California Ethnic Studies Curriculum Conflict

Dozens of teachers, activists, former officials and community members from all over California packed the California Department of Education on Friday to give their input on how the state should move forward with the ethnic studies curriculum. 

The curriculum, which was shelved because of its controversy, was put back on the table this week after State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced Monday he supported a plan to revise the curriculum. The State Board of Education will vote on it in 2020.

The curriculum, which is being created through a bill signed in 2016, is currently meant to serve as a guideline for schools, and an ethnic studies course would be a requirement for high school graduation. Currently, one out of five California high schools offer a course in ethnic studies.

On Friday, the education department’s Instructional Quality Commission, which advises the state board on curriculum issues, met and listened to hours of public comment both for and against the curriculum. 

Many of the original 18-member committee who created the curriculum spoke in support of keeping the draft, and revising it. More than 8,000 people signed a petition to save the curriculum.

The proposed 550-page curriculum was designed by ethnic studies leaders from various school districts and universities, appointed by the State Board of Education. It received support from 22 California State University Ethnic Studies departments, educational leaders throughout the state, and both the San Francisco Unified and San Diego Unified School Districts.

But the curriculum was also met with criticism from various groups, namely the Jewish Caucus and Jewish and pro-Israel community organizations. The Jewish legislative caucus criticized the draft curriculum, stating in a letter written to the Instructional Quality Commission that the curriculum omits discussions of anti-Semitism and delves into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “with strong bias and little nuance.” The caucus also stated that the curriculum is too critical of Israel.

How the Koch Brothers Are Sneaking Their Way Into Public Schools

Bill Bigelow: 

In November  in Boston, thousands of teachers will gather for the annual National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) conference.
Two non-teachers will be there, too: Charles and David Koch, the notorious right-wing billionaires.

Well, the Kochs won’t be there in person, but they will be represented by a Koch-funded and controlled organization: the Arlington, Virginia-based Bill of Rights Institute. For years, the Bill of Rights Institute has shown up at NCSS conferences to offer curriculum workshops, distribute teaching materials, and collect the names of interested educators. What the Bill of Rights Institute representatives fail to mention when they speak with teachers is that they have been the conduit for millions of dollars from Charles and David Koch, as the brothers seek to influence the country’s social studies curriculum. (When I attended a Bill of Rights Institute workshop at an NCSS conference, I asked the presenter who funds their organization. “Donations,” she replied.)

With assets of more than $80 billion, the Koch brothers, who control Koch Industries, are together richer than Bill Gates. As a recent Rolling Stone exposé (“Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire”) by investigative reporter Tim Dickinson details, the Kochs made that money largely by polluting the Earth and heating up the climate, with massive oil and gas holdings. And through their network of far right foundations and front groups, they lobby for policies and fund politicians in line with their free market, fossil fuel interests.

Another Opportunity Missed - Civic Education Policy Proposals in California

California education policy makers have once again written and published a nice looking report on school curriculum – this one on the need for improved civic education.  As is the norm for these tasks, a group of “well respected” civic leaders have participated.

They have written a report, Revitalizing K-12 Civic Learning in California, and they call it a Blue Print for Action. http://www.powerofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CLTF-Final-Report.pdf

They call for a major revision of civic education.  That is fine. They also call for discussion of their proposals on social media.( p 42)   Well, here is some of the needed discussion. 

They even recognize the diversity of California students.  They say,

“Civic learning is also vital for our increasingly diverse California society. In 2012-

2013, our 6.2 million K-12 students were 53 percent Latino, 26 percent white,

9 percent Asian and 6 percent African American, with the remaining 6 percent

comprised of other ethnicities. In addition, an increasing number of our students

are not native speakers of English. Almost 4 in 10 kindergarteners are English

language learners. This diversity, and the attention it requires, is now acknowledged

in our school funding model. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) recognizes

the necessity of investing in the reduction and ultimate removal of inequitable

outcomes in California public schools. Revitalizing civic learning opportunities, in

an equitable manner, can contribute to meeting these goals.”

While it is accurate that we have a general problem of civic engagement of the young,  it is also true that we have a very specific problem with the rate of Latino and Asian voter participation and  civic engagement.
 Rates of voting and voter registration provide a window into civic engagement.  The proportion of state voter  registration that is Latino and Asian has remained far below the proportions of these groups in the state’s overall population. In 2010, Latinos in the state made up 37.6% of the general population while they were on 21.2 % of the registered voters. The Asian population was 13.1 % of the state but  only 8.1 % of the registered voters.

Compelling description of real school reform

Working Within Constraints to Transform Schools

by Pedro Noguera

Public schools, especially those that serve a disproportionate percentage of low-income students of color, are confronted by a number of constraints that make the job of educating children, well, difficult. These constraints include, but are not limited to:

•                The political—particularly those created by the NCLB related to the inappropriate and excessive reliance on high-stakes assessments to judge students, teachers, and schools. This often leads to a narrowing of the focus of the curriculum, and a narrow focus on achievement without sufficient attention to academic performance and child development;

•                The economic—caused by the shortage of resources (especially in poor communities) that compel schools to do more with less. The financial pressures experienced by low-income families also make it difficult for them to provide the support children need; and

•                The social—which might include everything from concerns about safety, nutrition, health, crime, drugs, and a lack of parental guidance and support.

I describe these as constraints because I reject the "no excuses" position typically offered by the group I called the naïve optimists.