Iowa politicians are still trying to teach history to your children
I also have a recommendation how to follow media trends
Republicans in the Iowa Legislature are determined to meddle in your kid’s classroom.
This week, the House and Senate passed a bill directing the state department of education to develop revised standards for the teaching of social studies in Iowa schools. But rather than allow the professionals to do the work unfettered by political influence, Republican lawmakers had to put their thumb on the scale.
What happened this week is Round Two of a fight that began earlier this session.
In February, House Republicans passed a 17-page bill with an extensive list of readings and concepts that schools would be required to teach kids. Critics, including me, pointed out the list was largely copied from a rightwing education group, and it ignored the parts of US history that didn’t conform to its conservative view. Professional educators also noted the readings were too complicated for many young students and left little room for other topics, like geography and sociology.
The bill didn’t survive the funnel deadline, but Republican lawmakers resurrected a scaled down measure and passed it over the objections of Democrats this week.
I fully expect the governor will sign it.
Thankfully, the new legislation is an abbreviated version of the House’s behemoth. And instead of substituting the judgment of politicians over educators, like the earlier House bill tried to do, this measure requires that the new standards be developed by the education department and presented to the state board of education by the end of 2025.
I suggested earlier this year that going through the state board was preferrable to just letting politicians have free rein, so in some respects this is an improvement.
Still, Republican lawmakers couldn’t resist trying to steer the process in their direction by establishing several paragraphs of “minimum” standards that must be included.
Democrats claimed that in these minimum standards there is too much emphasis on western civilization and white culture, especially for a country that is a melting pot of people from all over the world. Republicans rejected that idea and said the emphasis on western civilization is proper because, in the words of one senator, this is “our heritage.”
To be sure, there are worthwhile readings and topics in this bill, but as you can see by the vote, it was politically divisive.
I was especially struck by one glaring omission among the minimum standards set out in the bill.
Nowhere can you find the word “slavery.”
A Republican senator who recognized the subjugation of Black people in US history during floor debate, said slavery was listed in the previous House bill but acknowledged in the new measure, that it “did not make the cut.”
Still, he offered assurances the education department would certainly include it.
Failing to specifically mention slavery among the “minimum” requirements for the teaching of US history is one hell of an oversight.
Republicans assured us the bill does require the teaching of “important events” in US history. And it requires teaching the Emancipation Proclamation and the amendments to the Constitution, which would encompass the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery. But for Republicans to include the history of slavery in this country only by inference—and then specifically refer to only the documents seeking to end it—is a telling commentary.
Which begs the question: Why try to steer the process in the first place?
Republicans insist that their list is not exclusive. But if lawmakers are going to trust the education department to fill in the gaps they left, why not just get out of the way entirely?
They say it’s because kids aren’t being taught the history they believe should be taught. But I trust Iowa teachers to make these decisions, not politicians. I believe Iowans do too, a majority of whom say the values of their public schools match their own.
As this goes forward, I hope the professionals in the department and members of the state board steer clear of the legislative meddling as much as they can and, with input from the public, develop standards that are politically neutral, inclusive of our entire population, relevant to the world we live in today and that excite kids about history. The last is no small task in itself. Experts have struggled for years to get kids interested in history and civics.
Unfortunately, the insistence on passing this legislation only reiterates what we already know about the state of education in Iowa today, and it is this: Republican legislators are determined to push their political opinions into your kid’s school. And they will not be deterred; that is, until voters stand up and say, “enough.”
A request and a recommendation
Readers of Along the Mississippi know that I’m a member of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative, a growing group of journalists and writers from across the state. Many of these talented people have become friends over the past two years, and I’d like to encourage you to get to know their work.
To that end, I’m going to start highlighting some of my fellow writers.
Today, I’d like to point you to Dave Busiek’s Substack that focuses on the media.
Dave spent 43 years in Iowa TV and radio newsrooms, 30 of those as the news director at KCCI-TV in Des Moines. He’s a keen observer of media trends and issues that arise in news coverage, and I highly recommend his work. It’s timely and relevant to today.
An example: Just two days ago, he wrote a column warning about news organizations divulging too much information about prospective jurors in the trial of Donald Trump in New York.
The headline was: “I’m all for openness, but I object!”
Turns out, Dave was prescient. On Thursday, a juror asked to opt out of serving at least in part because of concern her identity might be divulged.
If you’re from Iowa, reading Dave’s observations about the media in this state is vital. And even if you’re not from Iowa, he offers insight earned over his long career. I’d encourage all of you to subscribe to his Substack, “Dave Busiek on Media.”
Ed,
You are spot on with this article! The debate has been both alarming and frustrating.
Monica Kurth
House District 98
Republican advocates have 'asserted' that the bill's stipulated history topics are not exclusive. However, I am confident that within a year, a parent will raise objections to books or classes that address slavery in Iowa classrooms, arguing that the bill did not explicitly require the discussion of slavery, let alone the indigenous people of Iowa, or any other controversial topics.
Parents or school board members will object to any discourse on Iowa's early commitment to providing guaranteed public education for all and the prohibition of racial discrimination in accommodations in the late 800s. The courageous action of Edna Griffin in 1948, when she sat at a whites only counter, will likely be omitted from discussions, as it could be perceived as negative or controversial. I can assure you that any conversation about Iowa's early advocacy for people with AIDS/HIV or any LGBT-related debates will also be avoided. Watch for the first group to protest any mention of 'sundown' laws.
The legislators' promises to Iowans that there is no cause for concern are meaningless. A common tactic employed during debates is for proponents to dismiss opposition concerns by saying, "don't worry, that won't happen," or "this is just a minor change." When combined with the prohibitions on teaching anything related to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), any discussions that do take place will likely be limited. I accept debates on how DEI can be taught. Iowa has never been an all-white state. It has a rich history of diversity, including Native American tribes such as the Meskwaki, or Sauk, Additionally, African Americans have been part of Iowa's history since its early days, with some arriving as free individuals and others as enslaved people. Immigrants from various countries, including Germany, Ireland, and Mexico, have also contributed to Iowa's cultural tapestry. I believe most Iowans agree it is important to acknowledge and celebrate this diversity in discussions about Iowa's history, if not we need diversity to economically survive. It may be important; nevertheless, any classroom discussion will be challenged.
As a result, students may come to believe that our history has always been one dominated by white, Anglo-Saxon, Northern Europeans. The head of Iowa's Department of Education made this claim in the early 80s and was criticized for it. He argued that Iowa’s high reading levels are attributed to these ethnic, and racial demographics. Combined with the neutering of our civil and human rights agencies and anti-immigrant laws, human dignity has been demoted and our state motto should be changed.