Teachers who promote "partisan doctrine" in the classroom would be automatically fired and districts that allow it would lose state funding under the terms of legislation approved Wednesday by a Senate panel.
The 5-2 vote by members of the Committee on Government Reform came after Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, said she has received complaints about "political indoctrination in the classroom."
Klein said SB 1202 is designed to ensure that students are given a balanced view on what they are being taught.
But the measure appears to be aimed largely at the Tucson Unified School District amid charges that, despite the decision to scrap controversial Ethnic Studies courses, students are still being taught history and social studies in a biased fashion.
Making that case at the Capitol on Wednesday was Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, a Republican congressional candidate who has been a foe of the TUSD program.
"I have seen, first hand, the damage done to our young students by partisans who pretend to be educators," she told lawmakers. "I have seen young students who, through classroom indoctrination rather than instruction, were incited to threaten and harass anyone who disagrees with their position."
Mercer acknowledged that existing state law, passed largely with TUSD in mind, already makes it illegal to have programs that promote racial hatred. While the district denied its programs fit that definition, officials agreed to scrap the program last year amid threats by the state Department of Education to slash 10 percent of its funding
But she said there are those in the district who are effectively skirting the ban by preaching and teaching some of the same messages. Mercer said that was proven when the governing board voted to end the Ethnic Studies program to save the state aid.
"Somebody incited the children to take off from school," she said. "If I was one of the educators, I would tell my children to stay in class because you're supposed to be in class. The teachers had the power to stop the students. They did nothing."
Mercer, who hopes to be the GOP nominee to try to unseat Congressman Raul Grijalva, said it's one thing for university professors to spout political rhetoric. She said students at that age have the mental development to sift through what is being told them and make their own decisions.
"When you are targeting young, impressionable minds, starting from kindergarten, these children get lost," she said.
No one from TUSD came to the committee to either testify on the measure or dispute any of Mercer's contentions. But several legislators said they were troubled by the wording of the legislation, questioning whether the word "partisan" was too broad.
Klein said it is justified, saying it simply means promoting one point of view, whether Democrat or Republican.
"It doesn't matter," she said. "Republicans or conservatives should not be promoting their point of view. Liberals, socialists, Marxists should not be espousing their views in the classroom."
Sen. David Lujan, D-Phoenix, said he fears unintended consequences.
"Any history, social studies teacher who asks their students to read books about any president of the United States could be determined partisan," he said. "And when you're putting a teacher's livelihood on the line, I think you're really chilling their ability to educate their students."
Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, acknowledged the concern. He got committee members to strip the legislation of any penalty for use of partisan books.
And Klein said she is willing to look at narrowing the scope of what would get a teacher in trouble.
"This is not meant to deter a teacher from teaching social studies or history," she said. What is designed to stop, said Klein, is "revisionist history."
Klein said that category includes La Raza studies which she said encourages hatred toward the United States. She said the end to TUSD's programs did not end that.
"They then took this outside the classroom with demonstrations," Klein said, in a bid to preserve state funding. "They are continuing with the efforts to influence young minds."
Lujan, however, said he was more concerned about other programs that might be affected.
"The language here is so broad that you're going to stifle the education environment and kids' ability to learn," he said. "Let's say they're talking in science (class) and a teacher throws out ‘global warming.' That could be considered a partisan issue."
Lujan said it should be up to students to decide if they accept the concept.
But Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, said that is not an issue.
"As long as the teacher was tolerant of people having other views and not punitive towards them if they express those and try to persuade their classmates of that, and as long as it's relevant, I don't see a problem with that," he said. And Murphy said some of it comes down to context.
"If they're talking about what's relevant to the class, I wouldn't see a problem with that," he said. "But if they're talking about it in math, I would have concerns."
Irons1 posted at 6:16 am on Fri, Feb 17, 2012.
Lori Klein is an idiot and so are those who support this stupid legislation. No wonder Arizona is laughed at by the rest of the country
Rich posted at 4:33 pm on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
Actually sdjtaz, you don't know that individuals that smoke are eight times more likely to develop lung cancer than those that don't, That is way too extreme and almost junk statistics, like the great Helena Heart study. It is only close if you restrict it to cigarettes, cigar smokers have a lower incidence and live longer. pipe smokers about the same a non-smokers with a slightly higher incidence of cancers occurring around the mouth. If we use raw stats, the healthiest thing to do is smoke cigars. This is a case study in censorship and uncontrolled science. Nobody pays well for tests that show how harmful tobacco isn't, only how harmful it is, therefore only experiments will be attempted to show it is harmful, and statistics only collected to show that it is harmful. When the government stopped the free exchange of information about tobacco in the sixties they created a censorship situation where you get published and paid if you find harm, not if you don't. Therefore you mickey mouse the stats, run the proper tests on go on Sixty Minutes, or you lse your job are cut off from grants and labeled a pawn of the tobacco industry, which has no reason to pay you as they can't publicize your results anymore than you can. Eight times more likely? Just sit and think for a moment, is that even tenable? The entire greatest generation would be long dead, they all smoked, during WWII they took up collections to send them cigarettes. They can't show cigarettes cause cancer, all they can show is a statistical wasteland where there could be a thousand other factors involved, such as paper. Also it has been posited that some people are genetically disposed to smoke, if so the cause could have nothing to do with tobacco at all, but rather genetics, masked by a tendency caused by a gene. Wild claims, backed by censorship aren't really a good way to get at the truth of anything. If you're asking for my explanation, I'd say people who are disposed to smoke, are also disposed to lung cancer, no study can really go further. If you bang a drum during a solar eclipse, it will go away, did you cause that?
