The controversy began when Clanchy, in response to a critical Goodreads review, flagged it for containing what she claimed were false accusations of offensive language in her book. The review was filled with quotes that Clanchy initially denied were in the text. However, when excerpts from the book were shared on Twitter, it was revealed that these quotes were indeed accurate.

Accusations of racism, ableism, fat-shaming, and other offenses quickly emerged. Some phrases, like “almond eyes,” “chocolate-colored skin,” and “African Jonathan,” were labeled as racially insensitive. Additionally, a description of two students as being from “ASD land” was criticized as ableist. Social media erupted with anger, and Clanchy, in a statement, described the situation as “humbling,” expressing gratitude for the opportunity to reflect on her representations of people of color. She maintained, however, that the quotes had been “taken out of context.”

In a previous era, this kind of response might have calmed the waters, but the current climate was far more volatile. Critics, including writers of color such as Professor Sunny Singh, Monisha Rajesh, and Chimene Suleyman, were unsatisfied with Clanchy’s apology. They accused her of using harmful language to describe her students.

Initially, some prominent authors, like Phillip Pullman, defended Clanchy and the book. Pullman, who had praised the memoir as a “wonderful achievement,” eventually caved to the mounting pressure, issuing an apology of his own. The Royal Society of Authors, where Pullman served as President, distanced itself from him, urging writers to be mindful of the impact of their work.

Then something unexpected happened: Clanchy’s publisher, Picador, announced they were “discussing the best way to update the book for future editions.” This move, seen by many as a form of censorship, was framed as a necessary revision to meet the sensitivities of modern standards. The irony was palpable—just a year earlier, the book had been widely praised. Clanchy herself seemed somewhat resigned to the revision, saying she was “grateful” for the chance to revise the text.

While some commentators expressed concern over the dangers of censorship and the precedent this could set for artists and writers, many remained unsatisfied with the apology and the changes being made. This situation underscores the tension between artistic expression, cultural sensitivity, and the increasing pressure to conform to the shifting standards of political correctness. In a society that champions free speech, this episode raises critical questions about the limits of artistic freedom and the consequences of challenging prevailing cultural norms.

The post Reflections on Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

Excitedly, my students wrote down titles spanning country, pop, rap, and rock. Armed with hundreds of song suggestions, I sat down to listen to each one. Half an hour later, I realized that I had made an impossible task for myself. The songs were too varied, and some were just not appropriate for the classroom.

Over time, I learned that my original approach—tailoring my curriculum to align with my students’ interests—was flawed. In reality, students’ academic interests and desires need to be nurtured and shaped to appreciate knowledge that lies beyond their immediate experiences. Education is a gift, and instructional time is too valuable to be left solely to the whims of children.

Shaping Students’ Interests

While it is crucial not to stifle the natural individuality of each student, there is considerable evidence that students’ academic interests need to be cultivated. Left unchecked, young children may choose foods that are easy but lack nutritional value. For instance, a two-year-old might prefer Goldfish crackers and apple juice over a balanced meal. While this will fill their stomach, it will not nourish them properly. Similarly, students, if left to their own devices, may gravitate toward entertainment that does little to expand their knowledge. Just as young children need guidance in selecting healthy foods, students need guidance in choosing academic content that will nurture their intellectual growth.

Russell Kirk famously said that while children might read comics on their own, it is the responsibility of adults to guide them toward more enriching works, such as Shakespeare. This is one of the fundamental purposes of schooling—to expose students to knowledge beyond their current understanding and interests.

Educators Doug Lemov, Colleen Driggs, and Erica Woolway address the issue of student choice in their book Reading Reconsidered. They observed that English teachers have increasingly allowed students to select their reading materials within specific reading levels, under the assumption that student choice will foster motivation. While this approach can be useful in some contexts, it risks prioritizing personal preferences over the broader goal of intellectual development.

This shift toward a more “student-directed” curriculum is part of a larger educational trend. In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis criticized the change from a knowledge-rich, teacher-guided curriculum to one focused on student autonomy. He argued that traditional education involved teachers modeling appropriate behavior for students, while the newer approach simply observed and catered to students’ preferences, without encouraging growth in areas beyond their immediate desires.

