Solution seeking a problem

As I write this, Senate Bill 337, an act “generally revising laws involving parental rights,” dealing specifically with parents’ rights involving curriculum and instruction in public schools, has been sent to the governor’s desk for signing.

In my view, this law is a solution seeking a problem. I say that because in 34 years’ experience in public education, I never once saw parents denied access to viewing or discussing curriculum in their school. I did see parents lose their argument, mainly because they came in hot and when they’d vented, they walked away. And, in the case of sex ed, for instance, over the years I did see parents gain considerable influence over how the subject was approached.

But overall I saw very little interest from parents on the subject of curriculum. I don’t fault them for this. Teachers and administrators themselves, after hearing the word “curriculum” and related terms for about three consecutive meetings, start falling out of their chairs with boredom and confusion. Can’t be helped.

Nor did I ever see parents calling for more academically-rigorous curricula.

But the devil is always in the details, of course, and to understand this new law’s potentials, it must be viewed in detail.

For instance, (New section) Section 1b: … procedures by which a parent may object to any specific instruction or presentation on the basis that it is harmful and may withdraw the parent’s child from the instruction or presentation.

There follows a long definition of “harmful,” loose enough to make almost anything fit the category, so we now have a whole new can of pedagogical worms. Individual lessons for each child? Some children lost because they’re missing part of the curriculum? Clever teens working both ends against the middle? Lawsuits against the schools, or against individual teachers? Punishments for teachers who dissent? Frustrated teachers throwing in the towel, and rightfully so?

The whole country is already short of teachers for many reasons, including lack of parental support for classroom discipline procedures, lack of clear curriculum directives from which to plan instruction, or just plain too many non-academic directives altogether. This is old news, but this new law only makes matters worse.

Why did this law happen?

Well, some days it seems that vocal liberals want to own the public schools’ curricula from A-to-Z, turning them into nothing more than social-justice-activism platforms, with gender issues currently at the top of the list and presented far too early (do first-graders really need to do LGBTQ+ dramas?), with far too many grievances and identity-politics assumptions eating up academic time, all at the beck-and-call of tiny minorities of the population operating in-your-face political movements more interested in the fight than in workable resolutions or solid subject matter. It’s one form of brainwashing; it makes a conservative backlash inevitable and at times certainly justifiable.

On the other hand, there is an element of conservatism that wants public education dismantled, this not necessarily in hope of deeper dives into the search for truth and wisdom. This element wants to do its own right-wing brainwashing at home or in private schools. It fears differing opinions, sets up thought-control walls to hold against them, promotes historical myths over historical truths, and leaves no room for academic freedom.

That’s where this new law aims in its details. Even at best it’s going to cause more stacks of bureaucratic paperwork. Reminds me of Dagwood and his boss fighting over some bit of contract work – lots of dust and thumping and “eat this, you …!” It’s politics, not education, and all to no sensible end that I can see.

Ron Rude,

Plains