memorandum.

Along with federal laws, state legislators further restricted political activity by public agencies, including school districts, with the passage of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act. This bars entities or individuals, acting on behalf of an agency, from directly or indirectly making any contribution to a campaign committee, political action committee, candidate or political organization.

Hightower notes the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission - formerly known as the State Ethics Commission - interprets this rule as also outlawing the use of school or district expenditures toward promoting a candidate or referendum. Expenditures, according to the law, can also include an employee's time, school facilities and an employee taking political action in any official capacity.

Additionally, employees are also banned from using school resources for these purposes. Resources can be characterized as facilities, copying machines, paper, stationary, phones, audio/visual equipment, computers, vehicles, district email accounts and employee time. Anything bought or maintained with public revenue can't be used to advocate for or oppose a candidate or referendum, the law adds ( Get Patch's Daily Newsletter and Real Time News Alerts. Or, if you have an iPhone, download the free Patch app).

To be sure, this isn't a law without teeth. Those who are found to be in violation of the act can be slapped with fines and "adverse publicity for the school district and the individual(s) charged," Hightower added.

"The First Amendment absolutely guarantees each individual the right to engage in political speech," Hightower added Tuesday. "However, employees may never express personal political views or campaign during school hours or in their capacity as an employee after hours."

Hightower said administrators, supervisors and teachers have to be careful to avoid any speech or actions that could be interpreted as advising students or subordinates to vote a certain way or donate their dollars to a certain political cause.
Like Woodstock-Towne Lake Patch on Facebook!
The teacher's actions have propelled many residents to weigh in on the controversy. Additionally, Michael Williams, the Republican candidate for governor, called on the "anti-Trump teacher" to be fired from her job. Williams, a state senator from Forsyth County, made his feelings known in an email blast his campaign dispersed Sunday.

School district spokesperson Barbara Jacoby said the teacher has been an employee with CCSD for five years, all of which have been served at River Ridge.

"We agree that the teacher's actions were wrong," she added. "Per state law, school systems can't talk about employee disciplinary action. Should she resign or be recommended by the superintendent for termination, it will be on the school board meeting agenda, which is published a week in advance of the meeting."

The next school board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 14.

Patch has reached out to the teacher in an effort to allow her to share her side of the story and is waiting for a response.
Tell us: Should the River Ridge High School teacher be fired from her post? Image via Patch editor Neal McNamara

Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WOODSTOCK, GA - The Cherokee County School District is working to make sure its teachers and staff are familiar with state and federal laws that prohibit them from engaging in any political activity while on the job, after hours as an employee or using district resources to carry out those tasks.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do teacher's political views influence teaching controversial issues

# data[].attributes.subject
How do teacher's political views influence teaching controversial issues

# data[].attributes.body
Teacher utilizes Facebook to sound off about student political garb.

# data[].attributes.headline
Politics in the classroom, how much is too much

# data[].attributes.subject
Politics in the classroom, how much is too much

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Confederate flag. The Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Policing minority communities. Nuclear weapons and Iran. Summer often brings a lull in the news, but not this year. And, come September, students are going to want to talk about these headlines.

But how should teachers navigate our nation's thorny politics?

Do politics belong in the classroom at all, or should schools be safe havens from never-ending partisan battles? Can teachers use controversial issues as learning opportunities, and, if so, to teach what? And then, the really sticky question: Should teachers share with students their own political viewpoints and opinions?

In their book, The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, Diana E. Hess and Paula McAvoy offer guidelines to these and other questions, using a study they conducted from 2005 to 2009. It involved 21 teachers in 35 schools and their 1,001 students. Hess is the dean of the school of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and McAvoy is the program director at UW-Madison's Center for Ethics and Education.

Schools, they conclude, are and ought to be political places - but not partisan ones. I talked with them recently about how, in today's highly polarized society, teachers can walk that very fine line.
Sometimes it seems there's a belief that schools should be political ... sort of. With students taking on issues - like smoking - that are political but not too political. Did you find that in your study?
Hess: You're absolutely right, there are a number of schools that encourage students to get involved in political campaigns, but they tend to be political campaigns that really aren't very controversial. They'll encourage kids to form a campaign about something that everyone agrees should be done. For example, that we should clean up the litter that's around our school, or that it's important for people to eat healthy food...

We have evidence that kids learn a lot from doing that. It's not necessarily a terrible thing. My view is that if you're going to have students involved in authentic politics, then it's really important to make sure you have issues for which there are multiple and competing views, and you don't give students the impression that there's a political view that they should be working toward.