In recent years, “student-centered” or “student-directed” instruction has become popular, especially in the context of culturally responsive education. Critics of the traditional canon argue that works by Western authors, philosophers, and musicians reflect a narrow and outdated worldview, which does not resonate with today’s increasingly diverse student population. They argue that students, particularly those from minority backgrounds, should be given the freedom to choose texts that reflect their identities and values. But while it’s important to offer diverse perspectives, it’s equally important to guide students toward the broader intellectual traditions that have shaped our culture.

The challenge, then, is not to discard the canon of great works in favor of trendy or self-serving choices, but to balance respect for student identity with the responsibility to offer them a well-rounded, intellectually rigorous education.

The post The Canon Wars in Music Class appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents of children with disabilities are guaranteed certain rights, including the ability to participate in decisions regarding their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). This includes decisions about special education eligibility, testing accommodations, modified curriculum, and career planning. Parental involvement is so integral that a student cannot be assessed for special education eligibility, or placed into special education, without the parents’ written consent.

For parents to effectively advocate for their child, they must have access to complete and accurate information. When schools withhold information about a child’s gender identity or related emotional issues, it can obstruct parents’ ability to make informed decisions. While this lack of transparency is problematic for all children, it is particularly detrimental for students with disabilities, whose rights are in part upheld by their parents’ ability to participate fully in their education.

When parents are denied vital information, they are unable to effectively support their child’s educational needs or advocate for necessary adjustments. This is especially concerning for students with disabilities, as their educational rights are often dependent on their parents being actively involved in decisions that affect their development and well-being.

In cases where a teacher suspects that a student might be at risk of abuse due to their gender identity, or for any other reason, educators are legally and ethically required to report these concerns to authorities. Established processes are in place to address potential abuse. However, assuming that a parent is unsupportive of a child’s gender identity based solely on the child’s perspective — without clear evidence of harm — is not equivalent to abuse and should not be used as a justification for withholding critical information from parents.

The decision to exclude parents from educational decision-making, based on staff assumptions about a family’s views, is deeply problematic. Schools typically do not withhold information from parents on other issues, even when there are disagreements between students and their families or school staff. Schools also make concerted efforts to include families with cultural or belief differences in educational decisions. Moreover, schools are generally prohibited from making medical or health-related decisions for students. For instance, an IEP team cannot recommend medication for a child with ADHD without family input and approval.

In short, while the intent of policies that protect transgender students is to create safe and supportive environments, they should not come at the cost of parental rights, particularly for students with disabilities. Ensuring that parents have access to all relevant information is crucial for them to advocate effectively for their child’s education and well-being.

The post Hiding Gender Identity Weakens Special Education Rights appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

The current political moment in education is unique. Early data shows that school closures due to Covid have led to significant learning losses, particularly for students of color. At the same time, the ongoing culture wars surrounding Critical Race Theory and sex/gender education have many parents searching for alternatives. 2021 saw an unprecedented number of school board recalls, as voters demanded new leadership. Virginia’s governor election, where Glenn Youngkin’s education plan played a major role, reflected this shift. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, 69% of Americans expressed dissatisfaction with the education system—the highest level recorded since Gallup began tracking in 2001.

The school choice movement has capitalized on this growing discontent. Arizona made history by becoming the first state to offer education savings accounts (ESAs) to all students. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin struck down Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from its voucher program. And in 2022, over 30 private school choice bills were proposed across 22 states. Congressional Republicans also pushed for the first national tax credit scholarship program.

But while voucher programs are making waves, school choice advocates should not overlook the larger, more inclusive benefits of charter schools. Education savings accounts (ESAs) are a step forward, but policies that only appeal to voters in red states will not bring about the comprehensive changes the education system needs.

Charter schools have a far broader reach than vouchers. Currently, 3.4 million students attend over 7,500 charter schools. In California alone, charter school enrollment exceeds the total number of private school choice recipients nationwide. Charter schools are also more politically appealing to a diverse range of voters, including independents and Democrats. Since charter schools are public institutions, they align with the widespread belief in public education, even among those who oppose funding religious schools with public money. As a result, many moderate parents dissatisfied with the status quo are more inclined to support charter schools than religious-based voucher programs.

