For the last four years, school and public libraries have been drawn into a culture war that seeks to censor, limit and discredit diverse perspectives.
Yet time and time again, as librarians have been encouraged or even directed to remove books that include LGBTQ+, Black, Latino and Indigenous characters or themes or history from their collections, they have said no.
When librarians said no, policy changes were submitted and laws were proposed — all in the name of controlling the library collection.
Some librarians lost their jobs. Some had their lives threatened. Legislators proposed bills that attempt to remove librarians’ legal protections, strive to prevent them from participating in their national professional associations, seek to limit some materials to “adults only” areas in public libraries and threaten the way library work has been done for decades.
Here’s why this is wrong. For generations, libraries have been hubs of information and expertise in their communities. Librarians and library workers aid in workforce development, support seniors, provide resources for veterans, aid literacy efforts, buttress homeschool families —among many other community-enriching services. Your public library, the library in your school and at your college, even those in hospitals and law firms, are centers of knowledge. Restrictions such as book bans impede their efforts to provide information.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
Professional librarians study the First Amendment and understand what it means to protect the right to read. We provide opportunities for feedback from our users so that they have a voice in decision-making. We follow a code of ethics and guidelines to make the best selections for our communities.
It is illegal for a library to purchase pornographic or obscene material; we follow the law established by the Supreme Court (Miller v. California, 1973). That decision has three prongs to determine if material meets the qualifications for obscenity. If the material meets all three, it is considered obscene and does not have First Amendment protection.
But our procedures have been co-opted, abused and flagrantly ignored by a small and vocal minority attempting to control what type of information can be accessed by all citizens. Their argument, that books are not banned if they are available for purchase, is false.
When a book or resource is removed from a collection based on a discriminatory point of view, that is a book ban.
Librarians follow a careful process of criteria to ensure that our personal biases do not intervene in our professional work. Librarians have always been paying attention. In 1939, a group of visionary librarians crafted the Library Bill of Rights to counter “growing intolerance, suppression of free speech and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals.” In 1953, librarians once again came together and created the Freedom to Read Statement, in response to McCarthyism.
You may see a similar censorship trend today — but with the advent of the internet and social media, the speed at which censorship is occurring is unparalleled.
Much of the battle has focused on fears that schoolchildren might discover books depicting families with two dads or two moms, or that high school level books are available at elementary schools. (Spoiler alert: they are not.)
The strategy of this censorship is similar in many localities: One person comes to the podium at a county or school board meeting and reads a passage out of context. The selection of the passage is deliberate — it is meant to sound salacious. Clips of this reading are then shared and re-shared, with comments that are meant to frighten people.
After misinformation has been unleashed, it’s a real challenge to control its spread. Is some subject matter that is taught in schools difficult? Yes, that is why it is taught as a whole, and not in passages out of context, because context is everything in education.
Librarians are trained professionals. Librarians have been entrusted with tax dollars and know how to be excellent stewards of them. They know what meets the criteria for obscenity and what doesn’t. They have a commitment to provide something for everyone in their collections. The old adage “a good library has something in it to offend everyone” is still true.
Thankfully, there are people across the country using their voices to fight back against censorship. The new documentary “Banned Together,” for example, shows the real-world impact of book banning and curriculum censorship in public schools. The film follows three students and their adult allies as they fight to reinstate 97 books pulled from school libraries.
Ultimately, an attempt to control information is an attempt to control people. It’s an attempt to control access, and for one group of people to pass a value judgment on others for simply living their lives.
Libraries focus on the free expression of ideas and access to those ideas. All the people in our communities have a right to read, to learn something new no matter what their age.
Lisa R. Varga is the associate executive director, public policy and advocacy, at the American Library Association.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about book bans was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Two years ago, I was invited to deliver a course at a prestigious management school abroad. Though hesitant at first, I accepted the opportunity to do what turned out to be one of my most rewarding teaching experiences. I taught a group of students unlike any I had taught over the span of my long teaching experience in diverse settings and institutions.
The students portrayed an exceptional level of behavioral engagement. This surprised me since I had never seen them before, and I was new to them. I had not had the chance to establish any social or emotional bonds with them. I could see them taking their own notes during the lessons, never asking me for my slides, a common practice among other students I have taught. They would work on the assigned tasks in class and use their time efficiently. Assigned homework was always completed without me having to send them reminders. When I gave a break during a session, many would open books and read until the class resumed.
It happened that my class was interrupted by the New Year’s one-day holiday. I asked the class after the holiday to think of a new year’s resolution, and to my surprise, a handful of students said that they intended to increase the number of books they would read in the coming year.
At the end of my visit, I left those students and went back home to my regular educational setting. I found myself reflecting on my own recent experience. In my setting, most teachers I work with grapple with the challenge of engaging their students in their learning; thus, they work hard on providing students with incentives and support to stay on tasks, contribute to their groups, and complete their assigned work. I know that many of those teachers designed very good learning experiences and tried to accommodate their students’ needs, yet they did not observe the engagement they hoped for.
This contrast raised several questions:
What are we missing as educators when it comes to student engagement?
Are the challenges related to the curriculum, the school, or the larger context extending beyond the school to the home and society?
Is it the collective perception toward education a factor in fostering student engagement? Have educators and parents been able to help students understand the bigger meaning behind their school experiences and tasks?
Have we been able to help them make the connection between these tasks and their reality?
Has the system taken these into considerations when designing the educational curricula?
Talking about relating learning experiences to real life brings to my attention how this group of young management students integrated their academic knowledge with their online profiles. Many connected with me on LinkedIn, where I have been seeing them share deep reflections and insights from their studies. Although they are still in their early years of their university studies, they express their opinions and stand as though they are experts in their field. They report on activities they engage in related to what they study and reflect on what they encounter and experience. They provide bulleted lists of advice and practice. Reading their posts, I see these students already can foretell their placement in life after they graduate and are acting accordingly. This could be a reason why they embrace schoolwork and engage with it willingly.
I end with two incidents from my visit that resonate with me. For one of the assessments, I conducted an online, objective-type quiz, consisting mainly of multiple-choice questions. The class speed in which the students submitted their responses led me to think they had worked collectively on a WhatsApp group. When I raised this concern, one student who seemed offended assured me that they would not do such a thing. This claim was validated when I graded the final exam, a rigorous three-hour subjective type of exam. The class average was an impressive A.
The second incident was when I asked the class for feedback on my teaching, as I usually do towards the end of a semester. One student advised me: “Next time you teach here, be tougher on students. We are used to working hard, and we can handle it.” I had never heard of anything similar from a student; on the contrary I have students who often request reduced workload and extended deadlines.
Reflecting on this experience, I believe the following can be considered as main takeaways for educators:
Design meaningful learning experiences: The type of learning experiences we design for our students should relate to their realities and be meaningful and to where the students see themselves later in life
Recognize the multifaceted nature of engagement: Student engagement is not necessarily the product of the teacher’s efforts but a myriad of aspects including the curriculum, perceptions, school and culture.
Allow students’ voices: Listening to the students’ voices provides us with a lot of tips on how we can improve the learning experiences for them and attend to what they think they need help with.
Foster student accountability: There are ways to help students be accountable to their own actions and to behave responsibly towards their learning
Cultivate academic integrity: academic integrity can be achieved effortlessly when students are interested in what they do and understand the positive impact of their learning on their lives.
Amal Farhat has experience in teaching and instructional coaching at K-12 schools and higher education. She has worked in the private and public sectors. Her interests mainly pertain to the development of professional learning communities through positive, constructive interactions among stakeholders of an institution. In higher education, she taught in the Faculty of Letters and Humanities and Faculty of Education. Additionally, she works as a teaching and learning specialist supporting faculty members with their teaching practices. Amal holds a PhD in education from the Doctoral Institute at Lebanese University, a counseling in pedagogy diploma from St. Joseph University, and is CAEL (Certificate in Advanced Education Leadership) certified from Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Almost a third of students report that they don’t know how or when to use generative AI to help with coursework. On our campus, students tell us that they worry if they don’t learn how to use AI, they will be left behind in the workforce. At the same time, many students worry that technology undermines their learning.
Here’s Gabby, an undergraduate on our campus: “It turned my writing into something I didn’t say. It makes it harder for me to think of my ideas and makes everything I think go away. It replaces it with what is official. It is correct, and I have a hard time not agreeing with it once ChatGPT says it. It overrides me.”
Students experience additional anxiety around accusations of unauthorized use of AI tools—even when they are not using them. Here’s another student: “If I write like myself, I get points off for not following the rubric. If I fix my grammar and follow the template, my teacher will look at me and assume I used ChatGPT because brown people can’t write good enough.”
Faculty guidance in the classroom is critical to addressing these concerns, especially as campuses increasingly provide students with access to enterprise GPTs. Our own campus system, California State University, recently rolled out an AI strategy that includes a “landmark” partnership with companies such as OpenAI, and a free subscription to Chat GPT Edu for all students, faculty and staff.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, students are not the only ones who feel confused and worried about AI in this fast-moving environment. Faculty also express confusion about whether and under what circumstances it is OK for their students to use AI technology. In our roles at San Francisco State University’s Center for Equity and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CEETL), we are often asked about the need for campuswide policies and the importance of tools like Turnitin to ensure academic integrity.
As Kyle Jensen noted at a recent American Association of Colleges and Universities event on AI and pedagogy, higher ed workers are experiencing a perceived lack of coherent leadership around AI, and an uneven delivery of information about it, in the face of the many demands on faculty and administrative time. Paradoxically, faculty are both keenly interested in the positive potential of AI technologies and insistent on the need for some sort of accountability system that punishes students for unauthorized use of AI tools.