McAvoy: How political do we want students to be? That's really a question that a lot of communities struggle with and a lot of teachers struggle with. And the point of the book is to say that, in general, to be able to talk about politics is a skill that people need to learn. And it would be great if it were learned in school because these are great moments in which you bring a group of young people together who are forming their political views. They can really learn to engage across their differences and to start to see that political conflict is a normal part of democratic life.
A key point in your book is that, while teachers are teaching about the issues - immigration or same-sex marriage - they're also teaching students how to have these discussions. They're teaching the process of democracy.

McAvoy: Right. The "political classroom" is a classroom in which young people are learning to deliberate about political questions. It really is the process of deliberation that is the major skill being taught. And then, through deliberation, students are learning about the issues. They're learning how to form arguments, how to weigh evidence. So there's social studies content that is being learned in a process that is, at its heart, democratic.
Are there issues that are, or should be, completely off the table?
Hess: One of the things we talk about in the book is the distinction between issues that we called "settled issues" and issues that are "open"...

It's a little complicated, but, in a nutshell, we suggest that there are some issues that are settled and should be taught as settled and to not do that is being dishonest with young people. For example, the question about whether climate change is occurring - that's a settled issue. The question is, What to do about climate change? That's an open issue.

We wouldn't suggest that teachers engage kids in talking about whether climate change is occurring, but we strongly encourage teachers to engage in discussion about what should be done about climate change.
You mention in your book policies that might allow students to opt out [of a controversial topic or discussion]. Which raises questions about whether that's a good thing, to just allow students to sit out.
McAvoy: The philosopher in me thinks there's not a really good way to defend the view that students should always be able to opt out. We don't allow students to opt out of writing essays because they don't like writing essays.

At the same time, democracies allow us, when we're in the public sphere, to walk out of a discussion if we don't like what's happening or if we're being offended. Classrooms are unusual in that we're compelling students to be there. Teachers do need to weigh [whether] there might be times when a particular student has a good reason for wanting to pass on a comment...

Opting out because I feel uncomfortable sharing my views or talking out loud in class is a skill that can be taught and overcome. Opting out because this discussion is really hard for me given my religious background - that might be a reason that you let a student pass on a discussion.
You note the challenges and dangers of teaching both in mixed classrooms - with students of varied racial and economic backgrounds - and homogenous classrooms. How should teachers adapt to these different scenarios?
Hess: In many ways the more difference you have within a classroom the better. We want to make sure that we have as many multiple competing views as we possibly can ... So difference is a good thing, something that can be used and primed as opposed to something to be feared and quelled.

One of the challenges of lots of difference is, difference often causes high emotions and often can cause breaches of civility. So teachers who are in classrooms that have lots of naturally occurring difference often have to go to great lengths to make sure that students understand what it looks like to participate in a civil manner...

In classes where there's a lot of sameness, the first thing we learned is that, though it might appear that there's a lot of sameness, there's always some difference. So when teachers say, "Well all these kids think alike," we're almost sure - all the time - that the teachers are wrong, that in fact not all the kids do think alike.

That being said, there are classes that are more similar than they are different, and teachers have to use a lot of strategies to bring differences into the discussion. Those strategies might include bringing in guest speakers or making sure the materials the kids are using to prepare for discussion are full of multiple and competing ideas.
Students really seem to like this stuff - to engage in issues that are current and relevant to their own lives.
Hess: Absolutely. There are two things going on here: In many schools, students still spend most of the day listening to teachers talk. One reason we think kids like [these issues] is they finally get a chance to talk themselves. More than that, we did find that the content of these political issues was really interesting to kids. Especially when they were hearing multiple and competing views. Students would report that in discussions where there was a lot of shared opinion, those were not as interesting as in discussions where there were differing views ... They were really responding to the fact that it's quite interesting to hear what your peers think about things. And not just that they have different points of view but what they're supporting those points of view with.
What advice do you have or does your study have for teachers considering how to talk about [breaking events such as] Baltimore or OK, the big elephant in the room: the question of whether teachers should talk about their own personal beliefs to their students. Should they? Ferguson, Missouri?
Hess: One of the problems with discussing events that just happened is that often we don't know enough about what happened. There's a distinction between current events ... and discussions about controversial political issues where kids are preparing in advance and being deliberative. In the best-case scenario, teachers are able to take advantage of current events and use them as opportunities to get kids to talk about controversial political issues. There's a big difference in talking about, "What do you think happened?" and talking about a policy issue like "Should police officers be required to wear video cameras?"

McAvoy: Young people need to see these as moments within their historical context - need to understand some of the history. It's difficult to have those materials at the ready when things sort of erupt as they have in the last year or so with Baltimore and Ferguson. Good teachers start building curriculum about the history of redlining in cities or how cities become segregated. [To] put these moments within the context is much better than having young people just reacting to "What do you think about what you're seeing on television today?" Young people really need to study these issues in depth.

