Preserve Innocence 1100 H St., NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 202-347-6840 info@preserveinnocence.org www.preserveinnocence.org

Innocence Report:

Bias and Indoctrination in the

Iowa Core Curriculum

April 2010

Page 2 of 19

Innocence Report:

Bias and Indoctrination in the Iowa Core Curriculum

April 2010

Executive Summary

In 2008 the Iowa Assembly passed legislation requiring that all primary and secondary schools

(both public and private) implement the Iowa Core Curriculum (the “Curriculum” or the “Core

Curriculum”). This Report examines parts of the Curriculum with respect to content,

transparency concerns and parental-rights interests. In particular, it examines the Science, the

Political Science/Civic Literacy, the Behavioral Sciences, the Economics, the History, and the

Essential 21st Century Skills Curricula.

The Assembly mandated that the Iowa Department of Education create the Core Curriculum.

Unfortunately, that mandate allowed for implementation before educators and citizens had a

meaningful opportunity to weigh in on its content and overall direction. The result is a

Curriculum that allows (or even encourages) teachers to inject political bias into the classroom.

That danger is most especially present in the presentation of environmentalism, economic theory,

and political science.

The Science Core Curriculum is heavily biased toward indoctrinating students in the principles

of liberal environmentalism. Suggested activities include discussing the advantages of owning a

hybrid car and determining one‟s carbon footprint. It even encourages students to take political

action by speaking at a city council meeting about environmental concerns. Its emphasis on

climate change, globalization, and population growth tends to echo the more extreme elements of

the environmental lobby.

The Political Science and Civic Literacy Core Curriculum omits some key concepts and

incorrectly or ambiguously describes others. It suggests an ascendency of governments that do

not reflect the founding documents and law of the United States. Its discussion of “rights”

ignores the natural law basis of our fundamental rights and consequently fails to present them in

the strength with which the American law and tradition holds them. Moreover, the directive to

discuss the Bill of Rights shows no awareness of the need for guidance in discussion of

controversial topics like privacy rights, gun ownership, free speech, and the Establishment and

Free Exercise clauses. These opportunities for political bias continue in the examination of

America‟s role in global affairs.

The Social Science Core Curriculum presents right and wrong as relative and subjective. It has

hallmarks of being a “values clarification” course that deviates from traditional teaching on right

Page 3 of 19

and wrong, urging students to re-examine their values (and those of their parents) with a non-

directive, non-judgmental attitude. Today, many schools and programs across the country use

values clarification approaches. Also, UNESCO uses it for various social engineering purposes

such as in population control and environmentalism programs.

On the subject of economics, the Curriculum seemingly does not support the notion that, because

it is based on freedom, capitalism is the economic sister of democracy. Nor does it relate

capitalism to the Constitution and the Declaration. It does, however, provide more opportunities

for bias on the subject of capitalism, labor, and even globalization.

The History Curriculum has similar problems of relativism and openings for bias. With little

discussion as to scope or basic historical literacy, it instead focuses on analysis of culture,

process, and transition. Its directives to compare “minority” and “dominant” groups are a

political minefield.

The “Health Literacy” section raises still more questions. It introduces concepts and skills on

“violence,” “bullying,” and “safety.” Such approaches are often subterfuges to encourage

affirmation (and even promotion) of LGBT lifestyles. Similarly, language about public health,

safety, and “violence” could also be the conduit for undermining support for the Second

Amendment. This Curriculum intrudes upon the most private of personal and family values. It

teaches students as young as third grade “wellness dimensions” that include “sexual and spiritual

wellness,” but it offers no hint of what that might entail or how such concepts will be taught to

such young children. Furthermore, its encouragement of healthy behaviors, while laudable in

some respects, raises questions about maintaining the medical and general privacy of the family

and student, and its discussion on educating students to obtain health assistance raises questions

as to whether students might be directed to activist organizations like Planned Parenthood.

For such a broad and influential work, the Iowa Core Curriculum is most startling in what it does

not say. It is replete with opportunities for bias and indoctrination on a number of sensitive

issues. This is a violation of the fundamental principle that parents have the right to guide their

children‟s education and moral development. Moreover, the Curriculum opens the door for

future political propaganda, as all sorts of social agenda can be introduced to the classroom by

subsequent incorporation.

Overall, the Curriculum and its implementation process is a great lesson in civics and

government. Iowa has a proud tradition of excellence in education. That tradition includes

strong local control. It includes a commitment to a fair and open decision-making process and a

populist respect for the people of Iowa. Sadly, the legislature ignored that tradition through its

Core Curriculum mandate.

The Assembly must revisit the Iowa Core Curriculum.

Page 4 of 19

1. Introduction

In 2008 the Iowa Assembly mandated that all primary and secondary schools (both public and

private) implement the Iowa Core Curriculum (the “Curriculum” or the “Core Curriculum”).

This Report examines parts of the Curriculum with respect to content, transparency concerns and

parental-rights interests. In particular, it examines the Science, the Political Science/Civic

Literacy, the Behavioral Sciences, the Economics, the History, and the Essential 21st Century

Skills Curricula.

