I hate reading through legislation. It’s so bloated with cross-references and disclaimers that unless you spend a great deal of time deciphering such things, it can be difficult to tell what’s unique to a specific bill and what’s “just how they do stuff.” (In Oklahoma, for example, EVERY bill on EVERY topic is declared to be required by a state of EMERGENCY. Yes, I’m serious.)
I foolishly hoped that perhaps Indiana legislation might be a bit less turgid. That was silly of me.
Indiana’s proposed Senate Bill 167 has been in the news lately after one of its authors insisted educators needed to stop criticizing Nazis for doing Nazi stuff and be more neutral about “-isms” – Marxism, Fascism, racism, plagiarism, catechism, euphemism, or whatever.
Still, there are some positives in the language of Senate Bill 167 as proposed at the time of this writing. The bill wastes no time, for example, clarifying that nothing in the suggested changes to state statutes related to public schooling should be understood to require the release of teacher’s medical records, personal diaries or journals, or videotapes of their autopsies.
Honestly, I feel like this should be receiving more coverage from major news outlets. Teachers may not like being forced to remain neutral on things like genocide or treason, but their autopsy footage is explicitly protected. How many other bills we’ve discussed here in recent years can claim THAT?
There’s also an extensive section ensuring that nothing in the bill should be understood to require schools to unnecessarily expose themselves to terrorist attacks. This is especially comforting given that later in the bill it’s suggested that if a school WERE targeted by terrorists, they’d be required to remain completely neutral about this as a tactic for promoting whatever ideology might have motivated the attack.
Just stick with the facts – is that asking SO much?
Finally, around Page 11 or so, we get to some of the stuff that I’d like to look at a bit more closely. I welcome your thoughts as well.
Approving Curricular Materials
Current Indiana law requires the Superintendent of each district to establish a procedure for approving or adopting books and other materials, which must in turn be approved by “the governing body” (I assume a school board of some sort, be it local or statewide). The current law suggests this be done in conjunction with teachers and parents:
A special committee of teachers and parents may also be appointed to review books, magazines, and audiovisual material used or proposed for use in the classroom to supplement state adopted curricular materials and may make recommendations to the superintendent and the governing body concerning the use of these materials. (IC 20-26-12-24)
The new bill would cut this section and replace it with this:
Sec. 3.
(a) A governing body of a school corporation shall create a curricular materials advisory committee using procedures established by the governing body for the creation, selection, and appointment of the curricular materials advisory committee. The procedures must provide for the appointment of:
(1) teachers, administrators, and representatives of the community; and
(2) parents of students who are attending a school in the school corporation.
(b) A governing body shall establish procedures for the curricular materials advisory committee to:
(1) have access to all curricular materials and educational activities;
(2) review curricular materials and educational activities;
(3) make recommendations regarding curricular materials and educational activities to the governing body; and
(4) present recommendations regarding curricular materials and educational activities at a public hearing of the governing body.
So far, it mostly just sounds like an unnecessarily inflated version of the same idea, right? Here’s where things start to become potentially problematic, however:
(c) A governing body shall post on the school’s Internet web site the proposed procedures created in subsections (a) and (b). At least thirty (30) days after the posting of the proposed procedures on the Internet web site, the governing body shall hold a public meeting, at which public comment is heard, to explain the proposed procedures. The governing body may then approve, disapprove, or amend the proposed procedures.
It kinda jumps out at you, doesn’t it? “Web site” as two separate words? That’s archaic – and honestly a bit annoying.
But, at the risk of sounding paranoid, there’s a more substantive issue: the new focus on “public” input and approval. There’s nothing wrong with this in and of itself – community members already have the right to get involved in their local schools, run for positions on the board, etc. This new legislation, however, seems designed to encourage even those unwilling to engage in meaningful ways to jump in with the same thoughtfulness and expertise they demonstrate on Facebook or the “Comments” section on YouTube channel to derail or demonize anything they’re pretty sure Tucker Carlson mentioned several weeks ago as part of a liberal conspiracy to make white people feel bad.
Or maybe I’m just being paranoid.
Sec. 4.
(a) The curricular materials advisory committee shall be comprised according to the following parameters:
(1) At least forty percent (40%) parents of students within the school corporation.
(2) At least forty percent (40%) teachers and administrators.
(3) The remainder of the positions comprised of interested community members who are not employed by the school corporation.
Nope. Definitely not being paranoid.
I want to emphasize that there’s nothing wrong with community input. But that’s already a thing. This legislation essentially requires that 20% of the committee tasked with censoring evaluating books, lectures, art, etc., be composed of people completely uninvolved in the district otherwise.
Members must be approved by the “governing body,” but we’ve all seen how that sort of thing goes. This is just begging for exploitation – all to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist in the first place.
“Community Interests”
(c) In recommending and considering candidates, the governing body shall attempt to ensure that the committee is representative of a broad range of community interests as determined by the governing body.