Hess: What we found is that there were teachers who were doing an excellent job who shared their own views with students, and there were teachers doing an excellent job who didn't share their views. So we don't believe that there is one right answer to this. And we think empirically we can show that there's not.

That being said, we think that there are times when it's probably better for teachers to share than other times when it's better for them not to share. That depends in large part on the context - on who's in their class and what their goals are.
You were critical of the notion - that teachers would do that.
One thing we were really intrigued by was that a lot of the teachers we interviewed talked about changing their minds on that question over time. Some of them would say, "Well, it used to be that I would never share, but now I do only in these circumstances." Other teachers would say, "I used to be really prone to share a lot, and now I don't and here's why." We think it's all a matter of professional judgment. Teachers need to think about this very carefully...
You seem to draw a pretty firm line that teachers should not be advocating for their own beliefs.
I sometimes worry that, even though there can be really good ethical reasons for teachers to share, in a very polarized time that sharing can be misinterpreted. And if it's misinterpreted by the public or by parents as teachers trying to get kids to adopt their beliefs, then I think we could have a big problem.

That being said, we have no evidence from the study of teachers who were actively and purposely trying to indoctrinate kids to a particular point of view...

We think that this feeling that the public seems to have that teachers by definition are trying to push their political views on students is just false.

Hess: What we learned from students when we interviewed and surveyed them is that they make a really clear distinction between a teacher sharing his or her own view and a teacher trying to push his or her own view. Students not surprisingly report that they don't like being pushed.

McAvoy: What we argue in the book is that what's most important is that teachers create a culture of fairness in the classroom. That means being fair and reasonable to all the competing views that are in the classroom and that are being represented in the public. The practice that we found most troubling, from the study, is what we referred to in the book as political seepage: teachers who make sarcastic comments, who use partisan humor. It's these offhanded comments that are sort of biting and mean-spirited about the political climate that I think is problematic. Because it creates a climate not of fairness, but it creates a kind of insider/outsider feeling. If you get the humor that I just said or, "Do you agree with me that that politician's a big idiot?" That invites the most divisive parts of the partisan climate into the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Politics In The Classroom: How Much Is Too Much?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two authors argue that teachers should embrace controversial issues to help students learn the political process. But, they say, context is key.

# data[].attributes.body
Political comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A little enforced New York City regulation requires that teachers remain politically neutral when performing official duties. In 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg ruled that public school teachers could not wear political buttons in the classroom. The teachers' union challenged the ban but it was upheld by Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan. Kaplan declared it was up to individual school districts to determine whether buttons in the classroom interfered with learning. However, he warned "school officials may not take a sledgehammer to freedom of expression." A similar ban on political buttons in San Diego schools was upheld by California courts in 1996.

Courts have often given unclear guidelines in rulings on a teacher's first amendment rights. However, what is clear is that school districts have flexibility in enforcing their policies - within limits. In 1972, a New York court sided with a teacher who was suspended for wearing an armband protesting against the Vietnam War. The court held that the teacher's actions did not interfere with educational interests. In 2008, courts overturned an attempt by the University of Illinois to stop employees from attending political rallies and from displaying political campaign bumper stickers on campus.

In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that school employees have Constitutional protection when they are speaking about issues of a public nature. In that decision the court overturned a school district's decision to fire a teacher for commenting on school expenditures in a letter to a local newspaper.

Last week a foreign language teacher in Smithtown, New York was "administratively reassigned" after she posted on her Facebook page, "This week is Spirit Week at Smithtown HS West. It's easy to spot which students are racist by the Trump gear they're sporting for USA Day." While I do not believe her remarks are appropriate, the teacher did not express her views in her classes and is not accused of making remarks at school. As of this time there has been no formal disciplinary action by the school district and no court case.

Social media remains a minefield for teachers with no clear guidelines. An article by Michael Simpson, Assistant General Counsel for the National Education Association, documented a series of teacher firings for online posts.

In 2013 the New York City Department of Education (DOE) issued guidelines for "recommended practices for professional social media communication between DOE employees, as well as social media communication between DOE employees and DOE students." Of course, the guidelines were not really recommendations. DOE supervisors were designated as responsible for monitoring and providing feedback on employee use of professional social media sites.

The guidelines also included "recommendations" for "Personal social media use" for "non work-related social media activity." They include:

* DOE employees should not communicate with students who are currently enrolled in DOE schools on personal social media sites.

* DOE employees are encouraged to use appropriate privacy settings to control access to their personal social media sites.

* The posting or disclosure of personally identifiable student information or confidential information via personal social media sites, in violation of Chancellor's Regulations, is prohibited.