Schools hold a position of public trust. We rely on them to educate children and work with

parents in shaping character. Moreover, they must do this while demonstrating respect for the

diversity of belief in our country and without undermining the authority of parents.

It is all too easy for educators to slip into the indoctrination of their charges. Whether through

stated intent or unconscious bias, the danger of education being used for political propaganda is

ever-present. To avoid that requires a great deal of dedication and self-awareness on the part of

teachers and administrators. And, it is noted, that in most cases teachers should be given the

benefit of the doubt for the occasional slip-up and close call --lest they be too skittish to go the

extra yard to answer questions and explain concepts.

Policy-makers and administrators have a huge responsibility when it comes to curricula and

academic programs. They should give parents full and fair notice of the content of their

children‟s academic programs. They should not burden teachers with ambiguous and vague

directives. And they should avoid putting teachers in confrontations with parents who were not

apprised of objectionable curricula.

Policy-makers and administrators compromise their position of trust if they use state-sponsored

curricula to propagate political doctrine. Then, bias is not a mis-guided act in a random

classroom, rather it is a system-wide effort at political indoctrination that undermines the

prerogative of parents to be the principal and primary shepherd of their children‟s moral and

civic formation.

The Curriculum is an ambitious effort to create new goals and objectives for K-12 students. It

spans the gamut of school subjects. In addition, it includes a special section meant to improve

students' "Essential 21st Century Skills,” including civic literacy, employability skills, financial

literacy, health literacy, and technology literacy. The Curriculum breaks down each school

subject into "Essential Concepts or Skills" and includes suggested classroom activities. Its stated

emphasis is on analysis and debate rather than on the accumulation of knowledge and facts.

Unfortunately, the process leading to passage of the Curriculum lacked integrity and

demonstrated utter disrespect for the people of Iowa. The Assembly passed the legislation

without a finished product to study, without public input (except for limited input that state

education officials had already solicited from their sphere of influence), and with relatively little

Page 5 of 19

debate. The Assembly even failed to assign a group of legislators to study its substance and

implementation. It merely enacted broad and ambiguous legislation that granted wide-reaching

authority to the Iowa Department of Education to create the Curriculum. It essentially excluded

the people and the educators of Iowa from having a voice in the Curriculum‟s direction or

content.

The Curriculum‟s proponents told the people to simply put their trust in the Department. They

inaccurately claimed it was necessary to comply with the federal “No Child Left Behind” law.1

They promised that teachers would not be told what to teach or how to teach it and that they

would simply be given worksheets and examples to be used “voluntarily.” And they said that,

because the work had already begun, millions of dollars in consultant fees would be wasted if

their version of the legislation were not passed.

As the Public Interest Institute (PII) of Iowa noted in 2008, the Core Curriculum is susceptible to

being used as a tool of political indoctrination. Specifically, PII issued an Institute Brief that

focused on the environmentalist propaganda present in the Science Curriculum.2 The potential

for indoctrination is also present in a variety of other subjects. Again and again, the Curriculum

allows (or even encourages) teachers to inject political bias into the classroom. That danger is

most especially present in the Curriculum‟s presentation of environmentalism, economic theory,

and political science. Moreover, as Eric Goranson3 argued in 2008, the Core Curriculum opens

the door for future political propaganda directed at children: it is “the perfect vehicle to drive any

number of social agendas right into Iowa‟s classrooms by simply attaching or incorporating these

agendas directly into the mandatory Iowa Core Curriculum.”4

2. Environmentalism and the Curriculum

The Science Core Curriculum boldly states that "[t]echnological advances have . . . decreased the

need to memorize vocabulary and formulas,"5 and it instead focuses on developing students in

the scientific method of inquiry. It further states that "[s]tudents must have the opportunity to

1 See Goranson, Eric, “Just My Opinion on Education in Iowa,” Caffeinated Thoughts, available at

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?s=%22On+Education+in+Iowa%22 (8/25/08) (noting that, to comply

with NCLB, most states adopted a standards-based approach rather than a curriculum-based approach). 2 Deborah D. Thornton, “Core Curriculum or „Gore‟ Curriculum? Teaching Our Children Propaganda,”

Institute Brief, Vol. 15, No. 23, Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College (August 2008).

Presumably in response to PII‟s Brief, changes were made to the Core Curriculum. For example, it no

longer references and promotes Vice-president Gore‟s An Inconvenient Truth. 3 Eric Goranson is presently the owner of Goranson Consulting, a lobbyist for the Iowa Association of

Christian Schools, and the Iowa Director of the Preserve Innocence Project of the American Principles

Project. 4 Goranson, Eric, “Just My Opinion on Education in Iowa,” Caffeinated Thoughts, available at

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?s=%22On+Education+in+Iowa%22 (Aug. 25, 2008). 5 "Iowa Core Curriculum: K-12 Science," p.1, Iowa Department of Education, available at

http://www.corecurriculum.iowa.gov (Sept. 30, 2009).