The widespread political appeal of charter schools helps explain why they are more prevalent than vouchers. Charter schools are available in 44 states, while private school choice programs exist in only 31 states. The states without vouchers tend to be Democratic strongholds like New York and California, where implementing voucher programs faces significant political opposition.

Not long ago, charter schools enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Today, the ongoing unrest among parents gives school choice advocates—who often appeal to conservative voters—a chance to revive this consensus. Despite their presence in nearly every state, charter schools still have room to grow. Six states do not have any charter schools, and seven states have fewer than ten each. Additionally, 20 states impose caps on the number of charter schools allowed, limiting their expansion. Currently, one million students are on charter school waitlists, and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools estimates that another four million students would attend a charter if one were available.

The continued growth of charter schools, coupled with their broad political appeal, makes them a key component of the future of school choice in America.

4o mini

The post Charters Are (Still) The Future Of School Choice appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

Now, in 2022, parents are discovering similar concerns in another area of public schooling—school libraries. Many parents have found books containing explicit sexual content, vulgar language, and graphic illustrations in school library and classroom collections. This discovery has sparked intense protests and divided opinions. The controversy shows no signs of being resolved anytime soon.

However, a key question seems to be overlooked in this debate: Should public school libraries focus on offering high-quality literature that challenges students and encourages them to think critically, or should they cater to students’ more immediate, easily digestible preferences? Just like cafeteria food choices, students are likely to gravitate towards books that are less challenging and more in line with their immediate tastes. With limited time and shelf space in schools, it becomes crucial to prioritize literature that is not only appropriate but also beneficial for students’ intellectual growth.

Similar to how schools provide healthy food options to counterbalance the junk food some students may encounter at home—without attempting to ban fast food altogether—schools should offer high-quality literature that encourages students to stretch beyond their immediate interests. While books with explicit content are not being outright banned, it is the responsibility of public schools, with their finite resources, to provide the best educational options during the school day. Public libraries and bookstores remain available for families who choose to explore alternative reading materials, but the school’s role is to create an environment where the focus is on literature that fosters growth and knowledge.

The post Junk Food in the Library appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

1. Over 80% of Democratic Voters Support School Choice

A 2020 survey revealed that 81% of Democratic primary voters, and 89% of Black Democratic primary voters, supported a school voucher system, illustrating that school choice is gaining widespread approval across political lines.

2. Charter Schools Outperform Public Schools

In a study conducted in New York, over 90% of students at a public school failed a math exam. In stark contrast, every student at the charter school located in the same building passed the same test. Similar trends of charter schools outperforming public schools have been observed in various urban areas across the U.S.

3. More Than Half of U.S. Families Seek Alternative Schools

In the past year, 52% of U.S. parents considered switching their child to a different school, with many actively exploring new educational options. Black and Hispanic parents showed a stronger inclination toward seeking alternative schools compared to white parents. The primary reason cited by 36% of parents was a desire for higher-quality instruction for their children.

4. Alarming Proficiency Scores in Public Schools

Pre-pandemic data showed that only 41% of fourth graders were proficient in math, and by eighth grade, that number dropped to 34%. By the time students graduate, just 24% demonstrate proficiency in arithmetic. Reading and writing scores also reflect significant declines, with only 37% of high school seniors proficient in reading and just 27% in writing. Science and history scores were even lower, with twelfth-grade students achieving just 22% proficiency in science and a mere 12% in history.

5. Private Schools Are More Cost-Effective Than Public Schools

In 2021, the average cost per student in U.S. public schools, including charter schools, was $15,205. In comparison, the average annual private school tuition was $11,645. In fact, private schools were more affordable than public schools in 42 states, highlighting a potential cost-saving alternative for families seeking better education options.

