Framing Classroom Discussion of Same‐Sex Marriage

Abstract

Assuming that the issue of same-sex marriage should be discussed in schools, how should the discussion be framed? Michael Hand first distinguishes this question from the related but distinct question of whether discussion on this topic should be steered. He then examines three possible frames for discussion of same-sex marriage: the perfectionist frame, the antiperfectionist frame, and the practical accommodation frame. He defends the perfectionist frame over the two alternatives: the purpose of state involvement in marriage is to promote valuable forms of intimate relationship, so the case for enabling same-sex couples to marry turns on the ethical claim that same-sex and opposite-sex intimate relationships are similarly valuable. Interrogation of this ethical claim must be central to classroom discussion of same-sex marriage.

The Santa Claus deception: The ethics of educator involvement

“…. guiding participants, by means of strategic prompts, questions, and interjections, toward a predetermined conclusion’ (Hand, 2013: 499). I think that given students will, barring rare anomalies, arrive at the truth about Santa independently, regardless of the educator’s interference, this is a case where students should be left in the dark to steer themselves to the light.…”

Reflecting on a Multi-Perspective Approach to Teaching and Learning about Police Shootings

“…He also supported using a balanced pedagogical stance, reflective of the due process approach (Payne & Gainey, 2000), which included balanced coverage of all sides of the argument. Focusing on teaching about same sex marriage, Hand (2013) informs of framing (similar to perspective) and warns of steering, or "guiding participants, by means of strategic prompts, questions, and interjections, toward a predetermined conclusion" (p. 499), which is similar to Hess' privileged approach which can lead to charges of indoctrination and teaching the concept as settled (Hand, 2008). Despite these concerns, some propose that teachers should be able to endorse positions while teaching controversial issues, requiring a more directive teaching approach (Warnick & Smith, 2014;Yacek, 2018).…”

“…the side of the police or the side of the citizen). Hand (2013) presents three frames in discussing controversial issues in the classroom: the perfectionist frame, the antiperfectionist frame and the practical accommodation frame. The latter frame "gives center stage to an altogether different aim: that of negotiating a compromise position acceptable to discussants with conflicting views on same-sex marriage.…”

“…The project was designed to be balanced to include both sides without bias (Patenaude, 2001) and stories were a critical part of understanding the context of these incidents (Ferguson and Musheno, 2000;Harding, Fox and Mehta, 2002;Klinger, Rosenfeld, Isom & Deckard, 2016). It was also non-directive and used a practical accommodation frame (Hand, 2013;2008). The class would learn about the population of officer-involved shootings through their own original research (data collection and analysis) and be able to get objective perspective, in real time, while mitigating the limitations of the existing data sources.…”

Thinking Controversially: The Psychological Condition for Teaching Controversial Issues

“…Let's first consider the former mode of directivity, in which the teacher implicitly endorses a position but explicitly guides them to it. The utility of this method, which Hand () has called ‘steering’ (p. 499), can be made more apparent if we give it the name, dramatic directivity . This is a method of directivity in which students realise they are being led somewhere, but that somewhere is left mysterious.…”