Page 6 of 19

examine the impact science has had, and will continue to have, on the environment and society."6

It warns educators that:

instruction should be engaging and relevant for the students. Strong connections

between the lessons and students' daily lives must be made [emphasis in

original].7

In the “Life Science” section, one of the listed Essential Concepts is for students to "[u]nderstand

and demonstrate knowledge of the social and personal implications of environmental issues."8

This directive (which applies to students of all grades) is followed by the emphasis that "Chapter

12 of the Iowa Administrative Code states that science instruction shall include conservation of

natural resources; and environmental awareness."9 The Core Curriculum then directs that

students be taught that "[a]ll organisms cause changes in the environment in which they live" and

that "[h]umans change environments in ways that can be either beneficial or detrimental to

themselves or other organisms."10

While this may initially seem like a minor point, the net effect of this lesson, when combined

with the recommended science activities, is to indoctrinate even young children in the basic

principles of liberal environmentalism. For example, suggested activities include: having

students debate whether to abandon nuclear reactors because of the waste issues;11

use candy

(like M&Ms or Skittles) as part of a model for nuclear decay, then explain the environmental

concerns associated with nuclear waste storage;12

discuss the advantages of owning a hybrid

car;13

examine the environmental impact (particularly the carbon dioxide emissions) of a coal-

fired power plant near a major forest;14

determine their own carbon footprint;15

research the

health effects of nitrate levels related to global carbon dioxide levels and burning fossil fuels;16

and use predictions about global climate change to predict the possible impact of global warming

on Iowa‟s money crops and economy.17

Nor is the political aspect of global climate change ignored. The Essential Concepts include

teaching students that:

6 Ibid, p.2.

7 Ibid, p.2.

8 Ibid, p.67.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid, p.68.

11 Ibid, p. 6.

12 Ibid, p.26

13 Ibid, p.37.

14 Ibid, p.48.

15 Ibid, p.56.

16 Ibid, p.56.

17 Ibid, p.60.

Page 7 of 19

Human destruction of habitats through direct harvesting, pollution, atmospheric

changes, and other factors are threatening current global stability, and if not

addressed, ecosystems will be irreversibly affected.18

On the issue of global warming, one activity asks students to evaluate “claims and evidence

presented by each stakeholder and possible impacts on ecosystems as viewed from each

perspective.”19

It even encourages students to take political action by speaking at a city council

meeting about additional run-off created by a new addition to their town.20

Some language echoes population control positions held by the more extreme elements of the

environmental lobby, as students are taught another “Essential Concept” that “[h]umans modify

ecosystems as a result of population growth, technology, and consumption.”21

The message is

underlined by emphasis on the concept that:

Living organisms have the capacity to produce populations of infinite size, but

environments and resources are finite. The distribution and abundance of

organisms and populations in ecosystems are limited by the availability of matter

and energy and the ability of the ecosystem to recycle materials.22

The Core Curriculum‟s stated intent is for science classes to teach students to "[m]ake

appropriate personal/lifestyle/technology choices . . . describe environmental effects of public

policy, choose appropriate course(s) of action."23

Unfortunately, many of the Core Curriculum‟s

efforts at connecting science with society and students' lives feed directly into politicized

teaching. The suggestion for students to engage in political activism, even about a seemingly

innocuous subject, further encourages intrusion into the parental prerogative to direct their

children‟s political formation. Science curricula should not conflate fact with theory or with

political agenda. And it should give due deference to parents as being the principal and primary

director of their children‟s values formation.

3. Political Science/Civic Literacy

The Political Science and Civic Literacy Core Curriculum omits some key concepts and

incorrectly or ambiguously describes others. For example, it suggests that students be able to:

Describe the origins and evaluates [sic] the continuing influence of key ideals of

the democratic republican form of government, such as individual dignity, liberty,

justice, equality, and the rule of law at local, state, national and global levels.24

18

Ibid, p.59. 19

Ibid. p.59. 20

Ibid. 21

Ibid. 22

Ibid, p.61. 23

Ibid, p.72. 24

Social Studies (Political Science/Civic Literacy) Core Curriculum, p.43.

Page 8 of 19

That statement contains several troubling concepts. It implies --perhaps unintentionally-- an

ascendency of governments from the local to the “global” level. However, the founding

documents --and the law of the United States that flows from them-- do not recognize a superior

“global” level of government. Certainly, the reach of our sovereign power sometimes extends

beyond our borders, for example in the exercise of our national defense. On occasion, we enter

into international treaties or agreements with non-sovereign associations (such as the United

Nations) or with other sovereign powers in order to accomplish specific goals. But fidelity to the

founding documents excludes the United States from creating or recognizing another

government as superior to it.

The statement quoted in the preceding paragraph notes, without specificity, “key ideals of the

democratic form of government.” Here, the Core Curriculum should flesh out key concepts of

the American system. Specifically, the United States was founded on the idea that:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Happiness.25

Although it skirts around the issue, the Curriculum statement omits express reference to “rights.”

