Are State Mandates for Inclusive Curricula Enough? Examining Curriculum Censorship and Book Bans Through the Perspectives of California and New Jersey High School and Middle School Students, Teachers, and Librarians

Abstract

There has been a steady increase in book bans and school curriculum censorship in recent years. In fact, PEN America has documented nearly 16,000 book bans in US public schools since 2021. Book bans and other forms of school curriculum censorship can greatly disrupt a school’s ability to provide an inclusive education to students. An inclusive curriculum is essential as it allows students to see their own experiences reflected in what they are learning, thus affirming their identity. On top of this, such a curriculum can help foster empathy and understanding. Current literature on the topic of book bans and curriculum censorship focuses particularly on the perspectives of teachers and librarians in conservative states, where legislative book bans have been fully implemented. An existing gap in the literature is the lack of perspectives from educators and students in progressive states. Though many of these states have mandates for inclusivity in school curricula, the threat of censorship remains prominent. To address this gap, this study examines three specific questions: Are schools creating an inclusive curriculum and school environment? How does the threat of curriculum censorship affect schools in states considered to be the most progressive? Are state mandates for inclusive curricula enough to ensure an inclusive school education? To find answers to these questions, I interviewed students, teachers, and library staff in three US school districts located in progressive states. Simi Valley School District and Conejo Valley School District in California and Princeton Public School District in New Jersey. Findings from this study suggest that although educators in these districts typically try their best to teach an inclusive curriculum, there are still some areas where students and the educators themselves say the curriculum can be improved upon. A contributing factor to this gap is the lack of resources, such as textbooks, that align with the state mandates. In addition to this, parent complaints and local school boards have the ability to severely impact curriculum, as shown in the Conejo Valley School District. Rather than facing “hard restrictions,” such as legislative book bans, progressive states tend to face “soft restrictions” on curriculum, which is censorship that is enforced by societal norms and the local community, rather than through law. While much of the power regarding the specificities of school curriculum resides in local school boards, current federal attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion have led participants to feel uncertain about what the future holds in terms of curriculum censorship. Based on the findings, in order to ensure an inclusive curriculum to all US students, it is recommended to 1) Respond to the Trump Administration’s anti-DEI invoices through state coalitions, 2) Set forth specific state-level policies for what an inclusive school curriculum looks like at the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 level AND add inclusivity training requirements for teachers, and 3) Have K-12 mandates for inclusivity on the local level, through inclusivity task forces and Professional Learning Communities.