Academic Distinctions: A Podcast to Make Sense of American Education
Hosted by Stephanie Melville and Zac Chase, "Academic Distinctions" is a podcast for educators that tackles the reading and research teachers often don't have time for. With experience as classroom teachers, district administrators, and federal policy wonks, the hosts bring a unique perspective to discussions on education's "greatest hits" and current events. The podcast is committed to delivering engaging, informative, and actionable content that is relevant and responsive to the needs of educators.
Academic Distinctions: A Podcast to Make Sense of American Education
002: Head Start, What Makes a School Public, and Parents Opting Out of Inclusive Books
In this episode Dr. Jon Becker joins Stephanie and Zac to wrestle with another round of Head Start on the chopping block and the Supreme Court's impending decisions on what makes a public school...public...(or private?) and whether or not parents can opt their kids out of inclusive literature.
Hi, I'm Zach Chase.
SPEAKER_00:And I'm Stephanie Melville.
SPEAKER_03:Welcome to Academic Distinctions, a podcast to make sense of American education. PhD in the politics of education from Teachers College, Columbia University. As always, in this episode, we are going to build some context around three stories affecting public education in America. We're so glad to have John with us to build some context to pull apart some of the thorny legal issues woven into each. John, it's good to have you.
SPEAKER_02:Good to be here. Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_03:As we were looking at the news going on around the country with public education, we realized that neither Stephanie nor I had the legal chops necessary to really provide context. So we're glad you're here. We hope you'll come back. We'll hope this is not a painful, painful process for you.
SPEAKER_02:It shouldn't be. And maybe this is when I add my usual disclaimer, which is that while I have a law degree, I'm officially retired from the practice of law. So what that means is I can render my understanding and my opinion, but nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. So there you go.
SPEAKER_03:And nothing Stephanie or Ash ever say should be construed as legal advice at all. Definitely. So jump in. Our first story comes from the land of Head Start. A month ago, federal grants were frozen, causing many Head Start branches to shut down operations. We were recording on Monday. There was a pretty good indication at the end of last week that Head Start was going to be completely zeroed out in the proposed education budget for this year. That budget has come out. The But as we were planning this episode, we said, we think it's probably a good idea because it's not going to be the last time. And it certainly wasn't the first time that Head Start was on the chopping block. So we're going to tackle this one, look a little bit into Head Start and why it's important and what this willingness to put the future of America's youngest children at risk kind of indicates for the world in which we live and what the shift in policy might indicate for potential optimism. Stephanie, what do you think about this Head Start possibility of elimination?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so as somebody who has used Head Start services before, so first of all, it should be noted that Head Start talks about or offers services for early learning, providing meals for students, vision and hearing services, benefits, developmental screenings, dental care for almost a million children across the country, which is kind of a big deal. And this proposed, the leaked proposed budget said that the federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum locations and performance standards for any form of education. So for me, just looking at this and thinking about it as a whole as somebody who, like I said, has used Head Start services for one of their children as it pertained to mental health services and parenting classes for myself. I have a child who deals with some big feelings and I needed some support services on how to help my kiddo get through those big feelings moments. And without Head Start, I would have had to maybe go through my insurance, which sounds like not that big of a deal, but it is a big deal because I don't know if anybody's tried to get mental health services support since pandemic, but there's months and months of backlogs. And it was something that hit close to home here. And I think besides that information and the resources that they provide in that regard, You know, it's not just health services, but it's also preschools and, you know, putting a preschool out of business prevents a parent to go to work. You know, it's a way to keep poor families poor. And, you know, when you think about the fact that we're already battling with dropping assessment scores and proficiencies across the country, why are we taking away a resource for students to get a head start at learning? It just, it didn't make sense to me. So I'm actually really glad that so far it has seemed to avoid the chopping block.
SPEAKER_03:John, hot takes.