* Personal social media use, including off-hours use, has the potential to result in disruption at school and/or the workplace, and can be in violation of DOE policies, Chancellor's Regulations, and law.

The last recommendation is the one that concerns me and should concern the teachers' union. Saying something has the potential to disrupt, even if it does not actually cause a disruption, is an open-ended assertion of authority over a teacher's right to free expression.

To help teachers navigate treacherous waters, in 2015 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued an updated version on the free speech rights of teachers developed by its Washington State branch.

According to the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution and the law, "Generally, the First Amendment protects your speech if you are speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. However, if you are speaking in an official capacity (within the duties of your job), your speech will not have the same protection. What you say or communicate inside the classroom is considered speech on behalf of the school district and therefore will not be entitled to much protection. Certain types of speech outside the school might also not be protected if the school can show that your speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning." They warn if as a teacher "You post a 'joke' on Facebook about your students being lazy" it is not protected speech even though you are making it in your private capacity.

In addition, "School districts have the authority to control course content and teaching methods. You are generally considered to speak for the school district when you are in your classroom. Therefore, your speech in the classroom does not have much First Amendment protection. This can be a murky area, however. Some courts have ruled that schools cannot discipline teachers for sharing words or concepts that are controversial as long as the school has no legitimate interest in restricting that speech and the speech is related to the curriculum. In general, you should exercise caution so as not to give the appearance that you are advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom." The same goes for classroom displays.

While "The Supreme Court has ruled that students can wear armbands to school as an expression of their political views and that their right to free speech can only be limited if the speech would cause "substantial and material disruption" . . . The right of teachers to express their views in school on public matters is not so clear . . . Courts have also upheld discipline for teachers wearing T-shirts with political messages or slogans."

The ACLU warns that if school officials can show political expression outside the classroom "could adversely affect school functions or your effectiveness as a teacher, the First Amendment may not protect you." They offer similar advice for the use of social media, an area where "law is continuing to evolve." According to the ACLU, "if you use social media in your private capacity to express your beliefs on a matter of public concern, you may be protected. However, if you use social media to comment about students, school or other work-related matters, or you use it to engage in what might be considered conduct impairing your functioning as a teacher, the First Amendment may not protect you." None of the examples they offer of "conduct impairing your functioning as a teacher" are similar to what happened in Smithtown.

Education "experts" hedge a bit when discussing whether a teacher has the right to express their views during classroom discussions. In an interview with National Public Radio, Diana Hess, co-author of The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, reported that their study showed "teachers who were doing an excellent job who shared their own views with students, and there were teachers doing an excellent job who didn't share their views." She and her co-author Paula McAvoy concluded "there are times when it's probably better for teachers to share than other times when it's better for them not to share. That depends in large part on the context -- on who's in their class and what their goals are." However, they also argued the "feeling that the public seems to have that teachers by definition are trying to push their political views on students is just false."

In the fall 2016 issue of Teaching Tolerance, Maureen Costello, the publication's director, argues that in discussions on the current Presidential election campaign teachers should focus on promoting basic American values including that "Truth is essential to the 'American Way.'" In the classroom, this would include a heavy component of fact-checking statements made by candidates who should at least be held to the same evidentiary standards as students.

I like Costello's ideas. This weekend, The New York Times posted "A Week of Whoppers from Donald Trump" Between September 15 and 21 they documented 31 "whoppers," "falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies." According to the article, "virtually all of Mr. Trump's falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction. Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating 'an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.'"

Students should fact-check statements by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the Presidential debates. Politifact, FactCheck, and the Washington Post's Fact Checker are also useful sources. If one candidate comes across poorly when students fact-check their statements, that is the candidate's problem, not ours as social studies teachers.

According to the National Council for the Social Studies, "The primary purpose of Social Studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world." In New York State, students in all grades K-12 are expected to demonstrate "the basic civic values of American constitutional democracy; and the roles, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship, including avenues of participation." Despite all the cautionary warnings, teachers would be professionally irresponsible not to involve students in political dialogues.

My advice to social studies teachers is that it is legitimate and legal to state your views on a political issue or candidate as part of classroom dialogue when you teach students responsible citizenship. This is especially important when it helps to open up discussion, model respectful commentary, and illustrate the use of evidence to support a point of view. If in doubt, check with you supervisor and union representative about local ordinances you need to consider. Find out what is recommended and what is mandated. And please don't write about your students on Facebook.

From Amazon: Drumpf for President: A Scary Fable by R. Pieces in Kindle and Paperback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Election 2016: What Teachers Can and Cannot Do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A little enforced New York City regulation requires that teachers remain politically neutral when performing official duties. In 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg ruled that public school teachers could not wear political buttons in the classroom. The teachers' union challenged the ban but it was upheld by Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan.