You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Education’ tag.
In a captivating episode 0f Wired & Watched 101: EdTech, host Missy Carwowski sits down with Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, a neuroscientist, former teacher, and leading expert on the science of learning. For two decades, Horvath has studied how humans truly learn—focusing on memory, attention, and brain function—and his findings deliver a sobering message: despite billions spent and endless promises, education technology (laptops, tablets, one-to-one devices, and now AI) is not transforming learning for the better.
In many cases, it is actively harming it. Far from making children smarter, the explosion of screens in classrooms is contributing to the first measured cognitive declines in generations, leaving parents and educators searching for answers.Horvath traces the problem to three fundamental ways technology clashes with how the human brain learns.
First, screens destroy focused attention through constant multitasking—something the brain cannot actually do. Students now spend over 2,500 hours a year switching between tabs, messages, and videos, training them to task-switch rather than concentrate. Second, learning relies heavily on empathy—the biological synchrony that happens when humans interact face-to-face—which machines simply cannot provide. Without that human connection, students lack the motivation to push through difficulty and often quit at the first sign of struggle. Third, “transfer” fails: knowledge learned on screens in an easy, narrow context rarely moves to the varied, complex real world, because computers remove the very effort and contextual cues that make learning stick.
The evidence is stark and growing. Gen Z and Gen Alpha are the first generations to show declines in memory, attention, and general intelligence compared to their parents—the reversal of the Flynn effect that had been climbing for a century. Raw scores on international tests like PISA and the SAT have been dropping 15–30 points per decade, hidden only by constant renorming and grade inflation. Meanwhile, handwriting boosts memory through spatial context and forces deeper processing, while typing often produces shallow, verbatim notes that students barely remember. Even binge-watching studies (which helped shape Netflix’s release strategy) show that spaced practice beats massed screen exposure for both understanding and enjoyment.
Horvath dismantles the common defenses of edtech with clarity. Claims of “potential” admit that promised benefits aren’t happening yet—hardly a reason to double down. Arguments that children must master today’s tools to be “work-ready” ignore the fact that K–12 education has always been about teaching adaptable thinking, not specific software that will soon be obsolete. And the excuse that teachers or students are simply “using it wrong” falls flat: real-world use, not inventors’ intentions, determines a tool’s impact. After sixty years of waiting for the edtech revolution, the data remains underwhelming at best and damaging at worst.
So what should classrooms look like? Horvath envisions a return to pre-2000 norms: computer labs used intentionally for specific lessons, not ubiquitous devices in every hand. Teachers and parents should demand true opt-out policies, forcing schools to maintain analog alternatives. When educators must prepare both digital and paper versions of assignments, most quickly discover that analog methods produce deeper understanding with greater flexibility. Above all, Horvath reminds us that learning has always happened best through human relationships—between teachers and students, students and students—not through screens. As cell-phone bans spread across schools, the next frontier is reclaiming classrooms from compulsory edtech, giving children back the focused, empathetic, effortful environment their brains need to thrive.
References for “The Digital Delusion: Why EdTech Is Failing Our Children”
- M forl Academy podcast episode with Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath (full transcript basis for the essay):
https://www.mforlacademy.com/ (specific episode featuring Dr. Horvath on education technology – check recent releases or search “Jared Cooney Horvath”) - Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath’s upcoming book:
Horvath, Jared Cooney. The Digital Delusion: How Technology Is Failing Our Children and What We Can Do About It. (Expected release December 7, 2025) - Horvath’s website and research hub:
https://www.lmeglobal.net/ - Jared Cooney Horvath YouTube channel (features breakdowns of learning science and edtech research):
https://www.youtube.com/@JaredCooneyHorvath - OECD PISA reports (raw score declines and renorming examples):
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ (see technical reports on score equating and trends since 2000) - Flynn effect reversal studies (cognitive declines in Western countries):
Bratsberg, Bernt & Rogeberg, Ole (2018). “Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused.” PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
Additional meta-analysis: Wongupparaj et al. (2023) on Gen Z/Alpha declines. - Handwriting vs. typing note-taking research (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014 – foundational study):
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard.” Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581
See Jonathan Kay’s X thread on the queering of outdoor education.
The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) has introduced a framework termed “Queering Outdoor Education,” which integrates queer theory, drag pedagogy, and decolonial approaches into environmental learning. This curriculum comprises lessons that encourage students to interpret natural phenomena through the lens of fluid identities, anti-normative critique, and social justice. While the framework is promoted as fostering inclusivity and challenging colonial and heteronormative assumptions, it raises substantive concerns regarding developmental appropriateness, educational clarity, and the potential for early ideological enculturation.
