Are teachers walking on eggshells or just exercising good judgment?

A new RAND Corporation survey
finds
that a quarter of K–12 public school teachers say they’ve modified their teaching or their choice of curricular materials in response to guidance related to race and gender. The six authors of the report imply this is a terrible thing, in a report ominously titled “Walking on Eggshells.” They fret that “state, school, and district leaders” have had a “chilling effect” on teachers’ “instructional autonomy, and report teachers say this has made it tougher to “engage students in learning,” build “critical thinking skills,” or promote “perspective taking and empathy.”

One gets the distinct impression that the RAND team thinks this is all a very bad thing. But we’re not so sure. In fact, we’re of the decided opinion that they probably have the story wrong.

First, let’s keep in mind that three out of four teachers don’t feel like they’ve had to modify their instruction with regards to race and gender. That’s a relevant bit of context.

Second, these are public schools, which means teachers are public employees, paid with public funds, to educate the public’s children, in public buildings. The notion that they ought to be able to freelance on controversial, politicized questions, without input or guidance from public officials, strikes us as misguided.

Third, there’s the question of just what “instructional autonomy” actually means in this case. Teachers that feel constrained were presumably going to provide instruction or use materials at odds with public direction, and it’s not at all clear why those charged with governing or supervising public schools should feel obliged to stand idly by while some educators pursue personal or political agendas.

Indeed, if one takes seriously the charge of being a public employee and a state actor, it’s clear that teachers aren’t supposed to be independent free agents. A “chilling effect” is wholly appropriate in some cases. Indeed, when police officers lament that laws against “stop-and-frisk” curtail their autonomy, advocates tend to say, “Yep, that’s the point. You’re a public actor, and we want to ensure your actions in that role are consistent with the public mission.”

It’s hard not to be sympathetic to teachers. Not because they are being muzzled, but because they have been done a disservice by schools of education and others who have convinced them they have a duty to “teach for social justice,” commit to being a “change agent,” or otherwise view teaching as a political act. Courts have repeatedly held that a public official’s freedom of speech is protected only during private speech—not in the course of official duties. Teachers are generally considered to be “hired speech” and speaking for the school district when at work in a public school classroom—a crucial point seldom made in teacher preparation programs.

Simply put, “instructional autonomy” is a concept that is simply foreign to public K–12 education. State and district officials are within their right to prescribe or limit teacher speech. When this takes on a form that education stakeholders do not like, the remedy is the ballot box.

There’s also a broader point to be made. Contrary to the tenor of the RAND report, this kind of restraint is precisely the thing that—when handled transparently by public officials in the public square, with input and criticism from many corners—will tend to restore trust in public education. The daily barrage of outrage that greets teachers caught indulging their personal views on Libs of TikTok and other similar sites should be enough to convince teachers that parents expect them to go about their work with restraint and humility.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.