Furthermore, it wholly omits reference to our unalienable rights as coming directly from the

Creator. From a political science perspective, that reference is critical because it is the strongest

possible recognition of our individual rights; it sources those rights in the infinite Creator that,

unlike rights emanating from other sources, cannot be corrupted or compromised.26

The Core Curriculum states that the “opening statement of the United States Constitution, „We

the people,‟ puts the citizen at the forefront of our government.”27

The truth is much more

robust. The American political system rests on the idea that the sovereign power flows from the

Creator to each individual and that the individuals then form the state and federal governments

through limited grants of that power. Furthermore, government is formed by the people “to

secure” the rights of the people.28

The Core Curriculum states that “[g]overnment exists throughout the world to organize humans

and human behavior.”29

With respect to the United States, that statement is incorrect. As noted

25

The Declaration of Independence. 26 Some people get queasy when reference is made to the source of our rights and sovereignty. But this is

a matter of the political theory on which our country was founded. It has continuing relevance today as

the driving force for this our continuing quest to uphold individual rights. It demands that we accord

dignity to the least, the last, and the lost in our society. It has a continuing influence on our national

perspective. And it is a philosophical dynamic that renews again with each individual‟s creation. It is a

founding principle that students should know as a matter of civic literacy. 27

“Iowa Core Curriculum: K-12 Social Studies,” p.43, Iowa Department of Education (Sept. 20, 2009),

available at http://www/corecurriculum.iowa.gov. 28

The Declaration of Independence.

“29

Social Studies Core Curriculum (Political Science/Civic Literacy), p.45.

Page 9 of 19

in the preceding paragraph, American government exists for the primary and ultimate purpose of

securing, or protecting, the rights of the people. In contrast, socialist, statist, totalitarian and

tyrannical governments exist for the primary and ultimate purpose of organizing human

behavior.

The Core Curriculum repeatedly refers to “levels of local, state and national government.”30

However, the United States consists of a system of dual sovereign governments --those of the

states and of the federal government. The people of each state directly grant sovereign power to

the federal and their state government. Referencing “levels” of state and federal government

incorrectly implies that the state government is a creature of the federal government rather than

of the people. Furthermore, the word “federal” embodies the system of dual sovereign

governments, and in these discussions the Core Curriculum should use that term rather than

“national.”

These are not mere technicalities. They address the essence of our system and go to the heart of

the importance that we accord to our rights, our equality and sovereignty. A careless description

of our founding principles serves only to convey an imprecise, confused, and incorrect

understanding of our country and our culture.

The Civics Curriculum suffers from other poorly formulated directives. For example, although it

places emphasis on broad objectives, such as ensuring that students are able to “[u]nderstand the

Bill of Rights and can create contexts to appropriately use each of the rights identified in the Bill

of Rights,”31

it provides insufficient notice to parents as to what their children will actually be

taught. In light of the many controversial issues that emanate from, for example, privacy rights,

gun ownership, free speech and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, this task calls for

substantially more guidance for teachers and more notice for parents.

Similarly, the process by which a bill becomes a law is a necessary feature of civics education.

But the additional tasks of analyzing how that bill “is influenced by party politics . . . public

opinion, individual citizens and lobbyists”32

combined with the goal of debating “the influence of

media and interest groups on proposed legislation”33

requires in-depth analyses of activities that

are often not reported in the media or are incorrectly characterized by the media. Such a

discussion would also beg for complimentary or critical characterizations about the organizations

involved —especially given that students are to “[d]escribe and critique strategies of groups who

are seeking action on an issue.”34

Given how little guidance the Core Curriculum provides, an

30

See, e.g., ibid, pp. 44 & 45. 31

“Iowa Core Curriculum: K-12 Social Studies,” p.43. 32

“Iowa Core Curriculum: 9-12 21st Century Skills,” p.7, Iowa Department of Education, available at

http//www.corecurriculum.iowa.gov (Sept. 20, 2009). 33

Ibid. 34

Ibid.

Page 10 of 19

educator could easily mis-characterize --either intentionally or in good-faith-- the facts, including

the rationale, the actions and the motivations of the interested groups.

Again and again, the Political Science/Civic Literacy component of the curriculum leaves broad

loopholes for political bias and proselytizing. The Essential Skills for that subject recommend

that students “[e]xamine candidates‟ promises and how they align with the offices they seek”35

and that they “[d]escribe and critique strategies of groups who are seeking action on an issue.”36

It even prompts students to make their own politics part of their schoolwork, as one essential

skill is to “[d]evelop and carry out an action plan for political action at the appropriate level.”37

Other activities include having students track bills they support38

or prescribe “a pathway for

political action on an issue of personal importance.”39

These opportunities for political bias continue in the examination of global affairs, which

emphasizes America‟s role and influence in international agreements and economics. For

example, the Curriculum encourages students as young as third grade to:

Analyze how U.S. economic aid affects other nations‟ views of the United

States and actions of its government;

Compare the value of acting individually (as a nation) vs. acting collectively (groups of nations) to solve problems;

Recognize that international factors such as exchange rates and child labor affect relations between and among nations; and

Compare realities of life in the United States with perceptions held by

people from other countries.40

The above phraseology is problematic at best. Is the Curriculum implying that American

economic aid causes other countries to have an unwarranted positive view of the United States?

In other words, does it imply that such aid does not reflect America‟s good will but rather masks

its nefarious intent? Does the Curriculum imply that America is, as a rule, strategically mis-

guided or somehow unauthorized when it acts on its own to protect its interests, to protect

mankind, or to help other people? Does it imply that acting as part of an international coalition

is always the more efficacious, more prudent, or more moral course? Does it imply that

American exceptionalism is an unwarranted theory given the “realities of life in the United

States” and that other people who look up to America simply do not understand the reality? And

given that “international factors” by definition “affect relations between and among nations,”

what is the underlying purpose of the third bullet point above? The Core Curriculum should not

leave the door wide-open for indoctrination.

35

“Iowa Core Curriculum: K-12 Social Studies,” p.47. 36

Ibid. 37

Ibid. 38

“Iowa Core Curriculum: 9-12 21st Century Skills,” p.5.

39 Ibid, p.6.

40 “Iowa Core Curriculum: K-12 Social Studies,” p.50.

Page 11 of 19

4. Behavioral Sciences

The Core Curriculum includes studies in social sciences41

for children in grades K-12. It defines

“social studies” as:

coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology,

archaeology, economics, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology,

religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities,

mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to

help people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the

public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an

interdependent world.42

To start with, that definition is problematic. As used in civics and political discussion, “citizen”

usually refers to membership by birth or acceptance in a political sovereign or a sub-divison

thereof. In contrast, “society” has a more open meaning that includes people bound together by

traditions, by institutions, or by nationality.43

Although it can be used to denote members of a

political sovereign or sub-division thereof, “society” can also be used to denote a group of people

that include more than one nation, a whole continent, or even the whole world. Given that the

Core Curriculum states that “the mission of social studies” is to promote “civic competence” so

that citizens can effectively “participate in society,” the Curriculum should at the very least be

more precise in stating its definition of “citizen.”44

Additional scrutiny raises more cause for concern. As noted above, the Core Curriculum states

that the purpose of teaching social studies is to help students “make informed and reasoned

decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an

interdependent world” (emphasis added). It further states that its “mission” is to help citizens

meet their “need to adapt to” a changing life that creates varying social circumstances.45

But

framing the objective as teaching children to make informed and reasoned decisions for “the

public good” (or similar formulations such as the “common good” and the “collective good”) is

ambiguous. On one hand, it could mean that children should be taught to make good decisions

regarding the structures that protect our rights (e.g., defense, the administration of justice) and

that they do civically responsible things such as refraining from littering and driving

responsibly. Under that description, a citizen would use his values to inform or guide his

determination of what is good for the country.

41

The social sciences are the “branches of study that deal with humans in their social relations.” The

Columbia Encyclopedia (6th

ed. 2008). 42

Ibid, p.1 (citing the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) definition of “social studies”). 43

See Merriam-Webster‟s Online Dictionary. 44

See Social Studies Core Curriculum, p.1. 45

Social Studies Core Curriculum, p.1.

Page 12 of 19

On the other hand, “public good” could also mean that children be taught that they should

subordinate their values, beliefs or rights for a collective “good.” Statist and totalitarian

governments often make use of that tool; they give a nod to individual rights but trump those

rights with reference to a supposedly “greater” collective good. In turn, the state and the power

elites define what is collectively “good.”

That point bears further scrutiny. Statist and totalitarian governments do more than simply

trump individual rights. They indoctrinate their citizens to believe that they should suppress

their individual rights for the collective good. Here, of course, such nefarious intent is absent.

However, the state must be careful, given that the audience consists of children, not to

subordinate or cheapen individual rights. And it should be careful not to inflate or expand the

role and importance of the public or common good.

Further perusal only raises more questions. The Social Studies Core Curriculum continues that:

As we work to carry out the ideals of the founders, we are compelled to revisit our

fundamental beliefs and institutions and to construct new social contexts and

relationships.46

In the context of decisions and views, “revisit” usually means “to reconsider something such as

an issue of public policy or a course of action, especially when additional facts indicate that an

earlier decision was inappropriate.”47

This begs the question: is the Core Curriculum truly

suggesting that students be taught to reconsider our fundamental beliefs and institutions?

At another point, the Curriculum defines “social issues” as:

Matters which directly or indirectly affect all members of society and are viewed

as problems. They tend to be controversial and are typically related to moral

values [emphasis added].48

The Curriculum‟s goals include the examination “theories of the self … and the interplay

between society and the individual”49

; and the examination of “the role of values and beliefs [1]

in establishing the norms of a society”50

and [2] in “the development of social issues.”51

It

directs students to “identify current social issues” and formulate “a personal opinion or position

regarding those issues.” It suggests that they illustrate “the interplay between politics,

economics, history, and social issues on a national and international level” and analyze “the role

of values and beliefs in the development of social issues.”52

46

Social Studies Core Curriculum, p.1. 47

See Encarta Dictionary. 48

Ibid, p.8. 49

Social Studies Core Curriculum, p. 3. 50

Social Studies Core Curriculum, p. 3. 51

Ibid, p.4. 52

Social Studies Core Curriculum, p.5.

Page 13 of 19

The Core Curriculum directs that students examine how values are formed. It states that each

student “needs to understand the context in which a social problem [or “issue”] develops.”53

It

instructs students to explain “how „acceptable‟ human behavior varies from one culture to

another over time” and “why some behaviors are „unacceptable‟ in almost all cultures.”54

It also

directs that students identify “major social institutions”; evaluate “their role in society”; and

analyze and predict how those institutions “shift and adapt to a changing society and a global

world.”55

All of those directives could be viewed as promoting a relativist view of morality

wherein right and wrong fluctuate according to influences such as “major social institutions,” a

“changing society,” and a “global world.”

This Curriculum suggests that students apply this type of analysis to themselves. It states that an

individual‟s personality consists of “patterns of behavior” that “are shaped by components of a

person‟s culture, such as parents, siblings…[and] institutions…” It suggests that students

“articulate the nature/nurture debate”; analyze the process of internalizing culture; analyze major

agents of socialization and the role each plays in the development of self, social norms, values

and beliefs.”56

In other words, it presents the child‟s personality --and the child‟s views and

actions-- as a function of the circumstances into which he was born.

The Curriculum suggests that children in grades K-2 should be taught that “as the world changes,

people also change”; that “working collectively is more powerful than working individually”;

and that an individual makes choices based on individual, family, neighborhood, and community

perspectives.”57

Children in grades 3-5 are to be taught that “‟acceptable‟ human behavior varies

from one culture to another over time”; that “change affects people‟s perceptions and

interactions”; that “components of culture such as religion, media and language impact and help

shape individuals”; that “perspective reflects personal beliefs, experiences, and attitudes”; “how

people adapt and learn about culture”; how global issues affect the United States”; and “how

historical events impact personal development and belief systems.”58

Children in grades 6-8 are

to study “the changing nature of society” including “how world cultures impact local cultures”;

“how internalizing culture begins at birth”; how people and institutions that teach values, norms

and social expectations play a role in the development of the self; how one‟s perspective reflects

personal beliefs, experiences, and attitudes”; and “how people adopt and learn about culture.”59

Parents do not all share the same values and world-view. Most parents likely share the views of

the Founders that individuals are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain

unalienable rights and that there is an objective right and wrong. But regardless of whether they

53

Ibid, p.8. 54

Ibid, p.9. 55

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p.5. 56

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p.5. 57

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, pp. 11-12. 58

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, pp. 9-10. 59

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, pp. 6-7.

Page 14 of 19

subscribe to those founding beliefs, the vast majority of parents try to instill in their children

their own particular world-view and set of beliefs. They want their children to respect

themselves and others and to conduct themselves with dignity and grace. They take more than

just a “nanny” role in their children‟s lives, and they take seriously their right to be the primary

and principal shepherd of their children‟s moral formation.

They also tell their children to go to school, to listen to their teachers, and to learn from them.

The great problem with the Social Science Core Curriculum is that, intentionally or not, it takes

apart what parents are teaching. It presents right and wrong as relative and subjective --as

something that changes from society to society and from one era to another. It presents right and

wrong as something that arises from “agents of socialization” and implies to children that an

individual‟s views of right and wrong really depend on that person‟s background. The

Curriculum encourages students to consider what “agents of socialization” impact their views.

Then, through suggested group exercises and its content, the Curriculum promotes

“compromise” and the idea that “working collectively is more powerful than working

individually”60

; but in reality, those ideas or goals are sometimes false or undesirable especially

when values or individual rights are at stake. It essentially seems to present parents‟ teachings as

optional and relative. And it directs these teachings to children starting in kindergarten when

their moral development is in its infancy and when children could easily confuse sociology and

psychology as substitutes for the moral compass offered by their parents.61

The Social Sciences Core Curriculum has hallmarks of being a “values clarification” or some

other non-directive course. Such courses deviate from the premise of traditional teaching that

“some beliefs, behaviors and procedures are right and others are wrong.”62

In the 1960s, that

traditional approach began losing ground to “the widespread introduction of non-directive

teaching methods (sometimes referred to as values clarification, critical thinking or life skills).”63

Those courses take a non-directive, non-judgmental attitude toward values in which each person

has to “discover his own values, and no person [can] say that one value [is] superior to

another.”64

In 1972, the non-directive movement picked up steam with the publication of Sidney

Simon‟s Values Clarification, which “taught students to „clarify‟ their values, i.e., cast off their

60

See, e.g., Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p.11. 61

For elementary school students, the complexity of human decision-making is boiled down to

socialization and selfishness, where students “[i]llustrate/demonstrate how human beings tend to repeat

behaviors that feel good or have pleasant consequences and avoid behaviors that feel bad or have

unpleasant consequences.” See Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p.10. 62

Gramckow, Jerry, “Amygdalas, Anatomy and Autonomy, Focus on the Family Issue Analysis,

available at www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/abstinence/parents/A000001021.cfm. 63

Ibid. 64

Ibid (quoting Kilpatrick, William, “Experiments in Moral Education,” at the Seventh International

Congress of Professors World Peace Academy, Nov. 24-29, 1997).

