As a fairly recent transplant to Florida from the north, I am continually appalled by some of what is going on in the state regarding schooling and educational policy.
Last spring, the legislature passed, and Governor Ron DeSantis signed, two bills that directly affect what teachers can say in classrooms in the state. The "Parental Rights in Education Act," dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by its critics, bans any discussion of gender or sexual orientation in K-3 classrooms, and also bans any discussions in higher grades that are not "age appropriate." Who knows what "age appropriate" means? Isn't what is "age appropriate" a contextual question that depends on a particular teacher's relationship with the students that they teach, the mores and norms of a particular community, and the actual needs of the students? (The State Department of Education is developing more specific regulations about what is "age appropriate." Given that departments' recent actions with regard to teachers, curriculum, and even higher education in the state (see more, below), it isn't really clear that the regulations that will be issued by the department will comport with generally accepted notions of what is age appropriate or socially desirable.
What's more, as Frank Bruni of the New York Times pointed out in an opinion essay last April (subscriber firewall), "Parents Aren't The Only Ones With Rights." He goes on:
[Public] schools ... exist for all of us, to reflect and inculcate democratic values and ecumenical virtues that have nothing to do with any one parent’s ideology, religion or lack thereof.... None of us get from public schools the precise instruction and exact social dynamics that we’d prescribe. That’s because they don’t exist to validate our individual worldviews. They’re public schools, and I and most of the other people I know, whether we have children or not, are happy to fund them, because we believe in education and we believe in democracy. What we don’t believe — what I don’t — is that “parental rights” take precedence over civic ideals.
Parents don't own their kids in the same way that they might own a piece of property or a food processor. As the saying goes, KIDS belong to the future; they have independent minds, hearts, and bodies, which parents may control to a limited extent or for a limited period of time but which are able to move beyond the skills or knowledge or values of their parents. The public schools, in fact, were designed to take children beyond their parents' abilities.
Before the 1800s, it was generally okay for the progress of society if children didn't learn to read or write, and it was also therefore okay to allow parents to be the primary (or sole) teacher of their children. But with the changes in society wrought by the industrial revolution, and with new expectations for citizens in a democratic society, it was thought that parents should send their children to school (even if those parents didn't want to do so). School attendance became compulsory in most of the United States by 1920, and although parents do have options (including private schools and, later, state-regulated home schooling), they don't really have the right to deny their kids schooling that may--and in fact must, in a rapidly changing world--go beyond the parents' own experiences.
Literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy (math) are very important purposes of the public schools. The purposes, however, go beyond these basic skills. Public schools teach other things like history and science, and general skills like critical thinking and how to participate respectfully in debates where there may be differences of opinion or even different assessments of facts. They have also been charged with teaching things like tolerance, overcoming stereotypes and prejudice, and healthy habits including safe sex.
To be sure, some parents at any given point in US history have objected to the expansion of the school curriculum beyond basic literacy. The teaching of evolution in biology class, for example, is still opposed by some members of society who choose to believe alternative theories such as the creation of the earth by an intelligent Creator. Likewise, the teaching of the history of race relations in the US (a history which must include the Civil War and its aftermath, as well as the Civil Rights movement) is controversial in some quarters.
Should the Creationists or the apologists for the Confederacy be given veto power over including topics such as evolution and the history of race relations in the school curriculum? Some people believe that yes, any controversial topics should be avoided in public schools, even if the people objecting are a small minority and even if the people objecting are actually demonstrating racist, sexist, ableist beliefs.
It is true that after children turn 18 and perhaps are either attending college or university or are no longer involved in schooling, they can learn things that their parents might not accept. But the formative years in school set the foundation for people's lifelong educational trajectories, and people who grow up having never been exposed to some of the perhaps controversial topics in science, history, or health education may therefore develop habits of mind or behavior that are potentially destructive of a democratic society's commitments to truth, social harmony, or public and individual health.
The prospect of our children maybe expanding beyond their parents' limited experience through the attendance at colleges or universities is, perhaps, a comforting thought to those of us who value an informed and tolerant society. Colleges and universities (even public ones) have always been somewhat less subject to state regulations with regard to curriculum and instruction than are public K-12 schools. In the past, only a very few students were able to afford or get admitted to college, and those were people headed for elite professions like medicine, law, theology, scientific research, or policy analysis.
But since the 1960s, the United States has greatly expanded access to higher education, through such means as scholarships, loans, and the establishment of many additional institutions including trade schools and junior colleges, many with "open" admissions policies. If you graduate from high school, you can attend some public institutions without having to submit specific credentials like standardized test scores. I am currently teaching a couple of courses at Florida SouthWestern State College (FSW) here in Fort Myers. The courses I teach--which are introductory in the teacher preparation program--are open to almost anyone who has completed high schools (and even some who have not yet finished high school, through dual enrollment programs). I'm also currently teaching a somewhat similar course--also on a part-time basis--at a more elite public college, SUNY Geneseo, where the students have much more polished academic records and not everyone is welcome to attend. The students in my classes at FSW and the students in my class at Geneseo are about the same age (18-21), but the students at Geneseo seem to be much more knowledgeable about school subjects and generally have noticeably higher skills in reading, writing, and research.
Public colleges are, like K-12 public schools, a significant resource for the advancement of society and for the maintenance and cultivation of a democratic citizenry. Almost all the students I'm currently teaching want to be teachers in public schools, and so the topics that we are discussing are essential to their understanding of themselves, their future roles, and their future students. The curriculum in these classes is historical, philosophical, sociological, and aimed at developing a critical approach to the topics and practices of public schools in the US. Among the topics are the influence of race and gender in the outcomes of public schools, how funding disparities in schooling sometimes seem to keep lower income kids from entering the more elite professions in society, and how public schools should gradually expose students to potentially controversial debates going on in the larger society.