SPEAKER_02:I have trouble reconciling this with an agenda that's pro-life, that's pro-natalist. I mean, if we really want people to have more healthy, thriving children than we need to give them supports. And the other piece of it is, I don't believe we've learned very much from the pandemic. And Stephanie mentioned the pandemic. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that parents need help in raising their kids. And here we have the government, at least initially, proposing to take away a really important source of help. So I just think it's... That it was even on the chopping block is hard to reconcile with other parts of the agenda that's kind of dominating today.
SPEAKER_03:Such as a week and a half ago, how can we induce... it's pun intended, people to have more babies, right? So there's this, like the juxtaposition right now of saying like, we want everybody to have more kids. And also we want to take away any supports and hope that they might have for being successful, reading, dealing with their emotions, any of those things. Yeah. What else? I
SPEAKER_02:would add to, I would second Stephanie's point about kind of keeping poor families poorer. Frankly, we've never invested in high-quality early childhood education in this country at scale. And I think part of the reason is I believe certain elected officials and parts of the electorate realize that high-quality early childhood education would level the playing field in ways that make certain people uncomfortable. I've long believed that. There's a good bit of, you know, a lot of research about kind of the... Tremendous benefits of a high quality
SPEAKER_03:early childhood education. But Stephanie, as you said, this is preschool, this is mental health, this is parenting help, this is really giving the head start that's necessary to even the playing field. John, you took great pains in gymnastically avoiding words like poverty and people of color and equity. It's okay. in, in the administration of this particular podcast, those are all words we can use. Uh,
SPEAKER_02:but I'm in Virginia. I'm not, I'm not sure I can use them in Virginia.
SPEAKER_03:Oh, that's okay. Uh, we're recording across the country, so we'll find you a sanctuary. Um, but in, in doing research of headstart, I thought, well, but where do they fall down? And I was hard pressed to find any quality research that says, you know, headstart doesn't return on investment. And I think that's a really important piece is pointing out again, we, we talked in our last episode, uh, A bit about civil rights. We talked about the use of Title VI. We talked about these words about efficiency. Head Start returns on the investment we make in children, right? And it keeps... Not only does it help them become more academically successful, right? But we are keeping... adults out of the prison system, right? We are keeping people out of jail by giving them the headstart that they need when they are young, right? So you are much more likely to go to jail, to go to prison if you have these tools for success that you need to gain when you are very, very young. And so if we're talking about returns on investment and efficiencies, then this seems to be one that you wouldn't want to mess around with. And I think that that's really important. I think it's also really interesting to talk about overreach. So as Stephanie, as you noted, the idea that Head Start is some sort of federal overreach. Well, if that's true, there are many, many ways in a system to reform something and pull back on the aspect that you thought was overreach. I think we know that it is bunk, right, that they didn't do that because we're going to delete an entire program. I think that just supports your argument, John, that this wasn't about overreach or saying that they're controlling a curriculum. This was about saying we want to keep the playing field unlevel for folks. It is federal overreach in that the executive branch is... supposed to carry out the will of the people, the will of Congress, and that Congress has approved a budget for Head Start, that Congress has approved the programs for Head Start, that this is something that the nation has said is important. And a very, very small group of people are playing around with children's futures as though it is the will of a larger group of people.
SPEAKER_02:My mother was a longtime public school teacher in the Bronx in New York City. And shortly after she retired, I remember I asked her, I said, if you could change one thing about public education, what would it be? And she thought about it and then said, kindergarten readiness. She said, I would not have kindergarten started at a particular age. I think we should make sure every kid is ready for kindergarten to start that way. And that I thought about that, and I remember there's some research about how the academic achievement trajectory of kids is pretty much the same for all kids. It's just that some start at a place where they're not quite academically or developmentally ready, and some start quite ready, maybe even beyond ready. And so they track in parallel, but the ones that started unready are don't do as well as the ones who started ready. And so, you know, again, I think early high quality, early childhood education would maybe close that gap at the beginning so that we don't end up with the gaps that we have at the end.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. And I think it's also worth noting, John, kindergarten is not compulsory across the entire country. You know, there are many states where kindergarten in and of itself is not mandatory for kids to go to. So when we talk about kindergarten readiness in We're really talking about first grade readiness at that point in time. And then when you take away a support system, taking that away, so many kids are not set up for success when they start. And that's oftentimes something that we don't look at for when we look at things like why aren't our test scores as great as we want them to be.