Page 15 of 19

parents‟ values and make their own choices based on situation ethics.”65

Today, values

clarification programs are widespread in the nation‟s schools as well as in social engineering

programs such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) where it is used to indoctrinate on, for example, population control and

environmentalism.66

5. Economics and History

On the subject of economics, fuzzy relativism gives way to more opportunities for bias on the

subject of capitalism, labor, and even globalization. The Curriculum contains scant evidence

that, because it is based on freedom, capitalism is the economic sister of democracy. Nor does it

relate capitalism to the Constitution and the Declaration. Moreover, statements such as the

“unequal distribution of resources locally and throughout the world creates conditions of wealth

and poverty” and its directive to “[s]ummarize the wide disparities between the „haves‟ and the

„have-nots‟ of the world” seem inherently biased against capitalism. Nor are they tied to

foundational concepts such as economic freedom, the right to own property, and the

consequences of government intrusions in the economy to favor one group over another.67

An anti-capitalist instructor would have a great opportunity to interject bias while teaching about

the concept of scarcity or the impact of interest rates.68

Likewise, the political elements of

economics are given extensive attention. Essential Skills in the economics unit include:

“Evaluate labor unions, using collective bargaining, to negotiate for workers with corporations

on the issues of wages, fringe benefits, and work place conditions”; “Identify not-for-profit

organizations and their purposes and explains the rationale for tax exemption”; “Explain the

value of various government services on the U.S. economy”; “Compare and contrast government

services to delivery of the same services by the private sector”; and even, “Evaluate the use of

taxes at the local, state, and national levels.”69

In keeping with the pro-environmentalist theme

of the curriculum, one essential skill is that the student “[u]nderstand the development and

evaluates the impact of „green‟ technologies.”70

For younger students, the potential for bias is even stronger, as the slight hostility toward

capitalism becomes more pronounced. Middle school students are to “[c]ompare the wide

65

Schlafly, Phyllis, “Public Schools Define American Culture,” Education Reporter, available at

www.eagleforum.org/educate (Nov. 2006). 66

See, e.g., “Teaching Methodologies for Population Education: Inquiry/Discovery Approach, Values

Clarification,” UNESCO available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000693/069359EB.pdf;

“Values Education,” UNESCO available at

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_d/mod20/uncom20t03.htm; International Bioethics

Education Network, UNESCO available at http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/programmes-and-

activities/ethics-of-science-and-technology/bioethics/international-bioethics-educatio/. 67

See Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p. 19. 68

Social Sciences Core Curriculum, p.13. 69

Ibid, p.14. 70

Ibid, p.15.

Page 16 of 19

disparities that exist across the globe in terms of economic assets and choices”; “[d]istinguish

between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations” (though the purpose of this exercise is

unclear and unstated); and “[e]xamine the impact labor unions have had on working conditions

over time.”71

Students are even asked to “[a]nalyze cost of living and wage data across

geographic regions.”72

Again, for younger students, the tension between environmentalism and

capitalism is made more obvious as students are simply asked to “[d]escribe how personal

decisions regarding the economy and natural resources can affect people‟s lives locally,

nationally, and internationally.”73

For third to fifth graders, the economics lesson is even starker. Here, they are simply taught that

the “unequal distribution of resources . . . creates economic conditions of wealth and poverty

which in turn have an impact on how people live.”74

Then, students simply need to

“[s]ummarize the wide disparities between the „haves‟ and „have-nots‟ of the world in terms of

economic well being.”75

Unsurprisingly, the study of geography largely returns to the environmentalist theme, with

additional forays into population issues. The “positive and negative impacts” of human

settlement and competition for control of land and resources76

are a common theme, as is

analysis of population trends and density.

The section on history once again returns to problems of relativism and openings for bias. With

little discussion of scope or basic historical literacy, the focus is instead on analysis of culture,

process, and transition. Goals such as “[c]ompare and contrast the culture of the politically and

economically dominant groups with the culture of minority groups”77

manage to be a political

minefield with no direction as to how to approach the issue in a larger historical context.

Directives like “[a]nalyze the role of economic factors in conflicts and in decisions to use

military force”78

suggest a very limited view of history and historical analysis biased to a specific

position on the intersection of economic interest and warfare. And the instruction to “[e]valuate

how structures of power affect various groups in different ways”79

seems almost meaningless

when applied indiscriminately to any era in history, but still creates prime ground for Marxist or

other politically biased interpretations of historical events.

71

Ibid, p.16. 72

Ibid, p.18. 73

Ibid, p.17. 74

Ibid, p.19. 75

Ibid. 76

Ibid, p.24. 77

Ibid, p.32. 78

Ibid, p.33. 79

Ibid, p.34.