Metaphor and Conceptual Instability
The initial lessons employ metaphor as a primary pedagogical tool. Students are encouraged to draw analogies between natural elements—such as clouds, logs, or plants—and human identities, emphasizing fluidity and anti-essentialist perspectives. While metaphor can be valuable in education, these lessons risk overextending conceptual abstraction, replacing concrete environmental observation with ideological instruction. For children, particularly in early or middle childhood, excessive abstraction can hinder cognitive development by conflating empirical phenomena with normative social and political constructs.
Additionally, the curriculum critiques conventional linguistic frames, including metaphors like “birds and the bees,” positioning them as instruments of colonial and heteronormative power. Such framing may introduce complex sociopolitical interpretations into contexts traditionally reserved for foundational biological and ecological learning, potentially overwhelming young learners.
Moralizing Nature and Identity
Subsequent lessons extend these metaphorical frameworks into moral and social instruction. Students are asked to emulate the perceived allyship of natural objects and to conceptualize human identities in terms of ecological hierarchies, categorizing queer identities as “native” and others as “invasive.” While intended to promote reflection on inclusion and belonging, these exercises risk essentializing human worth according to ideologically charged criteria, substituting experiential learning with prescriptive social norms. By conflating ecological systems with social hierarchies, the curriculum may foster confusion rather than ethical understanding, undermining both environmental literacy and social cohesion.
Sexualization and Performative Instruction
The later lessons introduce overtly sexualized and performative elements, including the celebration of non-reproductive animal behaviors and the incorporation of drag-based exercises into outdoor activities. While drag pedagogy emphasizes self-invention and challenges normative binaries, its application to children’s environmental education raises questions of age-appropriateness. Embedding explicit discussions of sexuality and performative gender in contexts intended to cultivate observation, curiosity, and engagement with nature may distract from core learning objectives and impose adult conceptual frameworks onto immature cognitive and moral development.
Implications for Pedagogy
The queering of outdoor education exemplifies a broader pedagogical tension between radical inclusivity and the developmental needs of children. Integrating complex adult theoretical frameworks into early environmental education risks destabilizing students’ conceptual understanding, substituting guided inquiry with ideological instruction. While well-intentioned, such approaches may inadvertently limit children’s capacity for independent exploration, critical reasoning, and unmediated interaction with the natural world. Educational practice promote the idea of equality, not equity, along with the preservation of developmental appropriateness and cognitive accessibility.
Glossary
- Queer Pedagogy: An educational approach that incorporates queer theory to challenge traditional assumptions about gender, sexuality, and identity.
- Drag Pedagogy: A subset of queer pedagogy emphasizing performance, self-invention, and the destabilization of normative social roles.
- Decolonial Education: Curriculum frameworks aimed at addressing and countering the legacies of colonialism, often by centering Indigenous perspectives.
- Anti-Normative Critique: A critical approach that questions conventional social, cultural, or gender norms.
- Cognitive Development: The mental growth and acquisition of knowledge, reasoning, and understanding in children.
- Ideological Enculturation: The process of instilling a particular worldview or set of political beliefs, often through education.
References
- British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. Queering Outdoor Education Newsletter. 2025.
- Lacandona, Gaia. Drag Pedagogy: Performance and Learning. 2018.
- Polukoshko, Jody. Queer and Decolonial Approaches to Outdoor Learning. BCTF publication, 2024.
- Sumara, Dennis. Alternative Pedagogies and Cognitive Development: A Critical Review. 2017.
Suggested Readings Critiquing Queer Pedagogy
- Lindsay, James & McEwen, Bob. Critical Pedagogy and the Limits of Ideological Education. 2021.
- Wood, Peter. The Manipulation of Youth: How Ideology Enters the Classroom. 2019.
- Scholes, Robert. Childhood, Ideology, and the Limits of Social Theory. 2018.
- Davies, Belinda. Rethinking Radical Curricula: Balancing Innovation with Developmental Appropriateness. 2020.
Alberta’s first province-wide teachers’ strike has drawn national attention, exposing deep tensions between educators’ demands for fair compensation and the government’s drive for fiscal restraint. With more than 51,000 teachers on strike, classrooms across the province remain closed, and Premier Danielle Smith’s government prepares back-to-work legislation. Here’s what’s really at stake—and where both sides stand.