The need for faculty to clarify the role of AI in the curriculum is pressing. To address this at CEETL, we have developed what we are calling “Three Laws of Curriculum in the Age of AI,” a play on Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics,” written to ensure that humans remained in control of technology. Our three laws are not laws, per se; they are a framework for thinking about how to address AI technology in the curriculum at all levels, from the individual classroom to degree-level road maps, from general education through graduate courses. The framework is designed to support faculty as they work their way through the challenges and promises of AI technologies. The framework lightens the cognitive load for faculty by connecting AI technology to familiar ways of designing and revising curriculum.
The first law concerns what students need to know about AI, including how the tools work as well as their social, cultural, environmental and labor impacts; potential biases; tendencies toward hallucinations and misinformation; and propensity to center Western European ways of knowing, reasoning and writing. Here we lean on critical AI to help students apply their critical information literacy skills to AI technologies. Thinking about how to teach students about AI aligns with core equity values at our university, and it harnesses faculty’s natural skepticism toward these tools. This first law—teaching students about AI—offers a bridge between AI enthusiasts and skeptics by grounding our approach to AI in the classroom with familiar and widely agreed-upon equity values and critical approaches.
The second part of our three laws framework asks what students need to know in order to work with AI ethically and equitably. How should students work with these tools as they become increasingly embedded in the platforms and programs they already use, and as they are integrated into the jobs and careers our students hope to enter? As Kathleen Landy recently asked, “What do we want the students in our academic program[s] to know and be able to do with (or without) generative AI?”
The “with” part of our framework supports faculty as they begin the work of revising learning outcomes, assignments and assessment materials to include AI use.
Finally, and perhaps most crucially (and related to the “without” in Landy’s question), what skills and practices do students need to develop without AI, in order to protect their learning, to prevent deskilling and to center their own culturally diverse ways of knowing? Here is a quote from Washington University’s Center for Teaching and Learning:
“Sometimes students must first learn the basics of a field in order to achieve long-term success, even if they might later use shortcuts when working on more advanced material. We still teach basic mathematics to children, for example, even though as adults we all have access to a calculator on our smartphones. GenAI can also produce false results (aka ‘hallucinations’) and often only a user who understands the fundamental concepts at play can recognize this when it happens.”
Bots sound authoritative, and because they sound so good, students can feel convinced by them, leading to situations where bots override or displace students’ own thinking; thus, their use may curtail opportunities for students to develop and practice the kinds of thinking that undergird many learning goals. Protecting student learning from AI helps faculty situate their concerns about academic integrity in terms of the curriculum, rather than in terms of detection or policing of student behaviors. It invites faculty to think about how they might redesign assignments to provide spaces for students to do their own thinking.
Providing and protecting such spaces undoubtedly poses increased challenges for faculty, given the ubiquity of AI tools available to students. But we also know that protecting student learning from easy shortcuts is at the heart of formal education. Consider the planning that goes into determining whether an assessment should be open-book or open-note, take-home or in-class. These decisions are rooted in the third law: What would most protect student learning from the use of shortcuts (e.g., textbooks, access to help) that undermine their learning?
University websites are awash in resource guides for faculty grappling with new technology. It can be overwhelming for faculty, to say the least, especially given high teaching loads and constraints on faculty time. Our three laws framework provides a scaffold for faculty as they sift through resources on AI and begin the work of redesigning assignments, activities and assessments to address AI. You can see our three laws in action here, in field notes from Jennifer’s efforts to redesign her first-year writing class to address the challenges and potential of AI technology.
In the spirit of connecting the new with the familiar, we’ll close by reminding readers that while AI technology poses new challenges, these challenges are in some ways not so different from the work of curriculum and assessment design that we regularly undertake when we build our courses. Indeed, faculty have long grappled with the questions raised by our current moment. We’ll leave you with this quote, from a 1991 (!) article by Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe on the rise of word-processing technology and writing studies:
“We do not advocate abandoning the use of technology and relying primarily on script and print for our teaching without the aid of word processing and other computer applications such as communication software; nor do we suggest eliminating our descriptions of the positive learning environments that technology can help us to create. Instead, we must try to use our awareness of the discrepancies we have noted as a basis for constructing a more complete image of how technology can be used positively and negatively. We must plan carefully and develop the necessary critical perspectives to help us avoid using computers to advance or promote mediocrity in writing instruction. A balanced and increasingly critical perspective is a starting point: by viewing our classes as sites of both paradox and promise we can construct a mature view of how the use of electronic technology can abet our teaching.”
Anoshua Chaudhuri is the senior director of the Center for Equity and Excellence in Teaching and Learning and professor of economics at San Francisco State University.
Jennifer Trainor is a faculty director at the Center for Equity and Excellence in Teaching and Learning and professor of English at San Francisco State University.
DRESDEN, Tenn. — In early February, seventh grade math teacher Jamie Gallimore tried something new: She watched herself teach class. The idea had come from Ed Baker, district math coach at Tennessee’s Weakley County Schools. Baker set up an iPad on a cabinet in Gallimore’s classroom at Martin Middle School and hit record.
Gallimore watched the videos twice, and she and Baker ran through them together. They dissected the questions she asked during the lesson, looked at how much time she took to work through problems and analyzed how she’d moved around the room. As a veteran teacher, she did a lot right — but the meeting with Baker also made her change a few things.
Instead of throwing out questions to the whole class, now Gallimore more often calls on individuals. When a student answers, she might turn to the other side of the room and ask, “What did they just say?” The tactics, she said, have helped keep her students engaged.
Coaching is one strategy Weakley administrators and teachers credit with boosting middle school math scores after they crashed during the pandemic. Weakley’s third through eighth graders are more than half a grade ahead of where they were at the same time in 2022 and about a third of a grade ahead of 2019, according to a national study of academic recovery released in February. In three of the district’s four middle schools, the percentage of students meeting grade-level expectations on Tennessee’s standardized math test, including among economically disadvantaged students, rose in 2024 above pre-pandemic levels.
Teacher Jamie Gallimore uses a few new tactics in her seventh grade math classroom at Martin Middle School after working with district math coach Ed Baker. Credit: Andrea Morales for The Hechinger Report
Amid a grim landscape nationwide for middle school math, Tennessee fared better than most states. In two districts in the state that bucked the national trend — Weakley and the Putnam County School District — educators point to instructional coaches, a dramatic increase in class time devoted to math and teachers systematically using student performance data to inform their teaching and push students to improve.
How students do in middle school can predict how they do in life. Higher achievement in eighth grade math is associated with a higher income, more education later and with declines in teen motherhood and incarceration and arrest rates, a 2022 study by Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research found. In addition, middle school grades and attendance are the best indicators of how a student will do in high school and whether they’re ready for college at the end of high school, a 2014 study found.
Nationally, the news coming in shows trouble ahead: In January, for example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the Nation’s Report Card, showed that average eighth grade scores in 2024 were below those of 2019 and didn’t budge from 2022, when scores were the lowest in more than 20 years. Worse, the gaps between high and low achievers widened.
Tennessee, though, was one of five jurisdictions where the percentage of eighth graders scoring proficient in math — meaning they were able to handle challenging tasks like calculating square roots, areas and volumes — increased from 2022 to 2024. That reflects a longer-term trend: Since 2011, Tennessee has climbed from the 45th-ranked state to the 19th for average eighth grade math scores.
But researchers have struggled to determine which interventions were most effective in helping students recover. A June 2024 study that looked at different strategies came to no conclusion because the strategies weren’t comparable across districts, said Dan Goldhaber of the nonprofit American Institutes for Research. In March, the Trump administration eliminated nearly all staff at the Department of Education unit that runs the Nation’s Report Card, which educators and researchers worry could make it even harder to compare how students in different states and districts perform and draw lessons about what works.
In the absence of systematic research, attention has turned to states like Tennessee and districts like Weakley and Putnam where kids have climbed out of an academic hole. At Martin Middle School, the percentage of students meeting grade level expectations on the state math exam cratered during the pandemic, falling from 40 percent in 2019 to 24 percent in 2022. But in 2024 that number jumped to 43 percent.
Weakley County sits in the state’s northwest corner, its flat farmland populated with small towns of mostly modest ranch homes. The county is poorer than most in the country, with a median household income under $50,000.
When the first federal Covid relief money arrived in early 2020, the district had to choose what to prioritize. Weakley focused on hiring staff who could help kids recover lost learning — instructional coaches for each school to focus on teaching strategies, plus subject-area coaches like Baker, whose role the district created in 2021. “Bottom line, we decided people over things,” said school system Director Jeff Cupples.
Research indicates that coaching can make a big difference in student outcomes. A 2018 study summarizing the results of 60 prior studies found that coaching accelerated student learning by the equivalent of four to six months, according to Brown University associate professor Matthew Kraft, who led the research team. In a survey of Tennessee school districts last year, 80 of 118 that responded said they employ math coaches.
Two Tennessee school districts credit the systematic use of student achievement data for helping their middle schoolers rebound from the pandemic-era slide in middle-school math scores. Credit: Andrea Morales for The Hechinger Report
In 2022, Martin Middle made another big change, nearly doubling the time kids spend in math class. In place of a single 50-minute class are two 45-minute periods that the school calls “core” and “encore,” with the encore session meant to solidify what students get in the first.
On an overcast March day, Becky Mullins, a longtime math and science teacher who’s also assistant principal, helped sixth graders in her encore class calculate area and volume. On a screen at the front of the classroom, she pulled up problems many of them had trouble with in their core class taught by math teacher Drew Love. One asked them to calculate how many cubes of a certain volume would fit inside a larger prism. “What strategy have you learned from Mr. Love on how to solve this problem?” she asked.
When a student in the back named Charlie raised his hand and said he was stuck, Mullins pulled up a chair beside him. They worked through the procedure together, and after a few minutes he solved it. Mullins said helping students individually in class works far better than assigning them homework. “You don’t know what they’re dealing with at home,” she said.
Martin Middle seventh grader Emma Rhodes, 12, said individual help in her sixth grade encore class last year helped her through fractions. Her encore teacher was “very hands on,” said Rhodes. “It helps me most when teachers are one on one.”