Page 17 of 19

6. Health “Literacy”

The Core Curriculum includes the subject of “21st Century Skills” that address topics such as

financial and health literacy that are outside of traditional school curricula. While enriching a

student‟s “health literacy” may seem like a laudable goal, it is fraught with opportunities for

politicization and indoctrination—as well as with lessons and activities that intrude on the

sovereignty (and privacy) of the family. The political problems in the directive to “[e]valuate the

impact of health care access . . . on health status” along with the goal that students “[e]ngage in

media and legislative advocacy efforts to promote positive health for self and others”80

should be

clear to anyone who has witnessed the turbulence of the health care reform debate. Less well-

known, however, is the danger in concepts and skills directed at lessons on “violence,”

“bullying,” and “safety”; this is often a formula to encourage affirmation of LGBT lifestyles.

Similarly, goals that tie “public health and safety issues” to “personal and family health status”

and that encourage students to “[a]dvocate for health, violence-free behaviors by using

knowledge of the dynamics of power and position”81

could be the conduit for undermining

support for the Second Amendment.82

There are other large, unanswered questions present in the health literacy section. Students as

young as third grade are taught of “wellness dimensions” that include “sexual and spiritual

wellness,”83

but with no hint of what that might entail or how such concepts will be taught to

such young children. Nor is there any hint as to how the state suggests evaluating “spiritual

wellness.” Will it suggest to the child, through the teacher or materials, that the child is

spiritually sick? Would such sickness be the fault of parents? And how are teachers supposed to

wend their way through such exercises?

Efforts to encourage healthy behavior (such as “[e]ngage in behaviors that promote risk

avoidance;”84

or “[c]ollaborate to improve family and community health,”85

or “[d]emonstrate

80

Ibid, p.54. 81

Ibid. 82

There are, of course, ongoing debates as to the role that government regulation should play in health

and safety matters. There are also recurring interjections of public health and public safety arguments

into gun and Second Amendment discussions. See, e.g., Hemingway, David, Private Guns, Public Health,

The University of Michigan Press (2004); “Suicides Half of Gun Deaths in the U.S.,” The Huffington

Post (blog site), posted by Daric Snyder (06-30-2008) available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/suicides-half-of-gun-deat_n_110043.html; Editorial: “The

Feds Take a Shot at Guns,” The Washington Times (10-22-2009), available at

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/the-feds-take-a-shot-at-guns/print/; “CDC Report

Validates NRA Positions on Crime, Gun Safety,” NRA-ILA (4/13/2001) available at

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=77&issue=007. Accordingly, a classroom

discussion ambiguously characterized as public safety or public health might well be a discussion on

Second Amendment and gun control issues. 83

21st Century Skills Core Curriculum, p.56 (6

th-8

th grade) and p. 59 (3

rd-5

th grade).

84 Ibid, p.56.

85 Ibid, p.57.

Page 18 of 19

appropriate responses to negative and positive health influences”86

) raise questions about how

the privacy of the family and student regarding personal health issues and decisions will be

respected. It is clear that goals like “[i]dentify personal, family, and community health needs”87

;

and “[d]escribe ways to improve family and community health,”88

and, for the youngest children,

“identify behaviors that contribute to total wellness for individuals, families, and communities”89

seem vulnerable to encouraging students to relate their family habits to the school. And while it

may seem like a good thing to teach students to be aware of what to do in emergency situations,

the broadness of the directive to “[s]tate methods of obtaining help for self and others”90

raises

questions of how students will be directed in sensitive areas involving health issues like

pregnancy, contraception, or sexually transmitted diseases. In a similar vein, having children

“[d]emonstrate the ability to seek assistance when making health related decisions”91

or, for the

kindergarten crowd, “[i]dentify trusted adults/professionals who can help”92

is disturbing. Will

children be guided to seek help from their own parents or from some outside organization? The

Curriculum does not say.

7. Conclusion

For such a broad and influential work, the Iowa Core Curriculum is most startling in what it does

not say. It is replete with opportunities for bias and indoctrination on a number of sensitive

issues. Vague language and semantic loopholes allow schools to introduce controversial or

objectionable content without the knowledge, participation, or approval of parents. This is a

violation of the fundamental principle that parents have the right to guide their children‟s

education and moral development.

Society suffers dearly when the schools undermine the stature of parents and of parenthood by

encouraging --whether intentionally or not-- children to question the values taught by their

parents. Furthermore, as it excludes parents from the education of their children and the policy

and curricula decision-making process, the state is increasingly reducing parents to a nanny-like

status. Children, schools, and teachers need the opposite; they need strong parents who are

intimately involved in the education of their children. And to that end the state should be trying

to affirm the institution of parenthood, not denigrate it.

Overall, the Curriculum and its implementation process is a great lesson in civics and

government. Iowa has a proud tradition of excellence in education. That tradition includes

strong local control. It includes a commitment to a fair and open decision-making process and a

86

Ibid, p.58. 87

Ibid, p.60. 88

Ibid. 89

Ibid, p.64. 90

Ibid, p.60. 91

Ibid. 92

Ibid, p.63.

Page 19 of 19

populist respect for the people of Iowa. Sadly, the legislature ignored that tradition through its

Core Curriculum mandate.

The Assembly must revisit the Iowa Core Curriculum.