sdjtaz posted at 12:55 pm on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
Mesa Dog: I do need to correct you on a couple of items. First, science is not made up simply of a lot of facts. Most of science is theoretical, i.e. the theory of evolution. Theories are put forth to explain observable phenomena in our world. The theory will then be tested by a wide range of scientists and may become accepted within the scientific community, if the testing supports the evidence. In example, the theory of continental drift was first proposed by Alfred Wagener in the late 19th century. At first, most scientists dismissed this theory and it was not taught in Science class. However, over time and with testing, the theory showed itself to be the best explanation for a set of observable phenomena and is now taught in most earth science classes. So, in essence, opinion of the experts does equal what you would call fact.
So we will use scientific theory for global climate change. First, we have observable phenomena, a rise in the global average temperature over the last century. We also no that we also have a higher concentration of CO2 (which causes the greenhouse effect) in the atmosphere than we had in the past. Now we have to create a theory to explain this data. The first theory is that the warming is natural. The problem with this theory is that the most common natural means of CO2 is through volcanic activity, but volcanic activity has not been higher than expected. The second theory is that it is man made. We know that since the start of the industrial revolution in 1750, we have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a byproduct of our use of coal and oil. This coincides with the increase of the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As for the studies, I would ask you what percentage of new data disproves man's involvement in climate change and who is sponsoring these studies? Remember, again, the tobacco industry sponsored many studies stating that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Rich: I'm not sure how to answer that. We know that individuals that smoke are eight times more likely to develop lung cancer than those that don't, what would your best explanation be other than smoking? By your own reasoning, I guess that we should allow mercury in our water, since not everyone who is exposed to mercury die from it (only a higher percentage).
mesadog posted at 12:05 pm on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
I believe the law is well intended but poorly worded and ill advised. However like most reasoning it is being brought about because in this case our some educators are not acting professionally or ethically and it has been overlooked (existing rules not being used) to the point something drastic must be done. My own kids have had some force religion on them as well as unwanted political and social views. Most of the time though things have been pretty even.
As for some of the comments I have read here, I am saddened by what our educational system and society has already wrought. I tell my kids it will be up to their generation to undo all the "mess" we are currently in. People, you need to get news from multiple sources, keep current on what's happening and utilize critical thinking skills. I will direct one comment - A majority of opinion does not equal fact. Science is factual and until it is proven fact it is not. It seems every month there is new data coming out that disproves man made global warming/climate change. I think it is arrogant to believe humans can so directly and impact the earth and equally so for anyone not to understand we can have some affect.
Rich posted at 11:57 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
This bill is rather silly on its face, basically because public education is essentially indoctrination. History is: 'John F. Kennedy won the Presidential election of 1960.' Indoctrination is 'Kennedy became President because...' Literature is: 'reading and finding your own interaction with a book and/or an author,' Indoctrination is: 'Ahab was actually throwing a harpoon at God.' Science is: 'a group of experiments indicate a high probability that...' Indoctrination is: 'Human actions have caused a climate change.' The only connection between cigarettes and cancer is that a higher percentage of cigarette smokers appear to contract certain forms of cancer, there is no biological or chemical link, it is therefore a speculation, not a fact, or even a well-grounded theory. However, by censoring all but one viewpoint, people actually accept that it is fact, this is how indoctrination works. Induction, as an entire reasoning process is a speculation, at the end of which is a stone wall. To accept things beyond that wall could be termed 'partisan', and even to accept certain steps to reach the wall could be termed likewise. It takes only a single black swan to explode the impossible. You can't really stop 'partisan' education, because unless you are teaching philosophy as speculation, that's all education really is.
sdjtaz posted at 10:42 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
My last comment posted before I was done. To finish, the first example comes from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found in a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, approximately 97 percent believed that man was causing climate change. In a 2009 survey in Eos (the publication of the American Geophysical Union) showed that 82% of responding scientists and 97.4% of climate researchers stated "yes" when asked if human activity was an significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperature.