Yet studies of double-dose math show mixed results. One in 2013 found a double block of algebra substantially improved the math performance of ninth graders. Another a year later concluded that struggling sixth graders who received a double block of math had higher test scores in the short term but that those gains mostly disappeared when they returned to a single block.
The share of Martin Middle School students meeting grade level expectations on the state math exam was higher in 2024 than before the pandemic. Credit: Andrea Morales for The Hechinger Report
Weakley and Putnam County staff also credit the systematic use of student achievement data for helping their middle schoolers rebound. Tennessee was a pioneer in the use of academic data in the early 1990s, devising a system that compiles fine-grained details on individual student achievement and growth based on state test results. Both Weakley and Putnam teachers use that data to pinpoint which skills they need to review with which students and to keep kids motivated.
A four-hour drive east of Weakley in Putnam County on a day in early March, seventh grade math teacher Brooke Nunn was reviewing problems students had struggled with. Taped to the wall of her classroom was a printout of her students’ scores on each section of a recent test in preparation for the Tennessee state exam in April. One portion of that exam requires students to work without calculators. “This non-calculator portion killed them, so they’re doing it again,” Nunn said of the exercises they’re working on — adding and subtracting negatives and positives, decimals and fractions.
The data on her wall drove the lesson and the choice of which students to have in the room at Prescott South Middle School, where she teaches. Starting about 10 years ago, the district began requiring 90 minutes of math a day, split into two parts. In the second half, teachers pull out students in groups for instruction on specific skills based on where the data shows they need help.
Teachers also share this data with students. In a classroom down the hall, after a review lesson, fellow seventh grade math teacher Sierra Smith has students fill out a colorful graphic showing which questions they got and which they missed on their most recent review ahead of the state test. Since Covid, apathy has been a challenge, district math coach Jessica Childers said. But having kids track their own data has helped. “Kids want to perform,” she said, and many thrive on trying to best their past performance.
The district is laser focused on the state tests. It created Childers’ math coach role in 2019 with district funds and later other instructional coach jobs using federal pandemic relief money. Much of Childers’ job revolves around helping teachers closely align their instruction with the state middle school math standards, she said. “I know that sounds like teaching to the test, but the test tests the standards,” said Childers.
Something in what the district is doing is working. It’s not well off: The share of its families in poverty is 4 percent higher than the national average. But at all six district middle schools, the percentage of students meeting expectations on the state math exam was higher in 2024 than in 2019, and at all six the percentage was above the state average.
Goldhaber, the AIR researcher, speculated that the focus on testing might help explain the rebound in Tennessee. “States have very different orientations around standards, accountability and the degree to which we ought to be focused on test scores,” he said. “I do believe test scores matter.”
The share of Martin Middle School students meeting grade level expectations on the state math exam was higher in 2024 than before the pandemic. Credit: Andrea Morales for The Hechinger Report
If Trump administration layoffs hamstring the ability to compare performance across states, successful strategies like those in the two districts might not spread. Weakley and Putnam have taken steps to ensure the practices they’ve introduced persist regardless of what happens at the federal level. Most of the federal Covid relief dollars that paid for academic coaches in both districts stopped flowing in January, but both have rolled money for coaches into their budgets. They also say double blocks of math will continue.
Cupples, the Weakley superintendent, worries about the effect of any additional federal cuts — without federal funds, the district would lose 90 positions and 10 percent of its budget. It would be “chaos, doom, despair,” he said, laughing. “But one thing I’ve learned about educators — as one myself and working with them — we overcome daily,” he said.
“It’s just what we do.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at preston@hechingerreport.org.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Professor Sir Chris Husbands was Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University between 2016 and 2023 and is now a Director of Higher Futures, working with university leaders to lead sustainable solutions to institutional challenges.
Almost everyone has views on the school curriculum. It’s too academic; it’s not academic enough; it’s too crowded; it has major omissions; it’s too subject-dominated; it doesn’t spend enough time on subject depth. Debates about the curriculum can be wearying: just as everyone has a view on the school curriculum, so almost everyone has views about what should be added to it, though relatively few people have equally forceful ideas about what should be dropped to make room for Latin, or personal finance education, or more civic education and so on.
One of the achievements of Becky Francis’s interim report on school curriculum and assessment is that it tries to turn most of these essentially philosophical (or at least opinionated) propositions into debates about evidence and effectiveness and to use those conclusions to set out a route to more specific recommendations which will follow later in the year. It’s no small achievement. As the report says, and as Becky has maintained in interviews, ‘all potential reforms come with trade-offs’ (p 8); the key is to be clear about the nature of those trade-offs so that there can be an open, if essentially political debate about how to weight them.
The methodology adopted by Becky and her panel points towards an essentially evolutionary approach for both curriculum and assessment reform. The first half of that quoted sentence on trade-offs is an assertion that ‘our system is not perfect’ (p 8) and of course, no system is. But the report is largely positive about key building blocks of the system, and it proposes that they will remain: the structure of four key stages, which has been in place since the 1980s; the early focus on phonics as the basis of learning to read, which has been a focus of policy since the 2000s; the knowledge-rich, subject-based approach which has been in place for the last decade; and the essentials of the current assessment arrangements with formal testing at the end of Key Stage 2 (age 11), key stage 4 (essentially GCSEs) and post-16 which were established in the 1988 Education Reform Act.
More directly relevant to higher education, the report’s view is that ‘the A level route is seen as strong, well-respected and widely recognised, and facilitates progression to higher education’ (p 30) and that ‘A-levels provide successful preparation for a three-year degree’ (p 7). Whilst the review talks about returning to assess ‘whether there are opportunities to reduce the overall volume of assessment at key stage 4’ (p 41), it does not propose doing so for A-level. The underlying message is one of system stability, because ‘many aspects of the current system are working well’ (p 5).
However: one of the most frequently used words in the interim report is, in fact, ‘however’: the word appears 29 times on 37 pages of body text, and that doesn’t include synonyms including ‘but’ (32 appearances), ‘while’ (19 appearances) and a single ‘on the other hand’. Frequently, ‘however’ is used to undercut an initial judgement. The national curriculum has been a success (p 17),'[h]owever, excellence is not yet provided for all: persistent gaps remain’, The panel “share the widely held ambition to promote high standards. However, in practice, “high standards” currently too often means ‘high standards for some’”(p 5).
These ‘however’ formulations have three effects: first, and not unreasonably in an interim report, they defer difficult questions for the final report. The final report promises deep dives ‘to diagnose each subject’s specific issues and explore and test a range of solutions’, and ‘about the specificity, relevance, volume and diversity of content’ (p.42). It’s this which will prove very tough for the panel, because it is always detail which challenges in curriculum change. If the curriculum as a whole is always a focus for energetic debate, individual subjects and their structure invariably arouse very strong passions. The report sets up a future debate here about teacher autonomy, arguing, perhaps controversially in an implied ‘however’ that ‘lack of specificity can, counter-intuitively, contribute to greater curriculum volume, as teachers try to cover all eventualities’ (p 28).
Secondly, and in almost every case, the ‘however’ undercuts the positive systems judgement: ‘the system is broadly working well, and we intend to retain the mainstay of existing arrangements. However, there are opportunities for improvement’ (p 8). It’s a repeated rhetorical device which plays both to broad stability and the need for extensive change, and it suggests that some of the technical challenges are going to rest on value – and so political – judgements about how to balance the competing needs of different groups. Sometimes the complexity of those interests overwhelms the systems judgements. The review’s intention is to return to 16-19 questions, “with the aim of building on the successes of existing academic and technical pathways, particularly considering [possibly another implied ‘however’] how best to support learners who do not study A levels or T Levels” (p 9) is right to focus on the currently excluded, but the problem is often mapping a route through overly rigid structures.
The qualifications system has been better geared for higher attainers, perhaps exemplified by the EBacc [English Baccalaureate] of conventional academic subjects. Although the Panel cites evidence that a portfolio of academic subjects aids access to higher education, ‘there is little evidence to suggest that the EBacc combination [of subjects] per se has driven better attendance to Russell Group universities’ (p 24) – the latter despite the rapid growth of high tariff universities’ market share over recent years. This issue is linked to one of the most curious aspects of the report from an evidential point of view. It is overwhelmingly positive about T-levels, ‘a new, high-quality technical route for young people who are clear about their intended career destination’ which ‘show great promise’ (p 7). But (“however”) take up (2% of learners) has been very poor, and not just because not all 16-year-olds are ‘clear about their intended career pathway’. The next phase of the Review promises to ‘look at how we can achieve the aim of a simpler, clearer offer which provides strong academic and technical/vocational pathways for all’ (p 31). But that ‘simpler, clearer offer’ has defied either technical design or political will for a very long time. If it is to succeed, the review will need to consider approaches which allow combinations of vocational and academic qualifications at 16-19, partly because much higher education is both vocational and academic and more because at age 16, most learners do not have an ‘intended career pathway’.
And thirdly, related to that, the ‘howevers’ unveil a theme which looms over the report, the big challenge for national reform which seeks to deliver excellence for all. Pulling evidence together from across the report tells us that 80% of pupils met the expected standard in the phonics screening check and at age 11, 61% of pupils achieved the expected standards in reading, writing and maths (p 17). Some 40% of young people did not achieve level 2 (a grade 4 or above at GCSE) in English and maths by age 16 (p 30). To simplify: attainment gaps open early; they are not closed by the curriculum and assessment system, and one of the few graphs in the report (p 18) suggests that they are widening, leaving behind a large minority of learners who struggle to access a qualifications system which is not working for them. As the report says, the requirement to repeat GCSE English and Maths has been especially problematic.
The report is thorough, technical and thoughtful; it is evolutionary not revolutionary, and none the worse for that. Curriculum and assessment policy is full of interconnection and unintended consequences. There are tough challenges in system design to secure excellence and equity, inclusion and attainment, and to address those ‘howevers’. The difficult decisions have been left for the final report.
