Ripple Effects of the "Conflict Campaign" on Curricular-Instructional Decision Making and Classroom Authority

• In Event: "Walking on a Tightrope": Social Studies in an Era of Restrictions on Teaching Divisive Issues

Abstract

Purpose
The media is filled with stories about individual, local, and state efforts to ban or restrict teaching about racism, gender, sexuality, systemic inequality, and books deemed controversial. Thirteen states now have laws restricting teaching in K-12 schools and there are numerous active bills in state legislatures to impose or expand these limits (PEN America, nd.). This conceptual paper analyzes implications of these restrictions for curricular-instructional decision-making and classroom authority.

Theoretical Framework
Organized challenges to social justice teaching, known as the “anti-critical race theory” movement, are actually a broader “conflict campaign” more prevalent in politically diverse communities with increasing racial diversity (Pollock & Rogers, 2022). This campaign threatens classroom authority, a fundamental element of teaching and learning. Authority is based on the legitimacy of teachers to direct the learning process and students’ consent to their directives, which generates engagement (Author, 2003, 2006, 2007). It depends on teachers’ professional role as curricular-instructional decision-makers (Thornton, 2005) and is shaped by numerous factors (Author, 2007).

Modes of Inquiry
This paper examines previous scholarship using sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives to understand how political challenges affect curricular-instructional decision-making and classroom authority. Relationships among these elements and their connection to student consent and engagement are identified.

Evidence (Previous Studies)
Teachers’ curricular-instructional decision-making is shaped by individual, institutional, and policy influences (Grant, 2001; Talbert, McLaughlin, & Rowan, 1993). School communities and sociopolitical currents also influence curricular-instructional decision-making, especially regarding topics deemed controversial (Binder, 2009; Evans et al., 2000; Ho et al., 2017; Zimmerman, 2005. Political discourse contributes to the climates, or conditions, that affect teaching (Cornbleth, 2001). A constraining climate poses external threats such as mandated restrictions. Even if censorship efforts do not resonate with educators (Binder, 2009), they can create a “chilling effect” (Cornbleth, 2001). Educators may restrain teaching, fearing negative reactions, with “pre-emptive censorship” (Fanetti, 2012), deciding not to teach books or topics that might be challenged (Kimmel & Hartsfield, 2019).

Additionally, teachers may succumb to “defensive teaching,” in which complex topics are diluted, distorted, or omitted (McNeil, 2013). Defensive teaching can trigger student resistance and disengagement, which undercuts authority.

Research on classroom authority finds that student consent and engagement is linked to curricular-instructional decision-making that responds to students’ diverse needs, interests, cultural identities, and communities (Author, 2003, 2006; Grande, 2015; Metz, 1978; Murrell, 2001). Teachers’ ability to teach culturally responsive curriculum is particularly important where obstacles to consent and engagement exist (Author, 2007; Camarotta & Romero, 2009; Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017).

Conclusions
Political attacks and restrictions on curriculum undermine teachers’ curricular-instructional decision-making. Although previous studies have not examined the effect of these on classroom authority per se, we conclude that where the conflict campaign’s impact is strong, classroom authority and student engagement will suffer. Future research should investigate this hypothesis.

Significance
Educational research must contribute vital truths about current education policies (AERA Call for Proposals). This paper argues that the conflict campaign’s effects on curricular-instructional decision-making and classroom authority must be investigated to inform our knowledge about its impact as well as future policymaking.

Authors

• Judy L. Pace, University of San Francisco
  Presenting Author

• Christopher H. Clark, University of North Dakota
  Presenting Author