To be honest, as a professor for the past 35 years at a variety of public and private colleges and universities, I've gotten used to little intervention in the curriculum or instruction that I utilize in my classes. Typically, the subject-matter and methods are, to some extent, under the supervision of the faculty, and of course the students in my classes provide course evaluations that go into decisions that (largely faculty) make about the progress of my own career. Faculty governance and peer evaluation are essentially important for curriculum coherence and for establishing the mission and purpose of the institution and ensuring that individual faculty conform (to some extent, within the broad outlines of academic freedom) with these larger purposes.
But the Parental Rights in Education Act isn't the only thing that the Florida legislature, Department of Education, and governor are trying to do to influence teaching and learning in the public schools of the state. DeSantis' Department of Education recently banned the public schools from implementing a proposed advanced placement course in African American Studies. Another piece of legislation signed by the governor last spring was the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act. This act, according to the governor's own press release, "Codifies the Florida Department of Education’s prohibition on teaching critical race theory in K-12 schools; Provides employees, parents and students a private right of action; Strengthens enforcement authority of the Florida Department of Education; [and] Prohibits school districts, colleges and universities from hiring woke CRT consultants." In December of 2022, the Department issued a rule that all state colleges and universities must produce a report that lists "their spending related to critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion." (I've been rold that one of the courses I teach at FSW, "Introduction to Diversity for Educators," was included in FSW's report to the state, and that, due to ongoing pressure, FSW is very likely to drop the course from its course catalog and requirements for pre-service teaching candidates.)
The Stop Woke Act specifically prohibits colleges, universities, and even employers in the state from doing anything that makes anyone uncomfortable due to their race. For example, anyone who feels uncomfortably singled out because of how white people have acted in the past to oppress or subjugate black people (through slavery or discrimination, for example) is given a private right of action to sue any institution that has sponsored such courses or workshops.
There's no doubt that, like the Parental Rights in Education Act, the Stop Woke Act is designed to dissuade teachers or professors from talking about certain topics in class. The very vagueness of the legislation is intentional, to put all teachers and professors in the state's public schools on notice that they could be sued by parents or adult students at any time, and to push state schools, districts, colleges, and universities to take proactive measures to prevent certain topics from being discussed.
Florida's governor has indicated in recent weeks that he intends to actually ban "critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion programs, known as DEI" from public institutions, saying that such programs would get “no funding, and that [they] will wither on the vine”.
These general efforts to limit discussions in the public schools and colleges in Florida have recently been put into an even brighter light by DeSantis's efforts to remake New College, the so-called "residential liberal arts college" in Florida. In the past couple of months, the governor fired the college president and replaced him with a political ally (Richard Corcoran) and also replaced six (later, also a seventh) members of the institutions Board of Trustees. One of the new members, Christopher Rufo, has explicitly stated that his goal is to "lay siege to our institutions," including public universities, that have become "a patronage system for left-wing activists." This goal was turned into specific action yesterday, when New College's newly constituted board eliminated New College's Office of Outreach and Inclusive Excellence (despite evidence presented that the office had many functions that go beyond diversity, equity, and inclusion), and prohibited
Any effort to promote as the official position of the administration, the college, or any administrative unit thereof, a particular, widely contested opinion referencing unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender theory, racial or sexual privilege, or any related formulation of these concepts.
Whoa!
I had to reread this numerous times to try to understand what, exactly, is being banned: "Any effort to promote" a "particular, widely contested opinion." Yes, folks, the New College Board of Trustees is banning a particular opinion (rather broadly defined here) from influencing any administrative policy. Specifically banned are any efforts to promote the diversity of the faculty or administration.
Can you imagine how candidates for the faculty or administration at New College are trying to scrub their resumes of any mention of the topics listed in the Board's decision? In my experience, most of the people around the country who have been working in higher education in the past few decades has done many things to portray themselves as friendly to, and promoting of, diversity, equity, and inclusion in their teaching, consulting, publishing, and administrative work.The new policy at New College will likely have ripple effects beyond New College, and indeed beyond Florida, in terms of the work of those in higher education.
What is this really about?
According to an recent article in the New Yorker what's happening at New College right now is "characteristic of DeSantisism...." The article continues:
The process underway in Florida and at New College is less about ideology than about power. DeSantis’s culture war has teeth because he is the governor of a large and growing state with unified political control and...he understands and can make use of his bureaucratic powers. What makes DeSantis both distinct and formidable is that his campaigns are about not ends but means."
What does that mean? It means that DeSantis is trying to exert control because he can, and because doing so solidifies and consolidates his political base in Florida and around the country. Conservatives (and some others who appear open to cheering on DeSantis in his efforts at bothering people like me who identify as "woke" liberals) love the red meat that DeSantis is throwing to the people. That maybe this red meat will cause some people to shut up, change career goals away from teaching, or move out of Florida is, for DeSantis and his allies, all of a piece with making society less open, less tolerant, less democratic (both with a small and a big D). DeSantis aims to control the United States the same way he's trying to control Florida. And those of us who value civil debate in schools and in the larger society should be very worried that our freedoms to think differently or to speaking confidently about liberal (both small and big L) values are going to be severely curtailed.
This is fascism (small F, maybe), pure and simple. It is trying to use state apparatus to shut people up and to make them conform to a particular world view. To my knowledge there are no concentration camps or mass purges in DeSantis' plans for the future. But who needs a concentration camp or a mass purge if you can get people to shut up about their disagreements with the man or the party in power.
It's much better (in the United States, anyway) to clear the public square of controversy by such means than it is to clear the public square by the explicit use of force.
No comments:
Post a Comment