So we can teach the "right wing" theories that global climate change doesn't exist, even though the great majority acknowledges that it does or we can teach the widely accepting view that the earth is changing and the we are a contributor to the problem. In fact, those arguing against global climate change remind me of the individuals that argued against the connection between cigarettes and cancer.
sdjtaz posted at 10:27 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
My first issue is how we determine what is "partisan". Based on many of the posts here, the posters would have no issue with teaching partisan right wing beliefs. It would only be those thoughts on the left that would be objectionable. Second, like Mike McClellan pointed out, does this mean that we would have to exclude books that may be considered "partisan", such as "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Fountainhead". Finally, would we have to replace many of the textbooks that we currently use, since many were written to meet the standards for the state of Texas. Because the state Board of Education in Texas is so partisan "right wing", most of the texts have been written with a very right wing partisan bias.
In_God: A piece of advice. Please stop watching Fox News. First, the accurate term for what's occurring is "global climate change" and there is ample evidence for this. This is why global climate change is very widely accepted by scientists, especially climatologists that deal directly with this issue. Just to give you two samples of the acceptance of global climate change, i
Mike McClellan posted at 8:24 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
Lori Klein and her aides write some of the goofiest bills, this being one of them. If the article accurately portrays the bill -- and it does -- then when I taught literature, I would've repeatedly violated this law:
Heart of Darkness -- a "partisan" picture of the European rape of Africa
The Great Gatsby -- a "partisan" picture of wealthy's immorality
Invisible Man -- a "partisan" view of race
To Kill a Mockingbird -- a "partisan" view of race relations
Death of a Salesman -- a "partisan" view of capitalism
Now, we have some charter schools in the East Valley that advertise their schools emphasize patriotism and American exceptionalism. Sounds partisan to me -- should those teachers be fired, too?
A ridiculous piece of legislation. I'd like to know how much just introducing a bill costs taxpayers, because stuff like Klein's legislation is a complete waste of our money.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Feb 16, 2012.
This law has been needed for a long time. Just look at what has happened and is still happening in California. The University of California System is way past Left-Wing Liberalism. It now advocates anarchism, Socialism and Communism. Is that what you want Arizona's second largest School district to be teaching to teenage High School students. That America (Whitey) hates them, oppresses them, destroys their Culture ??? Just look at what happened here in the Phoenix School District during the SB 1070 Debate. School teachers and Prinicipals were not only allowing students to walk out of classes and join the California Hispanic Rights Activitst...........THEY WERE ENCOURAGING THEM....HELPING THEM TO ORGANIZE AND MAKE POSTERS AND BANNERS ..........IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS.
These High Schools that were and are paid for by ...ALL....ALL...ARIZONA's hard-working tax payers (let's not forget that .....ILLEGAL ALIEN STUDENTS FROM MEXICO AND POINTS SOUTH COST...$7,670.00 PER YEAR....PER YEAR....TO EDUCATE FROM KINDERGARTEN TO 12TH GRADE......$7,670.00).
FOLKS.....WHO THE HECK IS BEING OPRESSED HERE....THE MEXICAN ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO IS RECEIVING A $7,670.00 A YEAR...EDUCATION.........OR THE ARIZONA TAX-PAYER ????????????
asuaguila posted at 11:26 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Why does the legislature continue to create more problems. Teachers are not cussing at their students and the MAS program in TUSD had significantly improved graduation rates for its students, here is a copy of the report: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/blogimages/2011/06/16/1308282079-az_masd_audit_final_1_.pdf.
The legislature is infringing on every local community's autonomy. You want to keep the federal government out of your business, then keep the state out of my kid's classroom.
shrinkingviolet posted at 8:19 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
No, teachers aren't supposed to be partisan. But "conservative" lawmakers aren't supposed to be pedantic, knee-jerk reactionary morons, either. Klein is a parrot riding a wave she can't understand.
TruthSeeker posted at 7:40 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Teachers aren't supposed to be teaching their own, slanted political views. They are supposed to be teaching children how to think and make up their own minds. Why do you suppose so many kids, who know no better, are big fans of Obama? Liberal indocrination from K through 12, then total immersion in their Liberal propaganda in their college years. If you don't think so, ask any college-aged Conservative student how they are ostrasized for thinking differently than the Liberal's agenda.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 6:32 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Fox news will not be allowed to teach under this bill IceCat. Much to balanced for liberal of the socialist party.
IceCat posted at 6:21 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
Lori Klein is an idiot.
And why is this law needed?
Balance view?
Really, I suppose her idea of balanced must Fair and Balanced like Fox News.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 6:19 pm on Wed, Feb 15, 2012.
As long as the teacher doesn't teach global warming as a scientific fact then what could be wrong with that. Teachers have political, religious, moral, racial prejudices, and that will always be true. All we want from them is to teach the facts or both sides of an issue and stop trying to mold our children's minds toward their own particular prejudices. Tucson is well know for teaching Hispanic children to hate the White man for perceived injustices. They teach a marxist philosophy, and that needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks. In fact they should be brought up on sedition charges, but we've allowed this socialist/communist element to infiltrate to the point that that is no longer possible.