The Dispute at a Glance
The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), representing over 51,000 public, Catholic, and francophone teachers, initiated a province-wide strike on October 6, 2025—the first full withdrawal of services in its history. Collective bargaining began more than 18 months ago, but talks broke down after the ATA tabled a comprehensive proposal on October 14, which the government rejected as unaffordable, estimating an added cost of nearly $2 billion beyond current budget projections.
As of October 26, no new bargaining sessions are scheduled. Premier Danielle Smith has pledged to introduce back-to-work legislation on October 27 if no deal is reached, and her government has signaled readiness to invoke the notwithstanding clause to preempt legal challenges.
Core Issues and Divergent Positions
The ATA argues that chronic underfunding, rising classroom complexity, and stagnant wages threaten teacher retention and student outcomes. The government counters that its funding model already reflects enrollment growth, claiming the union’s proposal exceeds fiscal limits without introducing new revenue sources, such as a provincial sales tax.
Both sides cite inflation and federal immigration policy as aggravating factors but assign responsibility differently.
Key Positions Compared
| Issue | ATA Position and Demands | Government Position and Offers |
|---|---|---|
| Salary Increases | 15% compounded over three years to offset inflation (20–25% since the last agreement) and keep wages competitive. | 12% over four years (3% annually), plus a $4,000 one-time retention bonus; claims this would make Alberta teachers the second-highest paid in Canada. |
| Class Sizes and Complexity | Enforceable class caps (20–23 students max, K–9) and 200 minutes of guaranteed weekly prep time for high school teachers. | No mandatory caps; promises to hire 3,000 new teachers and 1,500 educational assistants, citing federal immigration policies as the main driver of class complexity. |
| Educational Supports and Funding | $2.6 billion in stable, dedicated funding for mental health, professional development, and special needs support. | $2.6 billion in base funding tied to enrollment, alongside over 130 new schools; focuses on infrastructure and hiring without raising taxes. |
| Negotiation Process and Strike | Rejects mediation as overly restrictive; frames strike as a lawful escalation after failed talks. Will adopt “work-to-rule” if legislated back. | Labels union demands as inflexible; offers enhanced mediation if the strike ends immediately. Proceeding with back-to-work legislation to “protect students.” |
Escalation and Public Response
What began as rotating regional walkouts has now become a province-wide shutdown, impacting hundreds of thousands of students and families. Public sentiment remains split—polls show strong support for smaller class sizes but growing concern about prolonged disruptions to schooling.
The ATA has twice rejected the government’s 12% wage proposal, calling it insufficient given inflationary pressures. Finance Minister Nate Horner maintains the offer exceeds adjustments made under the previous NDP government and aligns with broader public-sector restraint measures.
What Comes Next
With back-to-work legislation imminent, Alberta faces a pivotal test of both fiscal discipline and labor relations. The proposed bill would compel a return to work while imposing fines for defiance. ATA leadership warns that if the law passes, teachers will respond through work-to-rule actions and broader public advocacy campaigns.
Observers note that this standoff could galvanize other public-sector unions, creating a wave of coordinated opposition to legislative back-to-work measures across Canada. Whether a negotiated settlement or legal confrontation emerges first may determine the tone of public-sector labor relations for years to come.
References and Data Sources
- Alberta Teachers’ Association. “Moving forward with bargaining.” October 15, 2025.
https://teachers.ab.ca/news/moving-forward-bargaining - Alberta Teachers’ Association. “ATA rejects government’s biased mediation proposal.” October 17, 2025.
https://teachers.ab.ca/news/ata-rejects-governments-biased-mediation-proposal - Alberta Teachers’ Association. “Bill 2 won’t fix the crisis in Alberta classrooms.” October 24, 2025.
https://teachers.ab.ca/news/bill-2-wont-fix-crisis-alberta-classrooms - CBC News. “Province will consider back-to-work legislation for Alberta teachers if no deal.” October 15, 2025.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/nate-horner-alberta-teachers-strike-talks-legislation-9.6939589 - CBC News. “Back-to-work legislation to end Alberta teachers’ strike coming Monday, says premier.” October 23, 2025.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/back-to-work-legislation-to-end-alberta-teachers-strike-coming-monday-says-premier-9.6949884 - Calgary Herald. “Alberta teachers’ union has proposal for province amidst strike.” October 15, 2025.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/teachers-union-contract-proposal-alberta-teachers-strike - Edmonton Journal. “ATA angered by back-to-work legislation, but still considering options.” October 24, 2025.
