When a Dallas Center-Grimes mom, referred to as Sara for anonymity, received a last-minute email in the fall of 2024 from her 10th-grade child’s English 2 teacher notifying her the class had begun a unit entitled “The American Dream,” she became hopeful. After years of Critical Race Theory (CRT) messaging infiltrating the school system, Sara thought maybe education was turning a corner. She could not have been more wrong.
After reading the lengthy communication and reviewing the titles included in the curriculum, Sara immediately realized the anti-American theme running through much of the content. The unit includes, “This is My America” by Kim Johnson. One of the chapters in this book is titled “Amerikkka.” It contains anti-police themes, is laced with profanity and conveys a narrative of white oppression and systemic racism.
Graphic novels like “American Born Chinese” and “I Was Their American Dream” include racial slurs and stereotyping. Besides that, they are written at a 7th-grade reading level, yet they are required content for 10th grade. Along with the movie Just Mercy, the unit includes excerpts from Juneteenth, Michelle Obama’s Becoming, and lyrics from Tupac, Beyoncé and Lizzo.
Glaringly absent from the unit are any resources portraying any redeeming qualities of America, how the ideas of American freedom and equality led to emancipation, the incredible sacrifices American families made during the Civil War or even contributions of Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.. The only content that comes close to communicating any redeeming American qualities is Hidden Figures by Margot Lee Shetterly about three Black women who worked with NASA during the space race.
Sara is not against discussing racism in the classroom or shining a light on inequalities minorities or immigrants experience in America. She doesn’t deny that America is imperfect. As a single mother of four, she truly wants everyone to be given the opportunity to succeed. But at the end of the unit, Sara asked her child’s friend what his takeaways were (she opted her child out). His response was, “That white people are racist.”
Another concern regarding curriculum like this is its compliance with Iowa law. In 2021, the Iowa legislature passed HF802, which aims to ensure curricula “do not teach, advocate, encourage, promote, or act upon specific stereotyping and scapegoating toward others on the basis of demographic group membership or identity.”
Additionally, the DCG school board policy 603.09-R(1) states:
*It is the responsibility of the instructor to present full and fair opportunity and means for students to study, consider and discuss all sides of controversial issues including, but not limited to, political philosophies.
*It is the responsibility of the instructor to protect the right of the student to study pertinent controversial issues within the limits of good taste and to allow the student to express personal opinions without jeopardizing the student’s relationship with the teacher.
*It is the responsibility of the teacher to refrain from advocating partisan causes, sectarian religious views, or selfish propaganda of any kind through any classroom or school device; however, an instructor will not be prohibited from expressing a personal opinion as long as students are encouraged to reach their own decisions independently.
One would have a difficult time arguing that this glaringly obvious one-sided curriculum doesn’t violate either Iowa law or DCG’s own school board policy.
After several requests to meet with the teacher and the principal, Sara was met with delay after delay. It had been nearly two months since her first email, and the unit was halfway complete. She decided to submit a reconsideration request after feeling that she was not being taken seriously by the administration.
A review committee was formed, and Sara prepared to move forward with the process, utilizing her right to present her case to the committee. She soon ran into another roadblock, revealing yet another area of non-compliance by the school.
In 2023, the Iowa legislature passed SF496, which granted privacy protections to parents requesting a curriculum review. Since DCG’s review committee is required to be approved by the board (605.03-R(1)), the meetings are subject to the open meeting laws (Iowa Code section 21). Due to these requirements, the parent requesting the review would only be able to address the review committee in an open meeting, thereby revealing their identity to the public. In other words, the board policy as written requires the parent to forfeit their right to address the committee in person in order to maintain their anonymity. After consulting with several Iowa legislators who voted to pass SF496, they all agreed this violates the intent of the law.
The importance of privacy in this process was underscored when someone on the committee leaked sensitive and private information about the review to local social media accounts. The original committee was disbanded, and the school is in the process of assembling a new committee.
The legislature passed SF496 due to previous experiences of Iowa parents who, when attempting to use the process to request a curriculum review, were personally harassed with their private information – including addresses and phone numbers – posted on social media. This resulted in violent threats against them and their children.
Sara’s story is just one example of many on how difficult it is to challenge the system, and how the system is stacked against parents. The first email she sent regarding the curriculum was early September. Not only has the unit in question come and gone, so has the entire semester. Sara estimates she has spent over 60 hours reviewing material, emailing the school, reading law and board policy. How many parents have the time or stamina to continue through this process, not to mention the risk of backlash toward her child from being removed from the class, and potentially from the review if board policy is not changed?
The public education system is broken no doubt. I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m confident it will require many more Saras, willing to speak up and continue in the fight, even when it no longer affects her own child.