SPEAKER_03:Stephanie, as you're looking at this particular news story and moving forward, what are we hoping? Knowing that Head Start is in this proposed budget right now, what are you wondering as you look at how this story plays out?
SPEAKER_00:I want to know why it survived, but also I want to know what the through line is. We talked about it last week in our previous episode about why things are happening and why certain... things are being cut or proposed to be cut, what's the through line? It can't really be that we're giving states power. I just don't buy that.
SPEAKER_03:John, what do you wonder as you look at this story?
SPEAKER_02:I wonder if we'll ever truly invest in high quality early childhood education. And to Stephanie's point, I guess I wonder if the demographics of the families served by Head Start? And is it disproportionately maybe in some redder areas? And so those members of the electorate sort of got with their elected officials and said, Maybe this is something we should keep in place. That would be interesting to know.
SPEAKER_03:I did a little digging in preparation for this episode. And yes, these impacts are disproportionately affect rural areas, affect places where there are high instances of poverty. One of the things I think might play out in answer to your question, Stephanie, and a point you made early on, is that Head Start also provides child care services where there is no childcare, right? And so the elimination of Head Start programming and the Head Start budget would create new childcare deserts across the country, thus impacting employment, thus impacting the ability to pay your bills, all of those things. So that Head Start is helping children, but it is also helping families and caregivers and parents to make sure that they can do the things they need to do to be able to help kids from a very functional perspective as well. One of the things I'm curious about is, is this one of those points where people were stretched too far, that this was too painful, that early childhood education, that mental health care, just child care in and of itself, right? The functional piece that I think most many people find in there. I wonder if that stretched folks too far and that they did call and write and talk to their congresspeople to say, nope, we can't do that. So I'm curious if that is a note and a place for optimism in what's going on right now um i'm sure hopeful that it is all right our second story and john i'm so glad you're here for this one in 2023 saint isidore uh in oklahoma wanted to open a catholic online charter school in oklahoma and the state's charter school board approved it however oklahoma's attorney general a truly oklahoman first name here gentner drummond i mean that just you know uh It's a wonderful name. Sued, arguing that this violated the state's rule against religion in public schools. The charter school board, St. Isidore, and the Trump administration all countered that St. Isidore isn't a public school, so public school religion rules don't apply. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part. She recused herself from this case, which is interesting to me. John, as our resident legal scholar... Help us understand what's going on here. Why does it matter?
SPEAKER_02:It is a complicated case, raising two big issues. One, are charter schools public schools? Can I
SPEAKER_03:give you my knee-jerk reaction?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_03:Yes, they are. I
SPEAKER_01:think so, too.
SPEAKER_03:All right. Well, why did we even need to go to the Supreme Court on that one, John? Done. Move on. But you're about to tell us something we don't want to hear. Go ahead.
SPEAKER_02:Well, there's... conflicting case law and that's maybe part of why the supreme court took this case so we had a case in arizona saying public schools are not uh and in north carolina we had a case saying public schools are public or charter schools are public
SPEAKER_03:well in my understanding is that in north carolina their state law also says that public that charter schools are public isn't that
SPEAKER_02:that's true in either arizona or oklahoma oh okay state constitution there's the Every state that has charter schools has an enabling statute, the statute that allows for charter schools. And in multiple states, it explicitly says charter schools are public schools. So you can understand why Stephanie and I
SPEAKER_03:are pretty sure that charter schools are public schools. So we're going to get a ruling. We think, we don't know what the justices are going to put in their decision, but we are likely to find out what constitutes public versus private in a charter school setting on this one?
SPEAKER_02:We will get a Supreme Court decision about whether charter schools are public or private. That's something we've been waiting on for a long time, actually.
SPEAKER_03:And do you think it's going to be that clear cut? Because given what you just explained, right, that if state statutes say charter schools are public and we have cases that say, in some cases, charter schools are not public, do you think that they're going to put a plate of spaghetti in their decision that says like, yeah, sometimes they're public and sometimes they're private.