6. School Choice Helps Reduce Racial Disparities

Charter schools, which are often located in urban areas, tend to serve a higher percentage of minority students than public schools. While they haven’t completely eradicated racial or economic inequalities, charter schools have played a role in narrowing the academic achievement gap, providing opportunities for minority students to access quality education.

7. Homeschooling Has Doubled Since the Pandemic

Before the pandemic, only 5.4% of U.S. households with school-aged children reported homeschooling. By fall 2020, this number had nearly doubled to 11.1%. The most significant increases were seen in Black and Hispanic households, reflecting a growing trend among families seeking more personalized and flexible education options for their children.

The post Seven Surprising Statistics That Highlight the Need for School Choice appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

The agreement, which was first reported by Alpha News, outlines that starting in the Spring 2023 budget cycle, when a teacher from an underrepresented population is at risk of being laid off, the district will instead lay off the least senior teacher who does not belong to such a population. Minority teachers will also be given priority for reinstatement, and may be exempted from district-wide layoffs outside of seniority order.

Additionally, teachers working in 15 “racially isolated” schools, characterized by high levels of poverty, will be shielded from layoffs.

The contract cites past discriminatory hiring practices by the district, which it claims led to a lack of diversity among the teaching staff. The agreement is presented as a corrective measure, though critics argue that it introduces a new form of discrimination aimed at addressing past wrongs.

Legal Concerns and Opposition

Legal experts have expressed strong concerns about the constitutionality of the measure. Hans Bader, a constitutional lawyer, asserts that the policy violates the rights of white teachers. Referring to the 1996 Third Circuit Court ruling in Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway, Bader argues that schools cannot use race as a determining factor in layoffs, even to promote diversity. He also cites the 1989 Supreme Court case Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, which ruled that a school district cannot lay off white teachers to address societal discrimination against Black individuals.

James Dickey, senior trial counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center, has announced his intention to challenge the policy and encourages affected teachers or taxpayers to reach out for legal support.

Union Defends the Policy

Despite legal challenges, the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers stands by the contract. Edward Barlow, a member of the union’s executive board, described the agreement as a “huge move forward” for the retention of teachers of color. He also mentioned that schools in other states are looking to replicate the model.

At this time, no white administrators at Minneapolis Public Schools have offered to voluntarily resign or be laid off under the new policy.

The post Minneapolis to Prioritize Firing White Teachers During Layoffs appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

However, justifications for other subjects, such as the sciences and humanities, often move away from the economic benefits and instead focus on civic or character development. As a result, we see a clear distinction where the three Rs provide direct vocational benefits, while the liberal arts are viewed more as a path to personal edification. Beyond these subjects, students often acquire practical vocational knowledge through specialized schools or on-the-job training.

The Ancient Divide: Liberal Arts vs. Vocational Training

The distinction between moral-practical education and liberal arts has ancient roots. Aristotle believed that vocational education, which focused on practical utility, could corrupt one’s character and was unsuitable for a free person. Historically, vocational training has often been separated from general education, which was primarily aimed at cultivating good citizenship and virtue.

These divisions persist today, where some criticize education for not providing enough economic value and call for a more practical, vocationally-oriented system. Others defend the humanistic value of education, arguing that schools should focus on non-economic benefits like personal growth and character development. This debate extends from K-12 education all the way through higher education.

A Third Way: Reconnecting Work with Character

There is, however, a third way to approach this issue, one that begins by recognizing something is amiss with the way the moral/practical divide plays out in the lives of students once they enter adulthood.

It is increasingly common for people to feel disconnected from the concept of work. This is not a Marxist critique about the ownership of labor, but an observation that work has become a source of bitterness rather than dignity for many. A small subset of people find meaning and purpose in their work, while others struggle to “find their passion”—which may be part of the problem—or resent work altogether.

Work as a Characterological Issue

It is not widely recognized that a person’s relationship to work is a characterological matter. This disconnect between work and personal fulfillment is a deep issue, one that could be addressed by shaping how we view work from a young age.