As students navigate an increasingly complex world defined by artificial intelligence, social media, and rapid technological change, the need for essential life skills has never been greater. A new curriculum called The Edge immerses students in real-life, complex scenarios that challenge them to think critically, collaborate effectively, and apply social-emotional learning (SEL) to everyday situations. Hear how educators are using these next-generation strategies in classrooms today.
The computer-generated transcript is below:
Kevin Hogan, Content Director, eSchool News This episode is brought to you by ascend now. Ascend now is an online education platform focused on providing personalized, academic and beyond academic coaching and mentoring to students aged 7 to 17. With a particular emphasis on fostering entrepreneurial skills and mindset by integrating entrepreneurship education into their curriculum. Aiming to normalize kid entrepreneurs through tailored programs and personalized learning paths. OK. Hello and welcome to this special edition of Innovations in Education, the podcast that explores how tech can enable districts to improve teaching and learning in their classrooms. I’m Kevin Hogan, content director for eSchool News. And I’m glad you found us. Believe it or not, it’s been five years this month that the world and schools shut down due to the COVID pandemic. Since then, so much has changed from student behavior to the way that schools respond to that behavior. Many through the use of social emotional learning, or SEL techniques. I had the pleasure to speak with Jesse Bushman. Jesse is the senior director of SEL at. Fayette Valley Community School District in Iowa about their efforts by using a new program called the. We also spoke with the creator of that curriculum, Devi Sahny. She’s the CEO and founder of Ascend now, now designed in collaboration with educators and aligned with the Castle Framework. The. The first curriculum to meet educators demands for high quality instructional materials for SEL and life skills readiness. The curriculum helps students cultivate communication, problem solving and self-awareness, as well as essential life skills like entrepreneurs. Negotiation, financial literacy and networking to boost their academic abilities. I think you’ll find their insights valuable. Have a listen. OK. Devi, Jesse, thanks so much for joining me today. Really appreciate it.
Devi Sahny CEO and Founder, Ascend Now & The Edge I’m happy to be here. Thanks for having us.
Kevin Hogan And as I was mentioning right before we started the recording here, I guess it’s hard to believe, but it’s five years ago to this month, it was actually Friday the 13th. Believe it or not that Jesse, I mean I know a lot of school districts, that’s when we. Into this great. Beta test in education with remote learning and COVID. Years. So tired of talking about it. However, it is still really kind of with us in the way that it has changed education and especially with the work that Jesse you do and Devi that you do that really took one of those acronyms I’ve always heard in education SEL, which was kind of like a nice to have probably for districts who might be kind of more well off than others. That would introduce that to where social emotional learning became front and Center for everybody in this. Group trauma together districts have spread apart. If they had the luxuries or the privileges to be able to set up remote right away. Most of the, if I recall correctly, in my conversations, most of those conversations involved around social emotional learning. You OK at home? How are you doing at home? People those first few months. No more worried about standardized testing, right? Everybody was worried. Just kind of keeping it all together. Jesse, we can get. Let me talk about that time for you in. In your district, in what you were doing in what SEL mean back then. And what does it mean? And Devi, I promise we’ll get into the news of the edge and how this all comes part and parcel.
Jessie Bushman Senior Director SEL, North Fayette Valley Community School District, Yeah. You’re totally correct. At that time it was like scary. We’re all learning to adjust. The kids were learning to adjust to and as educators. That was our most important thing was to tune in with the kids. Sure, they were safe. Check in on how they were doing and as staff we did that together as well, so we would check in on each other. A lot of our first meetings were just talking about how everybody was doing. So coming back, it did change a lot of things kids were. And teachers were. So as a school, we had to change things.
Kevin Hogan Yeah. And Devi, let’s get into the news a little. I mean, just here in January, now you’ve announced this new curriculum called The Edge. How have the past few years informed the work and the ultimate release of this new service? You’re providing.
Devi Sahny Yeah. And and just to answer that first part of the question about COVID, I think COVID certainly transformed education for K12. In a lot of ways, I think in one way teachers overnight had to have this accelerated adoption of technology, some that was super helpful and integrated really easily and others that may have perhaps even. Slow down learning. I think teachers out of all stakeholders during Covic with the heroes, because overnight they had to change their delivery and immediately adapt. And I think that’s in a very entrepreneurial thing. One of the other big changes we saw through Covic was this increased emphasis on social emotional learning. Think there was a report. Brookings stating that nearly 40% of teachers report students struggling more with depression and anxiety than before. COVID and over 80% of those teachers still have students that are struggling with depression and anxiety. So I think the overemphasis of technology combined with an entirely new world landscape reframed this focus of, hey, we should maybe turn back the pendulum and focus on the important skills. And with AI and technology, everything is advancing. But certain skills like networking and grit and resilience and communication, they still remain incredibly important. And one of the reasons we decided to create the edge is we felt that students in their middle and high school years did not really feel those skills were learnable. They thought I’m either born with strong public speaking skills or I’m not. I’m either born. With a learning mentality and a strong mentality or I’m not and we wanted to break that belief and provide them with student friendly resources, but I think yeah, COVID certainly changed a lot and I think now more than ever SEL is critical the amount of times we hear. Teacher saying we don’t have time for essay and I always. Well, that’s actually going to reframe and support your your students to be ready for. But even the teachers need SEL. I mean, Jesse and I were just talking about one of her students who I think Jesse was saying, like, found purpose through essay.
Jessie Bushman Yeah, we had a great conversation when we were working on a lesson. It would just like the light bulb went off, he and he said. Now have a purpose like. There’s a reason, like I understand why I need to learn this, because this is my future. And so it wasn’t just another thing to teach. At that moment, for him, this was like I need to learn this. Is life.
Kevin Hogan Yeah, it seems to me with both you’re talking about two is the change in student behavior right? Of the experiences of the of the past couple years. One of the net positives, if you can call it that or a silver lining, whatever cliche you you wanna use. You’re describing a self-awareness that I still don’t think I have for myself. That said, students of that age and having gone through this experience, are aware of their learning journeys. Aware of where they might need to improve and also don’t kind of shrug it off as. This sort of like, well, that’s just for people with depression. Or that’s just for certain part of the kids in class, maybe who aren’t succeeding like, this really is beneficial for everybody, right?
Devi Sahny Absolutely. And I think that when we talk about soft skills and we talk about Sela, lot of the resources that currently exist remain a bit outdated and they’re not student friendly and a lot of the teachers we’ve spoken to have said we’re using the same curriculum, that’s 50. Older. 30 years old to teach, you know, stress and anxiety, and it’s not as simple as just a deep breath. There’s more to it, and there’s more conversation involved. So one of the things we did when we created this program, the edge is we try to identify what the future skills are. How do we actually figure out what are those skills? And how are they learnt? Are they acquired? So we went on this crazy research experiment where we interviewed different stakeholders. We interviewed 500 educators from different demographics and socio economic backgrounds to ask them what are the scales you wish you could teach in your classroom but don’t have the resources for. Then we interviewed 500 students different ages in middle and high school to understand what skills they wish they could learn, and some really interesting responses. Like networking, which is one of our more. Skill. And then we interviewed about 200 chief learning officers from different Fortune 500 companies to ask them when you teach your employees in these higher Ed programs whether the skills you focus on. Then we cross reference that with HR and recruitment industry to understand what they hire for across sectors, whether that be education, technology, human resources, fin. We came up with a list of about 6000 schools. We then took that. We spoke with OECD World Economic. We’re actually one of the partners and I was at Davos recently in January speaking about this and we looked at the future of jobs report and we took all that data and all that research. To create our own framework which is called the Life readiness playbook by. Edge and this playbook is not necessarily, as you pointed out, Kevin, for students to get ready for an outcome like good grades or a university outcome or a good job, it’s actually just to have them ready for life. And these are skills that are lifelong. You know, I’m constantly working on my listing skills, my stress management skills. And the way that students can consume this content is pretty exciting. Like if a student wants to. Consume the content, grit the skill, grit they can learn from Michael Jordan. Not making his high school basketball team and the cool thing is the video format. It’s funny. Quirky. It’s engaging. But it still has all those learning outcomes tied to it, which is something, frankly, I wish I had when I was in middle high school.
Kevin Hogan Yeah. Jesse, talk a little bit about what that means on a day-to-day basis for our listeners, our readers who are either running districts themselves or their principal of a school or even at the classroom level, I mean. These are great theoretical topics, but what? About science class between 10:30 and 12:30 on a Tuesday. How do these curricula? Do these topics kind of show themselves in the day-to-day of educating students?
Jessie Bushman Well, I’m gonna step. Just one step and kind of explain how we. There. I think that’ll make a little bit more sense looking for something. We just know that we needed something to add for our students and looking for a curriculum we couldn’t find what we needed. They were not rigorous enough. Wasn’t the correct content. Not engaging for our students or didn’t have enough depth as as far as lessons to make it through a school year or to do a 612 model so. Once I saw the edge, the skies parted and I was like, this is exactly what we need. And so once we started teaching those things, we noticed that the students confidence changed. They became more confident in themselves in what they can do, looking forward to their futures. And so we had a lot less behaviors. So those started decreasing because. There was. We’ve also seen absentee change. Kids want to be at school, they want to be engaged. It’s great with our staff as well. Like you said, adults need this too. This is stuff for all of us. It’s been great teaching it because it’s a reminder myself as well on a lot of these skills that you don’t think. Every day.
Kevin Hogan Yeah, especially when you look at again. I hate to go back to COVID, but there really was a significant chasm there in, I would say the soft skills versus the hard skills. But we we kind of focus on the on the reading and and the math scores that go down. I see it from my own kind of COVID kids here to see. Of having a person to person in person conversation with someone if they weren’t in school for 18 months between the time they were an eighth grader up to sophomore, they’re still struggling to recover on how to. Behave in person for for a lot of stuff, right? But maybe Devi, you could talk a little bit. I know that you you had this integrated school framework, you had this educator friendly design that you put these things together. What is your hope terms of turning those soft skilled potentials into real world accomplishments?
