Return to Coursework
Curriculum Survey:The Confucius Classroom
Tara Fox
Crisis in the Classroom
Earlier
this year, a debate over Chinese culture in the classroom took center stage in
Hacienda Heights of sunny southern California.
Trouble began to brew in January of 2010, when the board of the Hacienda
La Puente Unified School District voted four votes to one to introduce the
“Confucius Classroom” to Cedarlane Middle School. As expected, passions were kindled on both
sides of the argument, which lasted almost eight months before achieving a
resolution.
Despite sparking such debate, Confucius Classrooms have only been in existence for the past six years. In 2004, the Hanban, a nonprofit affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education, began its first Confucius Institute, a step that would later result in over 272 Confucius Classrooms in eighty-eight different countries (Liu, 2010). As the Institute agreement states, these classrooms serve to “support and promote the development of Chinese language education of primary and middle schools, and increase mutual understanding and friendship between the young people of China and [the United States]” (Hanban). In addition, the Hanban would also provide the school district with $30,000, one thousand textbooks, and numerous supplemental materials to enhance the learning environment (Adelman, 2010). This arrangement would also include a California-approved, Chinese teaching assistant, provided by Institute.
Though Cedarlane Middle School is primarily Hispanic, Jacob Adelman (2010) of the Associated Press notes that Hacienda Heights has a growing Asian population, with Asian Americans comprising one-third of the demographic and Chinese Americans making up the majority of the school board. Upon hearing of the school board’s plans, many residents of the local community cried out against the proposed curriculum changes, citing concerns of communist propaganda slipping through the students’ Chinese-sponsored materials (Liu, 2010). Additional opponents argued for more “homegrown” educational materials while others claimed to have found members of the Communist party within the Hanban group (Spearman, 2010; Velazquez, 2010).
On the other side of the argument, supporters of the Confucius Classroom note that the program comes at a much needed time, particularly as California cannot afford to supplement comparable educational programs, despite the United States being one of the “highest spenders on education” (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003, p. 19). Supporters also assert that there is no evidence of communist thought in the curriculum plans, and the school district superintendent Barbara Nakaoka even promised to create an oversight committee to allay community concerns. In addition, the superintendent argued that the Confucius Classroom would not differ greatly from the Chinese curriculum already in place at the middle school (Velazquez, 2010).
Despite sparking such debate, Confucius Classrooms have only been in existence for the past six years. In 2004, the Hanban, a nonprofit affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education, began its first Confucius Institute, a step that would later result in over 272 Confucius Classrooms in eighty-eight different countries (Liu, 2010). As the Institute agreement states, these classrooms serve to “support and promote the development of Chinese language education of primary and middle schools, and increase mutual understanding and friendship between the young people of China and [the United States]” (Hanban). In addition, the Hanban would also provide the school district with $30,000, one thousand textbooks, and numerous supplemental materials to enhance the learning environment (Adelman, 2010). This arrangement would also include a California-approved, Chinese teaching assistant, provided by Institute.
Though Cedarlane Middle School is primarily Hispanic, Jacob Adelman (2010) of the Associated Press notes that Hacienda Heights has a growing Asian population, with Asian Americans comprising one-third of the demographic and Chinese Americans making up the majority of the school board. Upon hearing of the school board’s plans, many residents of the local community cried out against the proposed curriculum changes, citing concerns of communist propaganda slipping through the students’ Chinese-sponsored materials (Liu, 2010). Additional opponents argued for more “homegrown” educational materials while others claimed to have found members of the Communist party within the Hanban group (Spearman, 2010; Velazquez, 2010).
On the other side of the argument, supporters of the Confucius Classroom note that the program comes at a much needed time, particularly as California cannot afford to supplement comparable educational programs, despite the United States being one of the “highest spenders on education” (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003, p. 19). Supporters also assert that there is no evidence of communist thought in the curriculum plans, and the school district superintendent Barbara Nakaoka even promised to create an oversight committee to allay community concerns. In addition, the superintendent argued that the Confucius Classroom would not differ greatly from the Chinese curriculum already in place at the middle school (Velazquez, 2010).
Taking a Closer Look
Like most other
curriculum disputes, this particular issue is grounded in a few very specific
contexts. To start, cultural concerns
have certainly come into play, framing the discourse as a whole. Hacienda Heights is no stranger to racial
tensions when it comes to its neighbors across the Pacific, from outcries over
a Buddhist temple in the 1980s to a failed attempt in 2003 to incorporate a
heavily Asian-American neighborhood into the Los Angeles County city limits
(Adelman, 2010). As might be expected, this
cultural unease is interwoven with a global perspective. In one article, a Chinese national questions
the validity of sending Chinese money overseas when it could be invested in the
three million Chinese children who don't receive an education. Instead, this author suggests, overseas students
should be encouraged to study in China itself (Beaton, 2010; Debin, 2010).