SPEAKER_02:If I had to guess, I would say where the Supreme Court comes down on this issue is it's state-specific. And so depending on how the enabling statute is written will determine whether it's public or private. And then, so then they might look at Oklahoma specifically and say, well, in this case, it is one or the other because of the way that the system is set up, which is about questions like how much control does the state have over what the private entity does? So in this case, it's the diocese of Oklahoma um, Oklahoma or something. Um, and how much control does the state have versus the, the entity that's being contracted to for providing the education. So once we get, yeah,
SPEAKER_03:if we find that, that all charter schools are public schools, then I think that ends the conversation for the second question you brought up. Um, but let's assume, um, that perhaps I don't have as much reason to be optimistic here and that in some cases, charter schools are private. They can get public money for religious reasons?
SPEAKER_02:It's a bit more complicated than that.
SPEAKER_03:That's unexpected as an answer.
SPEAKER_02:Well, yeah. So Oklahoma, like other states, has a statute that says we can't use public funds for religious instruction. That's not a federal law. That's state law. And so... they could defer to state law here but really either way there's still whether it's charter schools are public or even if they're private, there's still a consideration about whether religious instruction can occur in these schools. And this is about, we have many clauses of the First Amendment. There's the free speech clause, the free association clause, free press, all that. We also have two, not one, but two religion clauses in the First Amendment. There's the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause is basically like, you know, comes from our history of leaving England and leaving the church there and saying like, we don't want our government telling us how and what to worship. Free Exercise Clause says, however, we have, it doesn't say however, it says we have the right to kind of really practice our own religion. And often those are intention, and I believe it was Chief Justice Roberts in one of these cases said there's play in the joints between those two clauses. One argument is that the Establishment Clause suggests that we shouldn't be– if state money is funding religious instruction, then that's the state promoting establishing religion.
SPEAKER_03:Right.
SPEAKER_02:Yes, but– No,
SPEAKER_03:I hate it. Stop–
SPEAKER_02:Stop
SPEAKER_03:doing that.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I got a butt here. So there's multiple cases now that suggest that the free exercise clause, and I'm making this pun on purpose, the free exercise clause trumps the establishment clause. Your
SPEAKER_03:puns are bad and your answer is unsatisfying.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. Yeah, and so the idea is that for... a state to say these funds can't go to a religious institution is to a number of members of this Supreme Court, it is discrimination against religion. And so it violates the free exercise clause.
SPEAKER_03:So I was looking at some of the prep materials around this issue. And the idea being that just because you are religious doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to throw in to run a school like someone who is not religious.
SPEAKER_02:And that's consistent with two of the more or three of the more recent Supreme Court cases. One example being, it was in Missouri, I believe, there was a program where you could get funds to upgrade your playground. And there was a church school that applied for this funding. But similarly in Missouri, they had a law that said we can't use public funds for religious instruction. And so this church school was told that they did not win the lottery and did not get the funds because state law says we can't give funds to you. They sued and went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, this church school was denied the money simply because they are a religious entity and that's discrimination against religion. That's a violation of the free exercise clause. So that's the first of three cases like that, which is really, again, getting us to the point where the courts are now saying for all intents and purposes, the free exercise clause, again, trumps the, The establishment clause, and the establishment clause is the one that puts this so-called wall between church and state. But what we have over time with these court decisions is the free exercise clause just chopping away at that wall. It's now a rickety old fence. And I think by the time this case is decided, it will be maybe a single fence post at best.
SPEAKER_03:I don't care for that imagery as somebody who likes that part of the Constitution a
SPEAKER_00:lot. Yeah, right. I'm on the same
SPEAKER_03:page. John, why would you as an educator, would I as an educator, would Stephanie as an educator care if this is not an issue local? Is there something larger at play here that we should be thinking about?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I mean, the most negative... association I would have is that it's part of a Christian nationalist agenda. And so we should care about that. It's opening up the doors to all of our funds going to promote that kind of agenda. That's maybe super cynical. But I also think we know that funding is limited, unfortunately. And so if more of the funds now gets spread out to, if we allow all these private religious schools to now just convert to charter schools, now I've got to kind of spread the pie of funding even further. And so we have less available public funding for the existing public schools.