Translation: the committee can include a few token representatives of various demographics, but mostly it will be controlled by people with the financing and free time to dedicate all their time and energy to the endless meetings, subcommittees, and paperwork required.
Speaking of which…
(e) The committee chairperson may create subcommittees to review curricular material subject matters. Subcommittees may recommend curricular materials to the committee for consideration. A subcommittee must be comprised according to the parameters set forth in subsection (a).
Ask your average educator how much free time they have on their hands these days. Once we’re into language like “subcommittees may recommend curricular materials to the committee for consideration… according to the parameters set forth in subsection (a)…” things have clearly gone off the rails.
Sec. 5. (a) The curricular materials advisory committee shall review and evaluate the school corporation’s curricular materials and educational activities to ensure that the materials and activities are representative of the community’s interests and aligned with Indiana academic standards.
I understand that legislation by its nature must sometimes resort to generalities or guiding principles in place of the concrete, but for such a loaded phrase to slide right on by without clarification or comment is simply unacceptable:
“representative of the community’s interests”
What this means is at the heart of most education arguments to begin with, isn’t it? Deciphering it requires opening a Pandora’s Box of Pedagogy: “What is the purpose of public education?”
I don’t think I’m overanalyzing here, but unless we have some common concept of what constitutes “the community’s interests,” this is where the whole thing potentially locks up and explodes.
Is it code for “creates meat widgets to serve corporate interests”?
Does it mean “educated voters”? (Surely not – this is a Republican bill designed to whitewash history in the most literal sense of the word, after all.)
Does it refer to the role of public education in helping to solidify the social contract by which all members of society sacrifice a degree of autonomy for the good of the whole, serving themselves and their loved ones by a commitment to the larger community? A collective understanding which promotes understanding and tolerance even when we passionately disagree?
Or is it simply code for “the majority gets to choose the morality and mindset imposed on everyone else”?
Personally, I’d really like some clarification of “the community’s interests.” I don’t love the idea of bringing majority rule to my curriculum – truth, beauty, critical thinking, personal growth, and diversity be damned if it offends the local Q-Anon chapter.
Opting Out (The Infinite Curricular Universes Provision)
Here’s another bit that’s drawn some attention:
(b) Except as otherwise provided by law, the committee may recommend to the governing body that parents of students enrolled in the school corporation may be allowed to opt out of or opt in to curricular materials and educational activities identified by the committee.
If you’ve ever watched Star Trek or other popular sci-fi, you know some variation of the infinite universes motif. Each choice leads to multiple other possible futures, quickly splintering into an innumerable number of possibilities.
The idea that teachers must have at least TWO entirely distinct sets of lesson plans in every scenario (to be posted a year ahead of time – but we’ll get to that later) is daunting enough. It also ignores the reality of the school year and this crazy dream we share that we’ll be able to help students build on what they’re learning over the course of each semester. If we read “The Most Dangerous Game” in September, I’d like to be able to refer back to it when we read Ender’s Game in November. If we practice identifying the elements of a strong argument in October, I’d like to use those when we write our opinion papers in December.
It’s one thing to say that Ginny doesn’t have to go to Sex Ed. It’s another to require schools to create separate, non-provocative, completely uncontroversial curriculums for her to jump in and out of at will, then expect her teachers to still make everything else work with this warmer, fuzzier curriculum while at any point allowing her to rejoin the majority at any point and be sufficiently in sync with the rest of the class (because a big part of education in the 21st century is learning to collaborate and manage yourself in a group setting) to fully benefit… and then leave again the moment something “uncomfortable” comes up again.
Multiply this by 4 or 5 “Ginny”s each day and it’s time to see if your brother-in-law still needs a hand at his insurance office.
Oh, and just to really keep you on your toes, all those possible curriculums and resources and materials and stories and poems and articles and movie clips and activities and discussions and anything else you may be utilizing should be posted for public review the summer before you’ve even met your students.
Disclaimer & Teaser
Keep in mind that parents already have input on what their district does and doesn’t teach or utilize. They can already complain if they feel like their child is being indoctrinated or unnecessarily exposed to naughty or troubling concepts. They can already get involved in school board meetings, their local PTSA, and the like. I don’t know of any school which doesn’t welcome parents coming to sit in class with their child all day, every day, should they so choose. I’ve never met a principal that doesn’t quickly get involved if a parent (or student) has questions about something said, taught, read, or otherwise utilized in class.
Challenges to this legislation aren’t about “keeping secrets” or preventing “parent input.” They’re about questioning the true purpose of this red meat mess, as well as its potential consequences – intended or otherwise.
In Part Two, we’ll consider why Indiana Republicans are suddenly against recognizing differences between boys and girls, Muslims and Christians, capitalists or communists, and the bizarre implication that “meritocracy” and a “hard work ethic” are universal moral absolutes untethered by culture, background, or value systems.
Seriously – we’re just now getting to the weird parts.