In addition, there is a philosophical disparity here, as city’s strong, negative reaction to these Confucius Classrooms has underscored the rooted suspicions these residents have of China’s motives in promoting the program, with one resident even suggesting that the students should not be “indoctrinated with things that America would not like” (Adelman, 2010). No doubt this individual expresses the general unease the United States has felt toward communism over the last sixty years, with this context informing the dialogue surrounding the debate. That said, though one Cedarlane teacher acknowledged the historical roots of these fears, she found the philosophical concerns to be outdated, declaring the protest to be “jingoistic… xenophobic… and shades of McCarthyism all over again” (Adelman, 2010). She echoes Chen Zhunmin, the head of the Los Angeles Chinese education office, who resolutely affirms that there are no communist machinations in the curriculum and that the program seeks to clear up “misunderstandings” (Adelman, 2010). Interestingly enough, at least two California-based, Asian members of the nonprofit Society of Confucian Studies of America oppose the curriculum initiative, as they both claim that China’s extension of goodwill is simply part of a communistic tactic to serve its own purposes (Liu, 2010).
Subsequently, a few key factors in this debate can be drawn out. For one, with the rejection of the Confucius Classroom proposal, a number of parents and educators are taking part in the implicit curriculum, teaching the students that accepting the Hanban’s offer is not worth the strings that may or may not be attached (Eisner, 1994). In this way, it is the opponents of the Confucius Classroom that have the most power by taking a line from the social reconstructionists and “eliminating from their culture aspects they consider undesirable” and thus “substituting in their place social values they consider desirable” (Schiro, 2008, p.6). Consequently, students are not involved at all in the decision-making process (Phillips & Hawthorne, 1978, p. 365). In opposition to this, silenced proponents of the curriculum would seemingly suggest that education requires more than a look at socially efficient model and that free choice is intrinsic to a democratic educational system (Labaree, 1997, p. 60). After all, they note that it is the individual himself who must make the determination to accept “foreign values” (Chang, 2010).
In the end, under much pressure from the local community, the Hacienda Heights school district decided in September of 2010 to not move ahead with plans for the Confucius Classroom. That said, though the district did not accept the Chinese funds, Superintendent Nakoaka intends to use the materials already sent by the Chinese program, after they have been screened by a committee (Velazquez, 2010). Though this is a small skirmish in the many curriculum battles across the country, the heated debate over Confucius Classrooms certainly illustrates just how deeply embedded the curriculum is in the social context.
In addition, there is a philosophical disparity here, as city’s strong, negative reaction to these Confucius Classrooms has underscored the rooted suspicions these residents have of China’s motives in promoting the program, with one resident even suggesting that the students should not be “indoctrinated with things that America would not like” (Adelman, 2010). No doubt this individual expresses the general unease the United States has felt toward communism over the last sixty years, with this context informing the dialogue surrounding the debate. That said, though one Cedarlane teacher acknowledged the historical roots of these fears, she found the philosophical concerns to be outdated, declaring the protest to be “jingoistic… xenophobic… and shades of McCarthyism all over again” (Adelman, 2010). She echoes Chen Zhunmin, the head of the Los Angeles Chinese education office, who resolutely affirms that there are no communist machinations in the curriculum and that the program seeks to clear up “misunderstandings” (Adelman, 2010). Interestingly enough, at least two California-based, Asian members of the nonprofit Society of Confucian Studies of America oppose the curriculum initiative, as they both claim that China’s extension of goodwill is simply part of a communistic tactic to serve its own purposes (Liu, 2010).
Subsequently, a few key factors in this debate can be drawn out. For one, with the rejection of the Confucius Classroom proposal, a number of parents and educators are taking part in the implicit curriculum, teaching the students that accepting the Hanban’s offer is not worth the strings that may or may not be attached (Eisner, 1994). In this way, it is the opponents of the Confucius Classroom that have the most power by taking a line from the social reconstructionists and “eliminating from their culture aspects they consider undesirable” and thus “substituting in their place social values they consider desirable” (Schiro, 2008, p.6). Consequently, students are not involved at all in the decision-making process (Phillips & Hawthorne, 1978, p. 365). In opposition to this, silenced proponents of the curriculum would seemingly suggest that education requires more than a look at socially efficient model and that free choice is intrinsic to a democratic educational system (Labaree, 1997, p. 60). After all, they note that it is the individual himself who must make the determination to accept “foreign values” (Chang, 2010).