SPEAKER_00:If charter schools are considered this weird kind of in between public or private space, that it would almost behoove them or behoove a private school, private religious school to say, Oh, we don't want to be private anymore. We want to be charter because then we can get our hands on some of that money instead. And it sounds
SPEAKER_03:like they can, they'd be both now, right. That I can be a private charter school and get public money. Is that kind of where we're headed? A private religious charter school receiving public money
SPEAKER_02:the same way. I mean, it would essentially be, I don't know, sort of wipe away the distinction between public and private altogether, which is, you know, another part of the agenda here is that some would say this is part of the larger agenda to privatize public education.
SPEAKER_00:What does that mean? To privatize education. I really have a hard time with that. Like when I hear it, when I think about it, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it. And if I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it, I imagine others do too.
SPEAKER_02:I've long had a hard time kind of operationalizing what it means too, but I think it's moving toward a full kind of school choice agenda so that everything becomes a charter school where we have vouchers. A lot of the school choice stuff goes back to Milton Freeman, whose idea was just give money to the parents and let them make a decision about where they want their kids to go to school.
SPEAKER_03:That assumes that everybody has all of the information necessary to make an informed decision.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. Free markets assume perfect information. Yes. And it
SPEAKER_03:also assumes... everybody can get the services they need, right? So one of the pieces here that I think is important and key is that if you are a family of somebody who receives special education services, right? Private schools do not have the same requirements around them to provide those children with services. You can say in many cases, we don't have the resources necessary to meet your child's needs. You'll have to go somewhere else. And as we have moved much of that money in from traditional public schools and folks have left them, then we have less money left to to provide the services that those students need, not to mention they aren't gonna be around their peers in the same way as if we kind of distribute kids across a system that's driven by the market.
SPEAKER_02:And can they even access the services that they need? A full choice system might work in a Boston or New York where there's public transportation and that sort of thing. But in a lot of areas, if a kid needs services, special education services, they're not often kind of right around the corner or on a stop on the subway somewhere. So it wouldn't work for a lot of kids.
SPEAKER_03:All right. Our last story of Ed in the News is another– Another tribute to the First Amendment. This one is another SCOTUS case, which stands for Supreme Court of the United States, is hearing a case from parents of Montgomery County in Maryland. They wanted to opt their children out of reading some books. Our friends at the 74 Million write, the dispute began almost three years ago in the 22-23 school year. when the county unveiled a list of LGBTQ plus inclusive texts for use in the classroom, including books for grades as low as kindergarten and pre-K. So the argument here that the school board is making is like, we're just reading some books. We are not actually trying to change people's minds about their religious beliefs or what they want. The parents groups say we should be able to opt our kids out of reading these materials. They go against our faith. It should be noted here also that this is an interfaith group of parents, right? So we have Muslim parents, Catholic parents, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents who are part of the plaintiffs in this case. I'm going to go first here. As somebody who ran English language arts at a district level, I read this case and I just say to myself, just let them opt out. Build that in. from the very beginning, let them opt out. And then I would also say, keep parents in the loop, right? So the story, especially for the way the 74 million writes it, is talking about unveiling this list, right? So making it come as a surprise to a community that we know could have some friction with this list versus building an inclusive coalition in as much as you can to let that happen. And I know Stephanie, you come at this a little bit differently than I am. I
SPEAKER_00:have a hard time with it. You know, I don't think talking about families that exist in the real world is coercion. And there's this argument that kids are too young to talk about it because it's sexually charged. No, it's not. No, it's not. None of it's sexually charged. You grew up in a family that has a mom and a dad. Do you talk about anything else about that when you're young? No. You wait until... You mean the sex? What?
SPEAKER_03:You mean the sex?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, the sex part. That part. In the
SPEAKER_03:same way that we can talk about racism and inequity in the podcast, we can say the word sex. I don't think the preschoolers are on the podcast right now.