Devi Sahny Yeah, I think that in the digital age and like you said, the students that were were most impacted during COVID. Many of them have lost what’s called human skills. Actually hate the term soft skills because I think soft and hard skills, but all human skills, right? Portions of soft skills have pieces of hard scales, etc. We actually focus on both soft and hard. But I would. That turning the pendulum back and saying how can we help these students develop self-confidence, self-awareness, resilience, grit through stories of themselves through activities, through gamified examples that will really take them forward into the real life. It’s funny that you say this because I gave a talk at one of the leading international schools and recently and I asked the students, I think it was about 200. I asked them who here is confident with the skill networking and is confident speaking to people they have never met before in person. And I have 200 students, maybe 3 raise their hands. Then I reframe that question. Said. Who here in this classroom is confident speaking to someone they haven’t met before online? Maybe 30 raised their hand. So there’s this confidence and this comfort with online communication that is so easy for students to accept. It’s interesting. I I I will say that sometimes I’m like that too, right? When I’m in person, meeting changes into zoom, I’m like, yeah. Like I don’t have to like wear anything. Know too too fancy. I can do it in my hoodie. There is a bit of that right and I think there there’s an honesty to that and I think that’s important. But I think the. The fear with this new generation is that the human skills are not getting practised at all. Again, very weird example which I’ll put in quotations. You may want to cut out, but some of our students, one of our students I’m speaking to recently, she’s 19 years old, she said to me, I have a boyfriend. I said, oh, great. Where did you meet him? She said no. We’ve been dating for a year, but I never met him in person.
Kevin Hogan It’s amazing, yeah.
Devi Sahny So it’s like is the world changing that way or is it, you know, the skills or what’s happening, right? But I think you know, Jesse’s been Jesse’s such an inspiring educator for this reason. Jesse’s smart enough to know that teachers themselves also need to work on their SEL. All do. Adults, professors, everyone and so in parallel. If teachers working on their SEL, they’re teaching students SEL. The students are teaching the teachers. And that’s such a beautiful process because. Learning can happen in any sort of. But that’s really our. My hope is to help students to fundamentally figure out who they are, their purpose, like Jesse’s student who figured out what made himself tick. The Edge is designed for students to figure out who they are, what their strengths are, what skills they’d like to work on and for. Kevin, I’ll be honest that the edge is designed as a one stop shop, easy to use resource that helps them use these skills in their classroom with no prep that gives them maybe 10 minutes extra with their, with their kids or their partner. That they don’t have to write a whole Lesson plan or learning sequence, right? And that’s important to us too, because they’re the heroes.
Jessie Bushman That was a huge. Point that I fell in love with when I saw it is these are lessons that I can just pick up. I can pick it up, I can read it, and I can teach it, and it’s not something that’s going to be another thing on. Plate right now I have a lot of things on my plate, so when I’m able to pick it up, the slides are ready for a whole group. Very little needed. It also has the online component. It has all the pieces to it prepped and ready, so it’s not one more thing for me to have to do.
Kevin Hogan Yeah, another aspect I know which is important for districts. Again, when it came to social emotional learning techniques in the past, you might have had that guy, usually a guy on the school board saying. Show me the results. Show me the data. Show me how this is actually been effective and don’t give me the squishy anecdotes. Me the the hard numbers. And I know that with the eggs, there are some real time analytic techniques that are connected with it.
Devi Sahny Absolutely. So you as a teacher or a district can see how your students are performing across every. Personal development, communication, employability, skills, active citizenship and learning, and you can actually get a score to see how your students are progressing on a grade level. Age level. Student level. You can compare that data geographically so you can see what kids. In China or in Asia or Europe are doing compared to your students, at least those of our school partners that are working with us, we work with quite a few international schools too, like International School partnerships, Dulwich College, Xcl Cognita School, some of the American schools and so. Interesting to compare that data with some of the data in the US and to see how students. But overall, we’re seeing that a lot of students are like, wow, I didn’t know I could learn financial literacy. Didn’t know I could learn about. I didn’t know I could learn about entrepreneurship in such a friendly way, so that’s really important to us, but also to feed the schools with unique data to see where the holes and the gaps are, because as schools. Ton of things you have to, you know, kind of take care of chronic absenteeism, teacher retention, you know, school leadership. So many things involved. I mean this is really just designed to see how can we. And we also have a mental health teacher track coming up too, which I’m really excited about because that’s something that can really support the teachers.
Kevin Hogan Yeah. And Jesse, to kind of to go back a little bit, give us a little bit of a day in the. I mean, are these seen as extracurricular activities that happen after the Bell ring in the afternoon or they are they tied into actual classes? Kind of give us the specifics there.
Jessie Bushman Well, the one thing that I love about this curriculum is it’s super. So according to your school, you can adapt it and switch it to. However, it’s going to work best for you. We as a district started off with it in the special Ed program. Actually, and we needed a curriculum there 1st and looking at that then we saw the need like the rest of the kids need this information as well. Looking into putting it into advisory, that portion of time. A lot of times teachers are trying to fill that time with lessons themselves or create these types of lessons. So using it as universal gives the kids the the vocabulary, the information, and then we can use it all the way into special Ed. So it’s an intensive program as well. It’s very. That was huge for me that my students are going to have the same vocabulary from 6:00 to 12:00. In. Ed and special Ed.
Kevin Hogan And it says to me that it’s pretty much teacher driven or educated driven. That fair to say.
Jessie Bushman Yeah, it’s very engaging. All the material is very. And it’s very relevant to the kids. The kids can relate to it. Stuff that’s happening in their lives. The discussions. It’s not just role. It’s great discussions on actual problems in the world and tools that they can actually use right there in the classroom as well, so. They’re discussing things that are happening right around us.
Kevin Hogan Excellent. Now I think we’ve gotten a really good sense of the state of play of where we are with social emotional learning. Now, if you are up in progressive schools or districts like Jesse’s, let’s talk about. Next steps, Devi, where do you see? This is just the edges that’s been launched here in January. What are your hopes to see your services as they continue to evolve over the next several months and and years?
Devi Sahny Yeah. What we’re doing in parallel supporting districts now, 200 schools and total. So we just enter the US, but we already work with seven districts here as well as Georgetown University Summer School and two other summer schools in the process. But my hope really is that as we have all these amazing districts using us to take as much feedback and see how we can make this product as easy to use and helpful for teachers. One of the feedbacks we’ve gotten is we love this so much. You include a teacher mental health track. And mental health videos for teachers to help us do what we’re doing every single day. We have tracks that include entrepreneurship and internships. A lot of employability skills in college and career readiness, but we have two more tracks. Is called AI interpretation and another is graphic design in the making. So what happens in these tracks is the students can reapply the skills they were learning. But through an experience through something a different context where they can basically trans context, apply that skill again. So that’s really cool because at the end of the entrepreneurship track, there’s a Shark Tank for kids where they can compete, and the best business gets funding. Actually, that funding is funded by Ascend. Now, over the past seven years, actually we’ve. We funded student businesses as prize money essentially, and the internship track they can, you know, apply to different companies to apply for internships. So there’s a bit of that, but overall my hope is. Is that we have this next generation of future ready, SCL, smart skill, savvy students across the world that know themselves that find their own edge through essay. Because essay everywhere and to have 30 minutes a week in SEL. I don’t think that’s enough. You know, I really Don. So it’s a. It’s a good start, but we need to do better, so I think valuing the Selma as a society would be something that I would be very interested to see what happens in the next few years.
Kevin Hogan Yeah. And Jesse will leave the last word with you about where your hopes to see this sort of work and how we can kind of continue to evolve and benefit your students.
Jessie Bushman I’m just excited to see what they can do with their futures as we’re learning these skills and you see the light in their eyes and they’re able to you do the challenges and apply the skills that they’re learning in real life. Talking about networking, the challenges to go. And network and come back with three business cards. So we’re putting it right in their. And so when they’re learning, it guided with us, I mean, just excited to see what they’re going to be able to do in the future.
Kevin Hogan Yeah. Well, once again, it’s a difficult topic and you add in COVID. It’s just always a tough conversation, but at the end of it I come out feeling better. Congratulations on your launch. Congratulations on on the work that you’re doing. Jesse at your district glass always seems half full. When I when I sit. With a few educators for 15 or 20 minutes this way, and here the the real work and the real successes you’re having. Thanks again for your time and for your insights.
Devi Sahny Thanks so much Kevin for having us. We really appreciate it and love talking to you.
Jessie Bushman Thank you.
Kevin Hogan And that wraps up the special edition of Innovations in Education, which was brought to you by ascend. Now a US based education startup committed to increasing both college and career readiness for all students. For more information, you can find them on the web at buildmyedge.com.
Kevin is a forward-thinking media executive with more than 25 years of experience building brands and audiences online, in print, and face to face. He is an acclaimed writer, editor, and commentator covering the intersection of society and technology, especially education technology. You can reach Kevin at KevinHogan@eschoolnews.com
Hancy Maxis spent 17 years incarcerated in New York prisons. He knew that he needed to have a plan for when he got out.
“Once I am back in New York City, once I am back in the economy, how will I be marketable?” he said. “For me, math was that pathway.”
In 2015, Maxis completed a bachelor’s degree in math through the Bard Prison Initiative, an accredited college-in-prison program. He wrote his senior project about how to use game theory to advance health care equity, after observing the disjointed care his mom received when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. (She’s now recovered.)
When he was released in 2018, Maxis immediately applied for a master’s program at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. He graduated and now works as the assistant director of operations at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx. He helped guide the hospital’s response to Covid.