In the end, under much pressure from the local community, the Hacienda Heights school district decided in September of 2010 to not move ahead with plans for the Confucius Classroom. That said, though the district did not accept the Chinese funds, Superintendent Nakoaka intends to use the materials already sent by the Chinese program, after they have been screened by a committee (Velazquez, 2010). Though this is a small skirmish in the many curriculum battles across the country, the heated debate over Confucius Classrooms certainly illustrates just how deeply embedded the curriculum is in the social context.
References
Pictures
Retrieved From:
Adelman, J. (2010, April 24). Chinese Gov't School Grant Divides SoCal Community. ABC News. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10467210
Adelman, J. (2010, April 24). Chinese Gov't School Grant Divides SoCal Community. ABC News. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10467210
Liu, J. (2010, March 8). California School Debates Merit of Confucius Classroom Program. The Epoch Times. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30933/
Spearman, T. (2010, September 15). Hacienda La Puente school district turns down Chinese cash. myFoxla.com. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/school-district-turns-down-chinese-cash-20100915
Beaton, J. (2010, April 16). Daily Show takes on the U.S. 'school crisis' caused by China’s Confucius Institutes. CNN Go. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://www.cnngo.com/shanghai/life/daily-show-takes-us-school-crisis-caused-chinas-confucius-institutes-494602
Debin, Z. (2010, March 24), When the school children see the Confucius Institute. 163.com. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://news.163.com/10/0324/08/62HEI1LT00012Q9L.html
Hanban. (n.d.). Constitution and by-laws of the Confucius Institutes. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://english.hanban.org/node_7879.htm#
Hanban. (n.d.). Agreement on the Establishment of Confucius Classroom. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://english.hanban.org/node_7879.htm#
Chang, L. (2010, August 14). No need to fuss over Confucius Institutes. China Daily. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-08/14/content_11153143.htm
Velazquez, M. (2010, February 25). School board, teachers seek to quell anxiety about Confucius Classroom. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_14474903
Eisner, E.W. (1994) "The three curricula that all schools teach." From The educational imagination: On design and evaluation of school programs. (3rd. ed) New York: Macmillan
Schiro, M. (2008).Introduction to curriculum ideologies. Introduction to Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public Goods, Private Good. The American Struggle Over Educational Goals . American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. Selected chapters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, J. A. & Hawthorne, R. (1978). Political dimensions of curriculum decision making. Educational Leadership, 2, 362-366.
Adelman, J. (2010, April 24). Chinese Gov't School Grant Divides SoCal Community. ABC News. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10467210
Adelman, J. (2010, April 24). Chinese Gov't School Grant Divides SoCal Community. ABC News. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10467210
Liu, J. (2010, March 8). California School Debates Merit of Confucius Classroom Program. The Epoch Times. Retreived October 8, 2010, from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30933/
Spearman, T. (2010, September 15). Hacienda La Puente school district turns down Chinese cash. myFoxla.com. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/education/school-district-turns-down-chinese-cash-20100915
Beaton, J. (2010, April 16). Daily Show takes on the U.S. 'school crisis' caused by China’s Confucius Institutes. CNN Go. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://www.cnngo.com/shanghai/life/daily-show-takes-us-school-crisis-caused-chinas-confucius-institutes-494602
Debin, Z. (2010, March 24), When the school children see the Confucius Institute. 163.com. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://news.163.com/10/0324/08/62HEI1LT00012Q9L.html
Hanban. (n.d.). Constitution and by-laws of the Confucius Institutes. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://english.hanban.org/node_7879.htm#
Hanban. (n.d.). Agreement on the Establishment of Confucius Classroom. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://english.hanban.org/node_7879.htm#
Chang, L. (2010, August 14). No need to fuss over Confucius Institutes. China Daily. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-08/14/content_11153143.htm
Velazquez, M. (2010, February 25). School board, teachers seek to quell anxiety about Confucius Classroom. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_14474903
Eisner, E.W. (1994) "The three curricula that all schools teach." From The educational imagination: On design and evaluation of school programs. (3rd. ed) New York: Macmillan
Schiro, M. (2008).Introduction to curriculum ideologies. Introduction to Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public Goods, Private Good. The American Struggle Over Educational Goals . American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. Selected chapters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, J. A. & Hawthorne, R. (1978). Political dimensions of curriculum decision making. Educational Leadership, 2, 362-366.
Return to Coursework