SPEAKER_00:No, they're not. Hopefully not anyway. But like, yeah, the... It's the grownups that are doing the sexualization when we talk about relationships and how they exist. You can have a conversation with your preschool kid. I know because I have one and we had this conversation earlier. I have a friend who has two dads. Cool, good for you. And that was the end of the conversation. It's not a moral conversation to me. It's a thing that happens out in the wild, right? Like just because you want your eyes to be closed does not mean that it is not happening.
SPEAKER_02:Let me see if I can moderate for this. Yeah, he's going to bring in all the... Yes, please. The response to Stephanie would be, if I'm putting on my plaintiff's hat here, the response is, okay, that's great if you think that way and you're doing what you want to do as a parent, but that's you being a parent. We in the school shouldn't have to have those conversations in schools. If you want to talk about a wedding between two men, feel free to do that as a parent, as an individual, you have the right to do that, but we shouldn't do it in school. Now, I'm just saying that's what they would argue. To Zach's point, why not let them opt out? I actually listened to the oral arguments in Supreme Court live. That was pretty fascinating. And the school district attorney, school board attorney in Montgomery County, I thought did a pretty good job And one of his arguments was, and I think this is contested a little bit, but he said that, so the history here is they had an opt-out policy, like most districts do for all these things. A lot of families that opt out of like sex ed class and that sort of stuff. And Montgomery County did have an opt-out policy, but they rescinded it recently because post-pandemic, mid-pandemic, to post-pandemic, we have this parental rights movement, right? And suddenly we have all these families who are like, wait a minute, we get to decide how our kids are educated and what they learn in schools. And so what they said in Montgomery County is amidst that movement, the opt-out thing became untenable. They had so many requests of families trying to opt out that they had to... staff that request with a whole person whose whole job was trying to manage all these opt-out requests. And so they decided that they had a mission and they had to fulfill that mission. And so they were going to effectively rescind their opt-out policy.
SPEAKER_00:Can I ask a question to clarify? So you said that the parents said they have the right to decide what their kids are learning. I feel like that's called homeschooling.
SPEAKER_02:I'm totally understanding. I'm empathetic to that argument. The trouble I have with it is not everyone has the ability to homeschool. So if you say to them, well, if you don't want that, go to private school, homeschool. That's against the purposes of public education, really. So it's a difficult argument.
SPEAKER_03:If you don't like it, then leave. Isn't quite the welcoming atmosphere that you want in a public school system.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, yes,
SPEAKER_03:yes.
SPEAKER_00:But that's also, school boards approve it, right? School boards approve. Members of the community can come in and give their testimony and then the school board ultimately votes one way or another, right? I mean, that's how it happens in my little neck of the woods.
SPEAKER_03:Sure. I think down to the book listing isn't always a school board piece. What I would say is that this didn't ever need to become a legal problem. And I think maybe that's my let them opt out piece is like this shouldn't have gotten to the Supreme Court and it's not really helpful. I don't think it's going to be helpful to us when this particular Supreme Court decides on this case. I don't think it is going to be helpful to those of us who want to increase equity, representation, and inclusivity because this court doesn't seem to think that's important in education and they aren't teachers. There's a process piece in here that says bring the folks along with you. Because if you're getting that many folks opting out, then we just don't know how to have a conversation anymore about these pieces. I don't know that everybody's interested in the conversation, but I think that's the piece of like, if this is where we went with Pride Puppy, the story of a puppy who gets lost at a pride parade, if that's where that went for folks, then I think other pieces broke before we get to the who decides what we read question.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I hear that, but here's where I think I'm more with Stephanie. No, I
SPEAKER_03:want you on my side, John.
SPEAKER_02:Reading The Pride Puppies is consistent with the district's mission and values. And that one book is exposing kids to the realities of the world. It's not the reality of the world that every parent has a mother and a father.
SPEAKER_03:So I'm a person who has made that argument as a single gay dad. I feel like people who are listening to the podcast for the first time are going to be like, I hear that white straight man talking. I just got to know. People know I have skin in this game. I hear that. I've made that argument. The argument that comes back to me on that one is, okay, there's a lot of reality in the world. Why does this have to be the one we're talking about right now? The entirety of the world is complex. Why does it have to be this? Does the mission of the Montgomery County School Board say LGBTQ plus is job one?