Maxis is one of many people I’ve spoken to in recent years while reporting on the role that learning math can play in the lives of those who are incarcerated. Math literacy often contributes to economic success: A 2021 study of more than 5,500 adults found that participants made $4,062 more per year for each correct answer on an eight-question math test.
While there don’t appear to be any studies specifically on the effect of math education for people in prison, a pile of research shows that prison education programs lower recidivism rates among participants and increase their chances of employment after they’re released.
Hancy Maxis spent 17 years incarcerated in New York prisons. He now works as the assistant director of operations at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx. Credit: Yunuen Bonaparte for The Hechinger Report
Plus, math — and education in general — can be empowering. A 2022 study found that women in prison education programs reported higher self-esteem, a greater sense of belonging and more hope for the future than women who had never been incarcerated and had not completed post-secondary education.
Yet many people who enter prison have limited math skills and have had poor relationships with math in school. More than half (52 percent) of those incarcerated in U.S. prisons lack basic numeracy skills, such as the ability to do multiplication with larger numbers, long division or interpret simple graphs, according to the most recent numbers from the National Center for Educational Statistics. The absence of these basic skills is even more pronounced among Black and Hispanic people in prison, who make up more than half of those incarcerated in federal prisons.
In my reporting, I discovered that there are few programs offering math instruction in prison, and those that do exist typically include few participants. Bard’s highly competitive program, for example, is supported primarily through private donations, and is limited to seven of New York’s 42 prisons. The recent expansion of federal Pell Grants to individuals who are incarcerated presents an opportunity for more people in prison to get these basic skills and better their chances for employment after release.
Alyssa Knight, executive director of the Freedom Education Project Puget Sound, which she co-founded while incarcerated, said that for years, educational opportunities in prison were created primarily by people who were incarcerated, who wrote to professors and educators to ask if they might send materials or teach inside the prison. But public recognition of the value of prison education, including math, is rising, and the Pell Grant expansion and state-level legislationhave made it easier for colleges to set up programs for people serving time. Now, Knight said, “Colleges are seeking prisons.”
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Jeffrey Abramowitz understands firsthand how math can help someone after prison. After completing a five-year stint in a federal prison, his first post-prison job was teaching math to adults who were preparing to take the GED exam.
Fast forward nearly a decade, and Abramowitz is now the CEO of The Petey Greene Program, an organization that provides one-on-one tutoring, educational supports and programs in reading, writing and now math, to help people in prison and who have left prison receive the necessary education requirements for a high school diploma, college acceptance or career credentials.
The average Petey Greene student’s math skills are at a fourth- or fifth-grade level, according to Abramowitz, which is in line with the average for “justice-impacted” learners; the students tend to struggle with basic math such as addition and multiplication.
“You can’t be successful within most industries without being able to read, write and do basic math,” Abramowitz said. “We’re starting to see more blended programs that help people find a career pathway when they come home — and the center of all this is math and reading.”
Abramowitz and his team noticed this lack of math skills particularly among students in vocational training programs, such as carpentry, heating and cooling and commercial driving. To qualify to work in these fields, these students often need to pass a licensing test, requiring math and reading knowledge.
The nonprofit offers “integrated education training” to help students learn the relevant math for their professions. For instance, a carpentry teacher will teach students how to use a saw in or near a classroom where a math teacher explains fractions and how they relate to the measurements needed to cut a piece of wood.
“They may be able to do the task fine, but they can’t pass the test because they don’t know the math,” Abramowitz said.
Math helped Paul Morton after he left prison, he told me. When he began his 10.5 years in prison, he only could do GED-level math. After coming across an introductory physics book in the third year of his time in prison, he realized he didn’t have the math skills needed for the science described in it.
He asked his family to send him math textbooks and, over the seven years until his release, taught himself algebra and calculus.
The recent expansion of federal Pell Grants to individuals who are incarcerated presents an opportunity for more people in prison to get these basic skills and better their chances for employment after release. Credit: Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images
“I relentlessly spent six hours on one problem one day,” he said. “I was determined to do it, to get it right.”
I met Morton through the organization the Prison Mathematics Project, which helped him develop his math knowledge inside prison by connecting him with an outside mathematician. After his release from a New York prison in 2023, he moved to Rochester, New York, and is hoping to take the actuarial exam, which requires a lot of math. He continues to study differential equations on his own.
The Prison Mathematics Project delivers math materials and programs to people in prison, and connects them with mathematicians as mentors. (It also brings math professors, educators and enthusiasts to meet program participants through “Pi Day” events; I attended one such event in 2023 when I produced a podcast episode about the program, and the organization paid for my travel and accommodations.)
The organization was started in 2015 by Christopher Havens, who was then incarcerated at Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. Havens’ interest in math puzzles, and then in algebra, calculus and other areas of mathematics, was ignited early in his 25-year- term when a prison volunteer slid some sudoku puzzles under his door.
“I had noticed all these changes happening inside of me,” Havens told me. “My whole life, I was searching for that beauty through drugs and social acceptance … When I found real beauty [in math], it got me to practice introspection.”
As he fell in love with math, he started corresponding with mathematicians to help him solve problems, and talking to other men at the prison to get them interested too. He created a network of math resources for people in prisons, which became the Prison Mathematics Project.
The group’s website says it helps people in prison use math to help with “rebuilding their lives both during and after their incarceration.”
But Ben Jeffers, its executive director, has noticed that the message doesn’t connect with everyone in prison. Among the 299 Prison Mathematics Project participants on whom the program has data, the majority — 56 percent — are white, he told me, while 25 percent are Black, 10 percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are Asian and 6 percent are another race or identity. Ninety-three percent of project participants are male.
Yet just 30 percent of the U.S. prison population is white, while 35 percent of those incarcerated are Black, 31 percent are Hispanic and 4 percent are of other races, according to the United State Sentencing Commission. (The racial makeup of the program’s 18 female participants at women’s facilities is much more in line with that of the prison population at large.)
“[It’s] the same issues that you have like in any classroom in higher education,” said Jeffers, who is finishing his master’s in math in Italy. “At the university level and beyond, every single class is majority white male.”
He noted that anxiety about math tends to be more acute among women and people of any gender who are Black, Hispanic, or from other underrepresented groups, and may keep them from signing up for the program.
Sherry Smith understands that kind of anxiety. She didn’t even want to step foot into a math class. When she arrived at Southern Maine Women’s Reentry Center in December 2021, she was 51, had left high school when she was 16, and had only attended two weeks of a ninth grade math class.
“I was embarrassed that I had dropped out,” she said. “I hated to disclose that to people.”
Smith decided to enroll in the prison’s GED program because she could do the classes one-on-one with a friendly and patient teacher. “It was my time,” she said. “Nobody else was listening, I could ask any question I needed.”
In just five months, Smith completed her GED math class. She said she cried on her last day. Since 2022, she’s been pursuing an associate’s degree in human services — from prison — through a remote program with Washington County Community College.
In Washington, Prison Mathematics Project founder Havens is finishing his sentence and continuing to study math. (Havens has been granted a clemency hearing and may be released as early as this year.) Since 2020, he has published four academic papers: three in math and one in sociology. He works remotely from prison as a staff research associate in cryptography at the University of California, Los Angeles, and wrote a math textbook about continued fractions.
Havens is still involved in the Prison Mathematics Project, but handed leadership of the program over to Jeffers in October 2023. Now run from outside the prison, it is easier for the program to bring resources and mentorship to incarcerated students.
“For 25 years of my life, I can learn something that I wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn in any other circumstances,” Havens said. “So I decided that I would, for the rest of my life, study mathematics.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Los Angeles, CA — As students navigate an increasingly complex world defined by artificial intelligence, social media, and rapid technological change, the need for essential life skills has never been greater. The Edge, an innovative, research-based social-emotional and life skills curriculum, creates a dynamic and effective learning environment where middle and high school students can build the social-emotional and life-readiness skills needed to succeed in school, relationships, and life.
Designed in collaboration with educators and aligned with the CASEL framework, The Edge is the first curriculum to meet educators’ demands for high-quality instructional materials for SEL and life-skills readiness. The curriculum helps students cultivate communication, problem-solving, and self-awareness, as well as essential life skills like entrepreneurship, negotiation, financial literacy, and networking, to boost their academic abilities.
“The Edge represents a paradigm shift in education,” says Devi Sahny, Founder and CEO of The Edge and Ascend Now. “It’s not just about helping students excel academically—it’s about helping them understand themselves, connect with others, and develop the resilience to face life’s challenges head-on.”
By combining bite-sized lessons with project-based learning, The Edge creates a dynamic and effective learning environment with ready-to-use, adaptable resources educators use to help students develop both hard and soft skills. Its advanced analytics track student progress whilesaving valuable preparation time. Designed to enable educators to adapt as needed, the curriculum is flexible and requires minimal preparation to support all learning environments—asynchronous and synchronous learning, even flipped learning.
Key highlights include:
Integrated Skill Framework: A robust curriculum featuring 5 pillars, 24 essential skills, and 115 modules, blending SEL with employability and life skills such as negotiation, financial literacy, and digital literacy, all aligned with CASEL, ASCA, and global educational standards.
Educator-Friendly Design: With over 1,000 customizable, MTSS-aligned resources, The Edge saves teachers time and effort while allowing them to adapt materials to meet their unique classroom needs.
Hard Skill Development Meets SEL: By engaging in activities like entrepreneurship, critical thinking, and leadership training, students develop technical proficiencies while enhancing communication, empathy, and resilience.
Real-Time Analytics: Advanced data tools provide administrators with actionable insights into student progress, enabling schools and districts to measure outcomes and improve program alignment with educational goals.
Compelling Content.The curriculum features engaging content that integrates the latest insights from learning sciences with professional writing from skilled authors affiliated with SNL, Netflix, and HBO Max. This combination guarantees that the material is educationally solid, relevant, and thought-provoking.
