This applies to museums, etc. as well as schools and colleges.
I am aware that institutions will try to employ people whose views align with theirs, so particularly egregious examples are unlikely, but I can't help wondering how many times an outdated textbook is still in use and teachers are asked to follow that for 'ease' or 'lack of confusion'.
Similarly, are there instances where the decision makers are not up to date on the latest developments in the field and insist on sticking to what they learnt 20-30 years ago.
How are these issues typically dealt with?
My comment may be slightly off topic, but I think it's related.
I taught in Hawaii for a couple of years, and two things come to mind re. your question.
As a public teacher, I'm not eager to see religious related activities tied to school activities. In Hawaii, there's a somewhat unusual situation where most people are Christian, yet they like to see a tip of the hat given whenever possible to traditional Hawaiian beliefs. I'm all for having as much Hawaiian culture in school as possible, and it's great that we had lots of hula, ukulele, etc. But at various times during the year, we also had ceremonies where we all had to stand around in a circle while a kahuna was brought in to bless a new building or pray for success in some activity. These ceremonies didn't take a lot of time, and they weren't terribly intrusive, but as a general principle, it still seemed to me like it was injecting religion into a secular area. I never complained about it, though, and just participated (i.e., stood there and bowed) like everyone else. And I admit, it had the advantage of not having to make a choice between a Catholic priest, protestant minister, Jewish rabbi or Muslim imam.
Hawaii, while generally liberal, is also a heavily militarized state. Consequently, on 'career day' there was typically a strong military option presence. So while I was opposed to the Iraq war (this was about 8 or 9 years ago), I had to watch as my students, who I hoped would pursue higher education, got pitched on the awesomeness of high-tech weapons and aircraft. To be fair, if my students went into the military, they would likely get more education than they would if they simply went into the workforce after high school. However, as many of us know, the military gets most its recruits from the lower economic classes, so while I'm saying, 'Hey, let's read more books and improve ourselves!' other people are saying, `Hey, let's shoot more guns! See the world from an aircraft carrier. College is for geeks!'
I suspect this 2nd comment will not be popular among military folks. Sorry, I'd just rather have my students take up something a little safer that doesn't involve the accidental killing of civilians in other parts of the world.
Well, at present I am teaching a module based on ideas which I think are rather old-hat. That is, an approach to the modern period built around ideas and interests that tended to be more popular in the 1960s/70s. So, in this instance a reading of modern British history which revolves around high politics and social reform.
There is nothing at all inherently wrong with this, but I disagree with the direction of travel because the module doesn't leave much room for cultural history, and presents a very 'white male' picture of the period. Students have also done a lot of this in school and I think tend to get fairly bored with it.
I, and a colleague, have begun reshaping it and, to our minds, modernising it, but there is a long way to go with it. But I don't think that we are being forced into teaching something we are unhappy with by anything other than the constraints of time. Certainly our bosses see no problem with switching things up to provide greater scope to teach what we are interested in. So, when we run it again next year we hope it will be better.
I know that this isn't really what you mean, but it's the best I can think of.