Originally published in Deseret News.

New data from the 2023 American Family Survey reveals Americans diverge on what should be taught in public schools but share concern over bias in curriculum. Given this divide, empowering parents across the political spectrum through stronger curriculum transparency policies could go a long way in restoring trust in public schools.

Given frequent culture wars, finding divergent views about what should be taught in schools is unsurprising. Survey results show that more Democrats favor teaching more about LGBTQ+ issues than Republicans, while more Republicans believe we teach too little math than their counterparts.

Fortunately, the survey captured common ground, too. For example, respondents in both parties want more teaching of basic life skills.

One commonality is particularly noteworthy: Both Democrats and Republicans surveyed worry about potential bias in education curriculum.

Around two-thirds of all respondents are concerned about how LGBTQ+ content might be taught in the classroom. Over 60% of both Democrats and Republicans are worried about how racism and our country’s history with race might be addressed in schools. 

While the groups have different concerns about those topics based on their unique values, the point is clear: some topics are so controversial that most people fear schools will not handle them the way they prefer.

This shared concern underscores the wisdom of robust curriculum transparency policies in public schools, since the fear of bias is far from settled.

Transparency is a common American ideal

Transparency in public institutions is an American ideal. We tend to believe that the more clearly we can see information about an institution and how it works, the more trustworthy that institution is and the more likely we are to get the outcomes from it that we want. For example, members of the public often request access to government spending reports, committee hearings of elected bodies or records of communications between public servants.

When it comes to education, the ideal applies. While the recent push for curriculum transparency in K-12 education seems novel, demands for increased transparency in public schools are common. Schools regularly report enrollment data broken down by demographics, graduation rates, student achievement on test scores, and even school spending. Publicly funded institutions of higher education report on similar metrics as well as specific curriculum in course syllabi. As a society we have already determined education requires a certain level of openness in how schools do what they do.

At its core, policy aimed at curriculum transparency should build the partnership between parents and teachers by promoting trust from parents, rewarding responsible teachers, and seeking to ensure students are getting the best education possible out of taxpayer-funded schools. That is, we want K-12 curriculum first focused on student learning as well as to be politically neutral.

Behind the ethic of transparency in government is a deeply American premise, which is that we believe government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Making information about public entities accessible allows representative democracy to be realized. So long as it is implemented in good-faith ways, curriculum transparency in the K-12 space ought to be a commonsense policy that builds trust in the institution of public education.

Curriculum transparency builds trust rather than suspicion

Public trust in our institutions is a feature of American life that is sadly deteriorating. National data shows that confidence has been declining in key American institutions — like the medical system, the military and public schools.

Because the American Family Survey results likewise reveal a concern about bias, curriculum transparency in our public schools is a timely and urgent issue — perhaps, even an existential one for public education broadly.

Knowing beforehand what is being taught in school may help parents feel informed, alleviate concern about bias in schools early on, and therefore prevent distrust from growing into suspicion or developing into contempt. Those who care about the future of public education may be able to rebuild confidence in the institution if the public feels that the people in the education system are being open about what happens there.

Parents of all ideologies would benefit from curriculum transparency

What’s more powerful is that curriculum transparency benefits parents regardless of their values or viewpoints. This fall, media reported a controversy about Prager U and Dave Ramsey curriculum making its way into public classrooms in Florida and Oklahoma. The debate arose because these materials were publicly listed as approved instructional materials in public schools. As a result of that transparency, the public could talk about whether they liked the curriculum, ask education policymakers to take action or, if they felt strongly enough about it, move their student to an academic setting that better reflected their values.

In practice, teachers can bring materials they want into the classroom and teach it to students without parents or administrators being notified. If it is controversial, the offending teacher may have consequences, but it is after students have already been exposed. Such reported experiences only validate or inflame fears about bias even though these experiences are not the norm.

Most teachers are doing an excellent job, focusing on student learning rather than political content. Still, if the public knows what will or can be taught beforehand, we can preempt potential trust-eroding controversies and allow issues to be resolved more quickly, with parent input. The more robust the transparency, the better.

Curriculum transparency has often misleadingly been couched as a conservative policy. But in Florida and Oklahoma, those empowered by transparency were parents concerned about the material having a right-leaning bias. The examples in Florida and Oklahoma highlight that transparency of instructional materials benefits parents regardless of ideology.

This underscores the American Family Survey results showing that all parents want to know that curriculum is not biased.

Policies for curriculum transparency should be robust

Curriculum transparency policies can and do vary. At a minimum, they should be robust enough to be meaningful to parents and offer support to responsible teachers who already strive to be transparent.

After multiple failed attempts to pass curriculum transparency legislation in Utah, the Legislature enacted a law that requires local district boards (or charter boards) to create a policy for how they adopt instructional materials. The law also directs districts and charters to create a policy that provides teachers with guidelines for choosing supplemental instructional materials.

Basically, rather than placing a state mandate to post content online (like an earlier proposed bill would have required), this successfully passed law placed the burden on school boards to develop policies that included parents and informed teachers.

This was an important step, but there is still room to increase curriculum transparency in our state without overburdening educators.

For example, Sutherland Institute supports boosting transparency by rewarding teachers financially and with added job security if they voluntarily choose to be additionally transparent with parents and stick to state standards in their teaching. Instead of a mandated/punitive approach, the better policy is to reward those who act responsibly in their stewardship over student learning by going the extra mile in providing transparency about their curriculum. Such a policy supports bridges of trust between parents and teachers.

Policymakers who want to help public schools ought to prioritize the partnership between parents and school leaders through creative ways of promoting added transparency. Considering these recent survey results, all Americans would deeply benefit from added robust, meaningful and good-faith curriculum transparency policies.