The Edge immerses students in real-life, complex scenarios that challenge them to think critically, collaborate effectively, and apply social-emotional learning (SEL) to everyday situations. For example, one lesson about conflict resolution uses an actual problem that Pixar faced when allocating resources for new movies.
Early adopters of The Edge have reported remarkable results. The Edge was used by rising high school seniors during a three-week summer college immersion program (SCIP) at Georgetown University, which prepares high school students from underserved backgrounds to apply for college. At the end of the program, 94% reported learning important skills, and 84% said they discovered something new about themselves.
ABOUT THE EDGE
The Edge is the latest innovation from Ascend Now US, dba The Edge, a US-based education startup committed to increasing both college and career readiness for all students. Sahny founded The Edge in the US after building and scaling Ascend Now Singapore, which has provided personalized academic and entrepreneurship tutoring to over 10,000 students and 20+ international schools over the last decade.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that would determine whether school districts violate parents’ First Amendment religious rights when they don’t provide notice or a way to opt children out of curriculum related to gender and sexuality.
The case was brought against Maryland’s Montgomery County Board of Education by a group of Christian and Muslim parents in reaction to a pre-K-5 LGBTQ+-inclusive language arts curriculum. With more than 159,000 students and 211 schools, Montgomery County Public Schools is Maryland’s largest school district.
Though the school board initially offered parents a way to opt their children out of the curriculum, it later walked that policy back because “individual schools could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.” The board also attributed the reversal to the “unworkable burdens” that high opt-out volumes put on educators.
In their Sept. 12 petition to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that parents’ ability to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs is particularly important for the pre-K-5 age group and particularly those with special needs “who are highly impressionable and instinctively trusting of authority figures like teachers.”
The court is expected to hear the case in the spring.
From time to time, we here at FAN post op-eds on various timely issues. One such issue is who decides what is taught in public schools and what are the applicable constitutional restraints placed on attempts to restrict teachers’ educational objectives. A recent court ruling in Concerned Jewish Parents & Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, et al. (Cen. Dist., Nov. 30, 2024) places this issue in bold relief.
In the piece below,Stephen Rohde, a First Amendment authority, analyzes the case and the First Amendment issues raised in it.
News items and the Supreme Court’s docket follow the op-ed. – rklc
Stephen Rohde
An important recent court ruling rejected attempts by Jewish parents and teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District to remove an ethnic studies curriculum they labelled “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Zionist.” On Nov. 30, 2024, a federal judge reaffirmed that a system of education “which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues” must allow teachers and their students “to explore difficult and conflicting ideas.”
In his 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin wrote: “[W]e must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions that chill teachers from adopting the pedagogical methods they believe are most effective.” Moreover, he stressed that “teachers must be sensitive to students’ personal beliefs and take care not to abuse their positions of authority,” but they “must also be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities” (citing C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. (9th. Cir., 2019)).
An international controversy
The lawsuit (filed by Lori Lowenthal Marcus and Robert Patrick Sticht) came in the midst of a national — and indeed international — debate surrounding who controls the telling of the complicated history of Israel and the Palestinians and how criticism of Israel and its policies is being attacked with epithets such as “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Zionism.” It was an unprecedented attempt to convince a federal court to force the second largest public school system in the United States to adopt a single, one-sided interpretation of the hotly-contested political, religious, legal, military, and cultural histories of Judaism (spanning thousands of years), Zionism (which emerged in the late nineteenth century), and the State of Israel (founded in 1948). And all of this has been marked throughout the years by an endless variety of shifting perspectives by Jews and non-Jews alike.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus (Plaintiff’s counsel)
Not incidentally, the ruling also represents a welcome rebuke to the efforts of Republican state legislators and conservative parent groups to restrict the teaching of comprehensive American and world history in public schools. This campaign includes attempts to ban books that examine racism, sexism, and LGBTQ issues as well as their efforts to eliminate programs that seek to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in American education.
The LAUSD lawsuit is part of a well-financed, well-resourced campaign in the United States and around the world to impose an official, dogmatic pro-Israel narrative not only on Israel’s current war in Gaza and the West Bank, but on its entire 76-year history, and to silence any contrary or pro-Palestinian perspectives in the name of fighting “anti-Semitism.”
Ominous nature of lawsuit
The ominous nature of the lawsuit can be seen in the breathtakingly overbroad injunction the plaintiffs had requested. Had it been granted, the injunction, as described in the plaintiffs’ own words, would have enlisted the powerful authority of a federal court to require the indoctrination of an entire school district, and all of its teachers and students, with false, misleading, highly-contested, and controversial claims, by prohibiting the following:
[A]ny language, in any teaching materials, asserting that Zionism is not a Jewish belief; denouncing the Jewish belief in the land of Israel as the land promised by God to the Jewish people, or the Jewish belief in Zionism, or asserting that the State of Israel, as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, is illegitimate, or asserting as a fact that the Jewish State is guilty of committing such horrific crimes against others as ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid or genocide, or that the Jewish people are not indigenous to the land of Israel or to the Middle East, or denying the State of Israel the right to self-defense; and/or denying the historical or religious connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
Had this handful of parents and teachers succeeded, more than 24,000 LAUSD teachers would have been forced by court order to teach more than 565,000 students the single dogma that Zionism, a movement that emerged a little over a hundred years ago, is “a Jewish belief,” when in fact there is a wide diversity of views among Jews on the issue of Zionism.
In addition, if the injunction had been granted, all LAUSD teachers would have been banned by law from teaching or debating, for example, the fact that in Feb. 2022 Amnesty International issued a comprehensive 280-page investigative report entitled “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity.”As its title indicates, this report “analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights.” The report then concluded that “Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory], and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis,” which “amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.”
And if the plaintiffs had had their way, all LAUSD teachers would have been breaking the law if they taught that on Jan. 26, 2024, the United Nations International Court of Justice issued a detailed ruling, which found it “plausible” that Israel has committed “acts of genocide” that violated the Genocide Convention and ordered Israel to ensure that the IDF not commit any of the acts of genocide prohibited by the convention.
And all those teachers would have been prohibited from teaching that on Nov. 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, former Minister of Defence of Israel, accusing them of being “responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024.”
The plaintiffs and their lawsuit
In May 2022 a group calling itself “Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles,” comprised of what the lawsuit called “Jewish, Zionist” teachers in the LAUSD and “Jewish, Zionist” parents of students in the LAUSD, sued the school district, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, its president Cecily Myart-Cruz, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, the Consortium’s secretary Theresa Montaño, and Guadalupe Carrasco, its co-founder. The defendants were represented by Mark Kleiman.
As summarized by Judge Olguin, the plaintiffs claimed that the ethnic studies curriculum “denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]” and is designed “to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]” They claimed that the challenged curriculum “seeks to make it unsafe and ultimately impossible for any person to express Zionist ideas or Zionist commitment in public in general and within LAUSD public schools in particular.”
In addition to taking issue with the content of the challenged curriculum, the plaintiffs decried the individual defendants’ support for the challenged curriculum. According to the plaintiffs: “Defendants are injecting their views into the LAUSD curriculum” and “disseminating [the challenged curriculum] to teachers throughout Los Angeles” under the authority of the LAUSD, and “at times through stealth[.]” Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants supported or participated in workshops that “led teachers to bring the [challenged curriculum] to their own classrooms.”
It is noteworthy that the plaintiffs did acknowledge that the LAUSD “has the right to control the content of all Ethnic Studies classes taught in LAUSD schools” and specifically admitted that the LAUSD “has ultimate control over and responsibility for the use and public disclosure of any teaching materials in Los Angeles public schools other than those materials whose use is directed by the California State Board of Education.”
Mark Kleiman (Defense counsel)
The plaintiffs also conceded that the challenged curriculum had not been formally adopted by LAUSD, but nevertheless they claimed that they “are being harmed” and “will be harmed” by it. And they alleged that the challenged curriculum is being taught by at least two LAUSD teachers, one of whom is currently “using the LESMC including the discriminatory, hateful material on Israel at issue in this case.” Additionally, they alleged that defendant Cardona confirmed that “she is teaching from LESMC materials and would continue doing so in her LAUSD classroom.”
As for their legal claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged curriculum is “discriminatory” and violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and California Education Code.
The court ruling
At the outset of his decision, Judge Olguin called the lawsuit “confusing” and noted that the complaint is “difficult to understand and contains a morass of largely irrelevant — and sometimes contradictory — allegations, few of which state with any degree of clarity precisely what plaintiffs believe defendants have done or, more importantly, how plaintiffs have been harmed.” He pointed out that the lack of clarity was particularly troubling given that this was the plaintiffs’ fourth attempt to allege a valid complaint.
The lack of standing issue
Addressing threshold procedural issues, Judge Olguin found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place and that their claims were not ripe for adjudication. He observed that the “essence of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries appears to be that they are aware of the challenged curriculum, disagree with it, and fear it will be adopted or used in LAUSD classrooms.” But he found “it is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury, citing long-standing Supreme Court and appellate precedents.” And he found that neither the parent-plaintiffs nor the teacher-plaintiffs identified “any personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error.” Plaintiffs may not “sue merely because their legal objection is accompanied by a strong moral, ideological, or policy objection to a [purported] government action.” In other words, “the individual plaintiffs’ potential exposure to ideas with which they disagree is insufficient to support standing.”
At its core, plaintiffs’ lawsuit sought to have the court “weigh in on whether instruction that may be critical of Zionism or Israel is antisemitic.” Judge Olguin recognized that courts do on occasion determine whether beliefs are religious in nature and whether they are sincerely held, but here, without a justiciable case or controversy that presented a cognizable, redressable injury, he could not — and would not — entertain “a generalized grievance.”