SPEAKER_02:No, but part of the mission of the Montgomery County Schools is to prepare kids to be productive members of society. And so
SPEAKER_03:you're saying that LGBTQ plus people are inherently part of society and we're
SPEAKER_02:everywhere you go? I'm radical like that.
SPEAKER_03:And you're saying that it's possible when we go about our business at the grocery store and such, we aren't inherently talking about our sex lives?
SPEAKER_02:Oh, well, I can't. I mean, I assume you're walking around. I assume you're walking around on speedos. Is that right?
SPEAKER_03:No, I'm not. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants that ever. So in that humor, right? Every piece of humor is rooted in truth. Is it this? Do we think that this argument comes from a misunderstanding? Right? And so these preconceived notions of what these books are going to be talking about aren't necessarily problematic? Yeah. But we assume they are because we think we have to talk, I think to your point, Stephanie, parents think they have to talk about every aspect of sexuality when talking about who people love?
SPEAKER_02:Well, you know, there's an important part of the legal issue here, which is that the language of the First Amendment is that the state can't burden the free exercise of religion. And so a lot of what was being litigated in front of the Supreme Court was, what does it mean to be burdened here? And so is... seeing a picture in a book of two men holding hands does that burden someone's exercise of their religion does being read a book about those two men burden their religion
SPEAKER_03:because i can still read that book and see that picture and think oh that's wrong if that is how i believe
SPEAKER_02:that's that's the argument of the school district yes
SPEAKER_03:which is as also a former english teacher We often talked about that. There's a whole literary criticism branch on reader response, and it's super important. John, you listened to the arguments here. You listened to the justices. How are you thinking this is going to come down?
SPEAKER_02:I'm not hopeful because on matters of religion, the Supreme Court is not as... objective as they would like. So there was a decision not long ago. This is about the football team that was praying kind of at the direction of the coach. Kennedy v. Bremerton was the case. And if you read all the lower court opinions, you read all the pleadings, and then you read the opinion that was written. I think it was Neil Gorsuch who wrote the opinion. he kind of manipulated the facts of the case to get to the decision he wanted to get to. It's really one of the more disconcerting things as someone who likes to believe in the credibility of the court. That opinion really shook me because I believe, I really do believe that he, in his majority opinion, wrote of the facts correctly. in ways that are not really representing what actually happened. And so I'm not hopeful that this Supreme Court will look at religion issues in a truly balls and strikes kind of way.
SPEAKER_03:That's not what I wanted you to say.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Sorry.
SPEAKER_03:What are we wondering as we think about this in the larger context? And what do we think for folks who are listening? What would be some pieces you hope they're wondering about? I
SPEAKER_00:wonder at what point in time do we just acknowledge that it's okay to talk about the fact that people exist and are worthy of our time and consideration, even if they are different from us.
SPEAKER_02:Can I turn my wondering back onto the two of you quickly? Because you've been classroom teachers. Oh, no. I mean, what would it be like for you if you were teaching a book and, I don't know, let's say eight out of the 25 kids had to opt out?
SPEAKER_00:What's the point?
SPEAKER_02:What would you do?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I'd pick a different book, right? I'd pick a book where my classroom was in swing the opposite direction, you know, because otherwise I'm teaching a unit for eight out of 25 kids. in San Diego, it would be 36, right? And so eight out of 36, those margins are not great. And so when I say kind of tongue in cheek, what's the point? It's real. What is my lesson and what other book or, or whatever, what other material can I use that would allow me to have more students to participate in that learning?