Maria Montessori: A Pedagogue for the Working World

One of the best educators to address this issue was Maria Montessori, who famously stated, “All work is noble; the only ignoble thing is to live without working.” She emphasized that all forms of work, whether manual or intellectual, hold inherent dignity and value. Montessori’s philosophy was not limited to white-collar or “creative class” work, but extended to all professions, including manual labor.

Imbuing Work with Moral Value

Education should aim to empower individuals to see value in all kinds of work—whether in masonry, engineering, the arts, sciences, social work, or banking. Every profession can be viewed as a station in the broader human project of shaping the world for our benefit. Work, in all its forms, should be a source of pride, a way to engage in the collective effort to combat entropy, and a moral endeavor that enhances the dignity of both the worker and society.

The post Do Traditional Education Programs Deliver Vocational Value? appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

Throughout history, the central aim of education, particularly in early childhood, has been to shape character. For much of human history, children were educated at home, within the most personal and human of settings, where education was not a mere transfer of information but an integral part of family life that required the cultivation of virtues.

As history progressed, education evolved into a community affair, with local schools replacing the home as the central educational space. Communities sent their children to one-room schoolhouses, where they learned together, sometimes as friends, sometimes as rivals, but always in the same community, walking together to and from school.

Though these past models had their shortcomings, they didn’t fall into the traps of modern education, which has shifted from being a cooperative effort to a coercive one. Today’s education system is largely focused on preparing students for college and the workforce, aiming to create individuals who can succeed in a global economy. But for most of history, education was viewed not as preparation for a career but as the process of shaping virtuous, wise adults.

The analogy of an acorn becoming an oak tree is fitting here. Just as an acorn is meant to grow into a mighty oak, a child is meant to grow into an adult, ready for the responsibilities of family, work, and community. An oak tree may provide shelter or be used for practical purposes, but its value is not only in what it can offer at a moment in time. The modern education system often treats students much like raw material—viewed primarily for the skills and economic benefits they might later produce. This utilitarian approach reduces the child to a mere resource, neglecting the deeper purpose of education.

The modern education system risks forgetting that a child’s true value lies not in their future productivity, but in their future character. Whether a person becomes a carpenter, a civil engineer, or a politician, their true worth will be measured by their integrity and virtue rather than their utility. It is the cultivation of virtue, not just skill, that ensures individuals contribute meaningfully to society.

The post Towards Virtue Education: A Primer appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.

This experience is far from unique. Research backs up the reality that teachers spend countless hours hunting for resources. TNTP’s 2018 report, The Opportunity Myth, revealed that teachers devote an average of seven hours per week selecting or creating their own materials—a total of more than 250 hours a year. But this scramble for resources isn’t just a drain on teachers’ time; it also undermines the quality of instruction students receive. The same report found that while 71% of students completed classroom assignments successfully, only 17% met grade-level standards on those same tasks.

A decade later, not much has changed. A 2021 RAND Corporation survey showed that just 22% of high school teachers reported using standards-aligned materials, while more than 70% relied on unaligned resources or none at all. Another study revealed that 90% of elementary and 85% of secondary English Language Arts teachers developed or selected their own instructional materials. As education journalist Sarah Schwartz noted, this inconsistency means “very large numbers of students may not be getting the same rigor and high-quality instructional content as their peers in other classrooms.”

The lack of a guaranteed and viable curriculum forces teachers to build their courses from scratch. In my own experience, I selected texts I liked or that were available in the school library. I relied on pre-built lessons from Google searches. My school leadership praised this as independence and autonomy, but in hindsight, it didn’t serve my students well. I felt successful because I enjoyed the material, and the students engaged with it, but that success didn’t translate into measurable academic growth.

Teaching already involves juggling countless responsibilities: managing classroom behavior, organizing materials, navigating calendars and schedules, grading assignments, giving feedback, meeting with parents, and communicating with colleagues. Once all of that is done, teachers still face the monumental task of planning the next day’s lesson. What texts and sources will they use? What activities and materials are needed? How can they ensure coherence with previous lessons and future goals? It’s an impossible workload—and expecting teachers to act as curriculum developers on top of everything else does a disservice to both them and their students.

The post Teachers Are Not Curriculum Developers appeared first on Thechalkboardreview.