Throughout his decision, Judge Olguin relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit appellate decision in Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District(1998). In that case, a parent sued a school district, on behalf of her daughter and other Black students, over the high-school curriculum’s inclusion of certain literary works, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and A Rose for Emily. The plaintiff in that case argued that because these works contain racially derogatory terms, their inclusion in the curriculum violated the Black students’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument and held that “objections to curriculum assignments cannot form the basis of a viable Equal Protection claim, because curriculum decisions must remain the province of school authorities.” Absent an allegation of an underlying racist policy, “plaintiffs cannot challenge the assignment of material deemed to have educational value by school authorities.”
In Monteiro, no underlying racist policy was found. Similarly, in the LAUSD case, Judge Olguin found that the plaintiffs “do not allege the existence of an underlying racist policy; instead, they challenge unspecified portions of a hypothetical curricular offering.” Although the plaintiffs asserted that they were targeting a curriculum “infected from top to bottom with racism and bias[,]” they did not direct the court to any allegations that supported their assertion. Nor were there any allegations to support an inference of a discriminatory policy. Thus, the lawsuit was a direct attack on curricula, and under Monteiro, “absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content.”
Failure to raise a free exercise claim
Judge Olguin also found that the plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of their right to the free exercise of religion. According to the Supreme Court, “a plaintiff may carry the burden of proving a free exercise violation in various ways, including by showing that a government entity has burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable.” But the courts have also held that “offensive content” that “does not penalize, interfere with, or otherwise burden religious exercise does not violate Free Exercise rights,” even where such content contains material that plaintiffs may find “offensive to their religious beliefs.”
In the LAUSD case, the plaintiffs did not allege that they “have somehow been prevented from practicing their faith, or that the parent-plaintiffs have been barred in any way from instructing their children at home.” In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs alleged was that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offended them. “But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise,” stated Judge Olguin, citing court decisions holding that class materials offensive to Hindu or Muslim plaintiffs did not violate Free Exercise Clause. As Chief Judge Pierce Lively put it in a 1987 case: “[D]istinctions must be drawn between those governmental actions that actually interfere with the exercise of religion, and those that merely require or result in exposure to attitudes and outlooks at odds with perspective prompted by religion.”
It is important to note that Judge Olguin could have simply found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and dismissed it entirely. Instead, he went on to explain that even if the plaintiffs had established standing, they could not overcome the “significant First Amendment” obstacles their complaint presented. Because the non-LAUSD defendants are private parties, their speech and conduct are protected by the First Amendment. The court “cannot enjoin private parties from expressing their views on what an ethnic studies curriculum should or should not contain, let alone from using any ‘elements’ of the challenged curriculum, because doing so would violate the First Amendment.”
Three First Amendment issues
Judge Olguin then explained in detail the various First Amendment violations that the plaintiffs’ requests raised:
First, plaintiffs “take issue with the non-District defendants’ forms of discussion, expression, and petitioning in relation to the challenged curriculum,” such as “various UTLA and Consortium activities, including funding, supporting, promoting, and hosting of workshops and events that discuss Palestine and Israel.” The plaintiffs sought to have the court impose restrictions on the non-District defendants’ protected speech by requesting an injunction “prohibiting all Defendants from using the elements of the LESMC at issue in this case . . . in any training sessions funded by public funds, or for which salary points are awarded by LAUSD.
Judge Olguin made it clear, however, that “the non-District defendants have a right to express their views about the curriculum under the First Amendment and to petition for curricular changes.” And he went even further: “[E]ven if teaching the challenged curriculum were unlawful, and the non-District defendants encouraged the material to be taught, the non-District defendants’ activities would be protected, as plaintiffs have not alleged incitement to imminent lawlessness action.”
Second, the plaintiffs had relied on the seminal 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, arguing that the court may “prevent a speaker from counseling the commission of imminent lawless action [by LAUSD] when such counseling is likely to incite or produce such action.” But Judge Olguin found there were “no plausible allegations” in the complaint “to support such an assertion.” And in any event, “the assertion conflicts with plaintiffs’ contention that they, for example, ‘do not claim that UTLA is acting wrongfully by petitioning the government to include the challenged materials in the classroom, or to discuss with others what the curriculum should be or whether the law should be changed to allow Defendants to teach what they want.” Indeed, according to plaintiffs, “[t]here is no claim that it is illegal for UTLA to speak to teachers about Ethnic Studies and there is no request that this Court order UTLA to stop doing so.” Nor is there any claim “that the law is violated by Defendants’ conduct of seminars showing teachers how to teach [the challenged curriculum], and no relief is sought from the Court asking anyone to stop conducting such seminars.”
Third, plaintiffs specifically targeted “classroom expression by public school teachers, on the clock and paid for with public money” and asked the court to enjoin LAUSD teachers from teaching the challenged curriculum.
Judge Olguin held that “this request raises serious concerns about the First Amendment and principles of academic freedom.” Although high school teachers do not have freedom of speech to the full extent of the First Amendment, nonetheless according to Monteiro, there is no doubt that “allowing the judicial system to process complaints that seek to enjoin or attach civil liability to a school district’s assignment of” curricular material could have broader, potentially chilling effects on speech. In other words, “while teachers’ speech rights in the classroom may be reasonably abridged by their employers, such limitations are fundamentally different than speech restrictions imposed by a court at the behest of a group of private citizens.”
He added: “[S]tudents have a right to receive information and ‘lawsuits threatening to attach civil liability on the basis of the assignment of [curricular material] would severely restrict a student’s right to receive material that his school board or other educational authority determines to be of legitimate educational value,’” citing Monteiro.
Judge Olguin recognized that “determining the content of curricula is a complicated, important matter, and it is for this reason that school boards generally retain broad discretion in doing so.” He stressed that “teachers must have some discretion and academic freedom in implementing and teaching the curriculum,” because “teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” He also warned that “it would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.”
Teaching provocative and challenging ideas is painful but necessary
Citing a 1949 Supreme Court decision that recognized that “[s]peech is often provocative and challenging,” Judge Olguin recognized that while the plaintiffs clearly considered the challenged curriculum to be “provocative and challenging,” nonetheless, “our legal tradition recognizes the importance of speech and other expressive activity even when — perhaps especially when — it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.”
Consequently, Judge Olguin dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, preventing them from filing a fifth amended complaint.
No doubt the Jewish parents and teachers who brought this lawsuit were deeply concerned that their children and students would be exposed to sharply different and indeed highly negative perspectives about the State of Israel and the nature and history of Zionism — perspectives that conflict with what may have been taught at home. But when it comes to public education in America, no particular group of parents or teachers can restrict the curriculum designed for all students based on their personal views or because they are offended by some aspect of the curriculum.
“At their best, public schools in the United States serve to produce a literate and informed citizenry imbued not only with knowledge but with a spirit of inquiry,” according to Jonathan Friedman, Director of Free Expression and Education at PEN America. “Diversity of thought has been the core of our pluralistic identity, and free expression — one of the central tenets of American democracy — is an essential value that ensures both the quality of our children’s education and the ability of our schools to prepare them to become engaged citizens in an increasingly complex world.”
Friedman went on to explain that while there is no question that “parents have a central role in guiding, supporting, nurturing, and educating their children,” the so-called “parents’ rights” movement seeks to elevate “individual parents’ beliefs or preferences over the rights of all other parents.” He also noted that in many parts of the country, “individual parents are demanding the removal of books from schools they find unfavorable.” But in the United States, “it has been an abiding principle of our democracy to side with free speech over those who wish to restrict it. The freedom to learn, the freedom to read, and the freedom to think are inextricably bound.”
“Preventing students from learning about the real world won’t protect them from it,” Friedman pointed out. Students “don’t deserve a chilled environment where teachers are unable to speak honestly for fear of upsetting any one parent.”
Thirty-three years ago, the American Association of University Professors reiterated its long-held view that the “freedom of thought and expression” upon which education is based “often inspires vigorous debate on those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas.”
The AAUP reminded us that on “a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.”
The debate over Israel, Zionism, and the Palestinians, like all debates on serious issues, will not be resolved by convincing courts to mandate the views of one side or to silence the voices of the other side. The debate must be a free and open discussion informed by a rigorous and unflinching examination of history that respects the human rights and dignity of everyone.
Sixth Circuit rules FCC lacked the authority to reinstate Net Neutrality rules
A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. In its opinion, a three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in June, known as Loper Bright, that overturned a 1984 legal precedent that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.
“Applying Loper Bright means we can end the F.C.C.’s vacillations,” the court ruled.
Levine and Schafer on ‘central meaning of the First Amendment’
Last month, Carson Holloway argued in Law & Liberty’s forum on New York Times v. Sullivan that the Supreme Court “owes it to the nation” to reconsider and ultimately overrule this defining First Amendment case. He has madethis argument in Law & Liberty before. He is mistaken.
Sullivan declared that the First Amendment has a “central meaning”: that citizens in a democracy have a right to criticize government officials without fear of ruin. The Court made this principle a reality by establishing the “actual malice” requirement. Before enforcing a damages judgment or sending a citizen to jail, courts going forward were to require clear and convincing proof that the alleged defamer of a public official published the defamatory statement knowing it was false or with a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.
The rule has proven a potent protection for press freedom. But for Holloway, it is a modern invention that is not “based on the original understanding of the First Amendment.” We agree with Angel Eduardo that this argument is “at best . . . highly contested.” Having spent our careers defending press freedom (in the case of one of us, that includes two trips to the Supreme Court), we write to explain what exactly Holloway got wrong.
Initially, Holloway’s originalism argument is a red herring. The defamation tort is a creature of state law and the First Amendment at the Founding only imposed limits on the federal government. (It is noteworthy, though, that Madison viewed his unsuccessful amendment that would have prohibited state infringements on liberty of the press as more valuable than the First Amendment.) So it should be expected that there is no evidence that the Founding generation understood the First Amendment as a limit on state libel law. (Even so, Jefferson, perhaps anticipating the Sedition Act of 1798, thought the First Amendment ought to impose limits on libel.)
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