SPEAKER_03:I mean, I was an English teacher, um, I did this, but I did it not out of fear. I did it realizing that my goal was to get people reading. That opening up books and just getting them reading was the biggest piece. So when we did a shared text, I tried to make it a text that we could all find access to. And when I wanted to include books that were broader and perhaps more challenging ideologically. I tried to make sure that it was broad and ideologically challenging across multiple groups, right? So that every kid had to read something that maybe made them think differently about the world and the people in it. But if they weren't ready for a specific topic or they didn't feel comfortable, right? There are also reasons you might not want to read a book about a gay person if you are a closeted gay kid, right? So there are other reasons, right? that might not have anything to do with kind of your religious beliefs on something. It could just be about your own internalized pieces. So I tried to make sure that not everybody was forced to do a certain thing when I thought that the content might be the thing that people had problems with. So every book was challenging. Every book made us think differently. Part of the craft and practice of a teacher is to get us thinking, how does this apply to other things? in a textual form. But anticipating that people might want to opt out of something, I always made sure that we gave options so that I didn't have to rejigger that thinking. My worry is that we don't necessarily have a lot of teachers who have embraced those practices, or we have a lot of folks who are still married to the whole class novel. It takes time, and it takes support, and it takes... trial and error to move that and shift that practice. So instead of doing that or in a system where I don't have the supports I need, I'm going to pick the safer book. I'm going to keep teaching Gatsby and I'm going to keep, which is, immensely problematic, but nobody seems to notice, or I'm going to keep teaching Moby Dick, or I'm going to keep teaching Of Mice and Men. I'm going to stay with those books if I don't have the support I need to think differently about my practice. And that's my worry. Because I don't know if you've seen the rest of the budget, but we're not putting a lot of money into upskilling and giving teachers the professional support they need.
SPEAKER_00:Unless it's for AI.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Yeah. Well, it sounds like what I'm hearing from the two of you is that should the Supreme Court decide that these families did have the right to opt out, it's not necessarily unmanageable and it's pedagogically something we can overcome. My worry to that is that it's okay to think that way in the context of this one case, but when you put this case together with the Oklahoma case and the other cases, what we're getting is more and more decisions that privilege religion over other things. And so it's hard for me to look at this case on its own and not part of some larger agenda in this country.
SPEAKER_00:This is where I'm immensely grateful. that I was a former math teacher. Most of the time, people do not get all bent out of shape when I start to teach the Pythagorean theorem, right?
SPEAKER_03:What if I talk about new math?
SPEAKER_00:Hey, you know what? New math should have been the math all along.
SPEAKER_03:Whoa. See, that's going to be what we get email about, Stephanie. That's going to be the one thing people are like. As this is the story that I brought to the table, I do want to say this, and it came up in some conversations Stephanie and I had offline. don't necessarily want folks to be compelled to read these books i want people to not want to avoid these books and i and i think that like when i keep saying this shouldn't go to the supreme court i think it is an indicator of the conversations we're no longer having to help people get to a place of like oh it's okay if my kid does that and they can still like my faith is strong enough that I can encounter something that I maybe don't understand or necessarily agree with right off the bat, but I can see the humanity in that person. And that's the piece, right? The Supreme Court's going to decide what they decide. We have some real work to do in creating conversations that help people have conversations.
SPEAKER_02:And my concern is that they took up this case specifically to head off the conversations that you want to have, Zach.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah. But that's okay. We've got a podcast now. John Becker, it has been a pleasure. And I will say, because of the legal system in America, deeply unsatisfying to have this conversation with you. Thank you so much for making time to talk with us.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, yes. Thank you.
SPEAKER_03:We hope that you liked it enough to come back later when we don't understand the law again.
SPEAKER_02:Happy to do it. I often say I have a face for podcasting, so I'm happy to come back.
SPEAKER_03:You're the one who wanted me in a Speedo. And now that I've brought back that ridiculous image, thank you to everybody listening to this episode of Academic Distinctions. Please remember to subscribe. And if you could just take a minute to give us a five-star review and let us know you love this. It helps us to spread the word of academic distinctions to new listeners across the world. Join us next time in a couple of days where we have a mini episode examining something called Bloom's Taxonomy. Pretty familiar to anybody in the education sphere, but you've probably never heard of if you've never been a teacher. Join us then. For Stephanie Melville, I'm Zach Chase, and thanks again to John McElroy.
