The Social Implications of State Regulations in American Public High Schools.

Essays | Olivia Santos | April 2nd, 2024.

The state of Florida has recently banned the AP Psychology curriculum because of its “instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity,” as reported by Katie Kustura, a journalist from The Daytona Beach News-Journal. This has caused immense controversy all over the United States, which leads to questions about whether state governments should have the authority to regulate this type of education. The humanities and liberal arts curriculums in the United States have been disputed for decades. Therefore, the question arises: to what extent should the state government regulate the humanities and liberal arts curriculums of secondary schools in the United States? The social and cultural aspects must be considered when understanding the controversy arising from state government regulation in these curricula. Therefore, it is crucial to look at the implications of state government regulation and the point of view of students, teachers, and those with conflicting opinions on the subject.

Because of recent controversy in the realm of state government regulation of public schools, the student's point of view must be considered. According to Laura Moorhead, Associate Professor of the Journalism Department at San Francisco University, students can be positively affected by regulation when it comes to the government’s choice to enrich students. She tells the story of a teacher in a San Francisco school whose students were introduced to an unrestricted curriculum including LGBTQ+ topics, among other things, which positively impacted their lives as citizens of the United States: “[the teacher] saw a familiar face in the crowd. ‘The protest is being led by my former students.’” There was a protest going on against police brutality, which the students joined. Because of the state of California’s open-minded curriculum, these high school students participated in their right to protest, benefiting them in that they had a positive reception in regard to social issues. Alexa Southall, a Youth in Policy 2022 Public Policy Fellow, adds to Moorhead’s argument when she says the lack of an open-minded curriculum can be detrimental to students’ lives; she says, “[q]ueer youth continue to be at higher risk for poor sexual health.” Additionally, “42.3% of queer youth reported they would feel very uncomfortable talking about sexuality with a teacher.” While Moorhead explains that the allowance of an open-minded curriculum benefits students, Southall adds to this argument when she explains that without this open-minded curriculum, students can be negatively affected. In response to banned books, Christine A. Jenkins, a National Council of Teachers of English member, concluded that “… reading books or other print materials can change the reader’s attitudes, feelings, beliefs, or self-concept.” Book banning is a widely controversial topic because of its motives, but because it is found that reading enriches minds instead of pollutes them, it can be seen that there is a positive impact on students when governments choose not to regulate books in education heavily. 

In addition to the point of view of students, teachers’ points of view must also be taken into consideration. There is a certain moderate degree of self-censorship when it comes to state government regulation in public high schools because of the fear that teachers will be persecuted by the government if they teach certain subjects. For example, Elizabeth Noll, a published author in The English Journal, published by the National Council of Teachers of English, describes the many responses teachers give to the idea of teaching controversial texts so they could be mistreated. One teacher says, “Let them object to the classics!” Another says she “used to hesitate about showing films such as Roman Polanski’s Macbeth as well as Hamlet and Lord of the Flies,” but she continued to show these classics. Emily J. M. Knox, an assistant professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, argues that “teachers should give many students books to read because each book reveals something that gets one closer to the truth, not because one particular book contains all truths,” which agrees with Noll’s idea that teachers may adjust to standards of regulation but should teach freely. Teachers, although afraid of the persecution they must face for teaching certain subjects, continue to pioneer through these prejudices, which could eliminate the taboo surrounding certain subjects once and for all. However, there is still a downside to this mindset as Alexa Southall, as mentioned previously, additionally found that teachers could lose their teachers' licenses or pay fines as a result of being persecuted for teaching taboo subjects. Kustura explains the viewpoints of educators in Florida in response to the AP Psychology curriculum ban, reporting that Melinda Hall from Stetson University says that the “refusal to allow students to explore how the concepts of sex and gender are meaningful” is a “tragic mistake.” Furthermore, Asal Mohamadi Johnson from Stetson University reveals that censorship is a “cause for grave concern for any Floridian.” Teachers and educators of all sorts have experienced distress when it comes to state government regulation in public high schools because of their lack of ability to teach what has always been taught, like the AP Psychology ban in Florida. 

Along with the students' and teachers’ perspectives, the point of view of the ones who advocate for government oversight of curriculum. First, it can be understood that some content is regulated and effectively banned because certain topics are mentioned. Carolyn R. Bruder, a published author in the CEA Critic by the John Hopkins University Press, explains that some controversial topics include “portraying women in nontraditional roles, … mythology, … and not promoting patriotism.” In agreement with Bruder, Brianna R. Burke and Kristina Greenfield, Professor at Iowa State University and English Language Arts Teacher, respectively, explain that the reasons why some may challenge books and other curricula is because it “disrespects religious views and that it is unsuited for its intended audience.” However, a conflicting point of view with this one is that after students are exposed to this curriculum, “[i]n working with students on social justice issues, they continually astound us with their humanity.” Angela Branyon and April Dawkins, assistant professor at the University of West Virginia and assistant professor at the University of South Carolina, respectively, add to this perspective by arguing against the conservative views as were previously mentioned by Bruder and Burke: “[O]ur society has no place for the restriction and imposition of others’ tastes and ideas of suitability.” Over recent years, voices have become louder and louder about the censorship of curriculum content, especially in secondary schools. With the ban on AP Psychology in Florida, reported on by Kustura, it can be found that the general public’s resistance toward this governance has become stronger and stronger. It is not necessarily the majority of people who are against this policy, but the argument against it has become louder. The movement to ban certain curriculums has been met with strong opposition despite its moderate size. 

After examining the social and cultural effects of state government regulation on public high schools, the points of view of the students, teachers, and the evaluated conflicting points of view can generally be seen as against the intervention of government in public high schools because of its negative impacts. State governments must restrict themselves from meddling in education that has clearly only benefited students rather than harmed them. It has already begun to happen with the AP Psychology ban in Florida; a curriculum that has remained for around thirty years has been removed for its inherently “controversial” topics. The fear of state governments taking charge of secondary schools’ education has already become a reality, and the lack of this education could only be detrimental to students. Therefore, citizens must take charge and advocate for the freedom to learn by urging legislation in resistance to this idea.