Iowa lawmakers tussled Tuesday evening over school curriculum, engaging in partisan debates about how to teach about U.S. history, race, and the role of social emotional learning as Republicans moved to advance a slate of education bills ahead of a Friday legislative deadline.
Among the GOP-led bills advanced by the House committee is one that would outline specific topics, people, and documents to be taught in grades one through six (House File 2330), and another that commissions a full review of the state’s core curriculum, educational standards, and content standards, aimed at discussions on race and social emotional learning (House File 2329).
Under the first bill, social studies curriculum would be required to include such topics as the history and meaning of the United States flag and national anthem, the culture heritage of western civilization, the United States and the state of Iowa, and the study of and devotion to the United States’ exceptional and praiseworthy history.
Fifth- and sixth-graders would be required to study Common Sense, the Revolution-era pamphlet by Thomas Paine; writings from Alexis de Tocqueville; and transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, among other topics.
Whether we want to believe it or not, with our emphasis on STEM … math and the other things we began to focus on over the course of the last decade or so, I think we’ve dropped the ball on history, said Rep. Steve Holt, R-Denison.
That is why I have been so deeply concerned because I’ve talked to so many young people and they can’t tell me about the greatest generation, they can’t tell me about Dec. 7, 1941, they can’t tell me about Normandy. But they can tell me all the negative stuff.
The bill encountered broad criticism from Democrats, who warned it would be burdensome to districts and educators and was too specific, emphasizing some parts of history while minimizing others.
I think being incredibly prescriptive in curriculum is not the job of this Legislature, and that this bill, fundamentally, is legislative overreach, said Rep. Heather Matson, D-Ankeny.
The other proposal would require the state’s education director to conduct a comprehensive review of all graduation requirements, curriculum, content, and educational standards and recommend policy changes in a report to Gov. Kim Reynolds and the Legislature by the end of the year.
Both bills advanced to be eligible for House floor debate, keeping them alive through Friday’s first funnel landmark of the session, alongside several other education proposals.
Committee Democrats expressed a range of concerns with the social studies legislation — arguing that it was too prescriptive and would put teachers and districts in a bind, that several of the topics weren’t age-appropriate for grade-schoolers, and that the curriculum didn’t suitably address either the darkest parts of U.S. history or world history.
This particular prescribed list gives me pause, said Rep. Molly Buck, D-Ankeny, a teacher. Not because I have an agenda, but because as a teacher, I just don’t know where the time would come from.
Matson noted that she had been told the list of curriculum topics was derived from the Civics Alliance and National Association of Scholars, citing an article that refers to the blueprint as the right’s new social studies plan and requesting that any additions to core curriculum come from within Iowa.
Asked to clarify what the bill’s description of devotion to American history could mean, Rep. Brooke Boden, R-Indianola, the bill’s sponsor, said it would mean teaching the founding principles of the U.S.
Our standards are far too broad and vague to provide useful guidance, and it’s time to address the issue, Boden said, arguing in her closing remarks that this is not a bill about curriculum, this is a standards bill.
Lawmakers backing the plan to review curriculum and standards are also requiring that any policy recommendations made by the education director include making Iowa’s educational standards the best in the nation and eliminating the teaching of critical race theory and social emotional learning.
Those recommendations surfaced familiar debate among lawmakers as to the exact definitions of those methods and what they could apply to within K-12 education.
Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull, who co-sponsored the review plan, argued that the methods in question could be used to install and insert some of these different things to divide kids based off of traits they can’t control. And he said he believed social emotional learning was similar to critical race theory.
Social emotional learning is commonly referred to within educational circles as a method intended to tie emotional and social skills into school curricula; critical race theory, conceived as an academic framework to study history through a lens of race, has been broadened in scope by conservatives across the U.S. in recent years to include discussions in K-12 classrooms about race and inequity.
Democrats on the committee warned against lumping together the two concepts and warned that eliminating social emotional learning could affect many different curriculum programs.
They also questioned the efficacy of an evaluation that outlined specific policy recommendations ahead of time.
Typically a review does not have the results printed out before the review is taken, said Rep. Sue Cahill, D-Marshalltown. So, with this list of a plan to already eliminate some things, I agree that we’re ahead of ourselves.
The House educational panel also advanced legislation that would require schools to create plans to improve attendance for students who are frequently absent.
Under House File 2254, the student, their parent or guardian, a school representative, and a member of the county attorney’s office would meet to discuss and sign a plan to get the student in class more frequently. The attorney’s office would in that meeting outline Iowa’s attendance laws and penalties.
The plan would apply to any student who was absent for at least 10% of the school days for any reason.
Districts would also have their state aid payments reduced depending on how many chronically absent students are enrolled in the district per year; that reduction would not take effect until the total number of those students eclipses 20% of total enrollment.
