In a Chicago-area elementary school, sixth grade students in a music class were taught and tested on the life and works of Chief Keef, a famous rapper who is famous for, among other things, being the face of the Chicago gangsta rap scene.
The idea of teaching a relatable subject to students is nothing new to this class - the Shakespeare in emoji speak comes to mind - and so I see this as perhaps a more...extreme example of this idea. It is entirely possible that some of these sixth grades students know about Chief Keef and his work from outside of the classroom, as he is a famous artist who came from Chicago, which is where this lesson was being taught. For these students who know of Chief Keef, studying him in depth may provide those students with an enthusiasm for researching that they might not otherwise have known about.
And yet, there are probably more students - keep in mind, sixth graders are 11-12 years old - who knew absolutely nothing about Chief Keef's music, which often talks about dealing drugs, sex in a frank manner, and shootings. Parents were outraged that their children were being taught about (a) someone who they see as a bad role model and (b) someone whose lyrics might not be age appropriate.
I'd like to touch on age appropriate content, because I believe it to be not only at the heart of the issue of this controversy, but also at the heart of the issue of what to teach to students to get them interested in writing. For this Chief Keef example, the students are being taught something that traditional thinking would say that they may be too young to learn about. In getting students to write and be interested in English, it is traditionally thought that if a teacher is to teach what the students want, the teacher is perhaps "dumbing down" his or her lesson plan; in other words, the teacher is teaching something that the students may be too OLD to learn about.
The question becomes, at what point do teachers stop appealing to the interests of students and start teaching curriculum that may challenge students/go against what students may like. For the Chief Keef example, parents would say that teacher of this class is disastrously trying to relate to her students, forgoing the typical study of music (which would include classical composers and music theory) to teach students about someone who might not be age appropriate. If there was a college class that said students could read Harry Potter and write about it, I'm sure there would be qualms about that too, unless it was for a young adult literature class.
It is hard to know when it is alright to challenge students. At what point should teachers stop appealing to the interests of students?
Link to article + video of angry parent: http://wgntv.com/2015/11/18/parent-outraged-after-cps-substitute-teacher-gives-students-lesson-on-chief-keef/