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-teachers-have-harsh-words-for-the-upc - Nate Horner (@NateHornerAB) on X (Twitter), October 2025 posts detailing government offer.
https://x.com/natehornerab - Red FM Calgary. “ATA President Jason Schilling calls for smaller class sizes and fair wages as teacher strike talks continue.” October 16, 2025.
https://calgary.redfm.ca/ata-president-jason-schilling-calls-for-smaller-class-sizes-and-fair-wages-as-teacher-strike-talks-continue/
As Alberta’s teachers’ strike enters its fourth week, the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) continues to frame its demands as a crusade for student welfare. Yet the claim that “more money equals better outcomes” collapses under scrutiny. From OECD comparisons to provincial spending data, the evidence shows that educational achievement depends far more on teaching quality, curriculum, and social factors than raw dollars. The strike, for all its moral packaging, reveals a deeper struggle over power, perception, and the limits of evidence-based policy.
The Alberta Teachers’ Association claims more funding will improve student outcomes—but decades of Canadian and international data show little correlation between spending and achievement. Here’s what the evidence actually says.
The Illusion of “Funding Equals Outcomes”
The ATA has justified its province-wide strike—launched on October 6, 2025—as a moral stand for students, demanding over $2.6 billion in new funding, along with wage hikes and class-size caps. This narrative, however, fails the empirical test. International and domestic data demonstrate no consistent correlation between per-student spending and academic performance in either Canada or the United States.
By invoking student welfare while halting instruction for hundreds of thousands of children, the ATA’s rhetoric converts a standard labor dispute into a manipulative moral appeal. The union’s campaign, in effect, weaponizes classrooms to secure greater compensation—substituting sentiment for substantiation.12
International Comparisons: Money Doesn’t Buy Results
Cross-national data dispels the myth outright. In 2021–22, the United States spent an inflation-adjusted $15,500 per K–12 student, compared to $12,229 in Canada.3 Yet on the 2022 PISA assessments, Canadian students outperformed Americans across all domains—mathematics (497 vs. 465), reading (507 vs. 504), and science (515 vs. 499).4
Within Canada, spending disparities tell the same story. Quebec, investing roughly $11,000 per pupil, consistently ranks among the top performers in PISA literacy and numeracy, while Saskatchewan, despite a 14.8% real spending increase from 2018–2022, has seen no corresponding gains in outcomes.56 As the Fraser Institute concludes: “Higher levels of per-student spending do not achieve higher student scores on standardized tests.”7
U.S. Evidence: The Plateau Effect
American data reinforces this pattern. Brookings Institution research on state-level NAEP scores finds that per-pupil expenditure is “only weakly related” to student performance, with intrastate differences far outweighing funding gaps between states.8 The Mountain States Policy Center adds that even after controlling for demographics, “little if any positive correlation” remains.9
Despite record K–12 spending of $857 billion in 2022, U.S. achievement continues to slide: 8th-grade reading scores fell three points since 2022, even after adjusting for inflation.10 Meta-analyses from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) quantify these effects precisely—every 10% increase in spending yields only a 0.05–0.09 standard deviation improvement in test performance, with benefits plateauing beyond basic adequacy.1112 In short: money matters, but only up to the point where systems are competently run.
Alberta’s Context: Selective Honesty and Strategic Obfuscation
ATA President Jason Schilling claims “chronic underfunding” drives poor outcomes. Yet Alberta’s per-student funding already aligns with or exceeds most provincial benchmarks when enrollment growth is accounted for.13 The union’s October 14 proposal advances structural demands unsupported by the evidence it cites, while rejecting a 12% wage offer that would make Alberta’s teachers the second-highest paid in Canada.14
This contradiction reveals intent. The ATA’s approach—threatening continued disruption and “work-to-rule” resistance post-legislation—shows the strike is less about pedagogy than about extracting concessions under moral camouflage.15 Polling confirms this miscalculation: while Albertans sympathize with smaller class sizes, they oppose protracted strikes that harm students.16
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Decades of research converge on one conclusion: achievement is driven not by spending, but by teaching quality, curriculum coherence, and socioeconomic stability.17 The global example is Estonia, which spends less than half the U.S. per pupil yet consistently ranks among the top five PISA performers due to its rigorous national curriculum and teacher accountability systems.18
The ATA’s position, by contrast, exemplifies a form of narrative warfare—a strategic fusion of moral rhetoric and material self-interest. Its funding narrative exploits public empathy while sidestepping empirical accountability. Policymakers should reject this coercive model and instead target resources toward proven reforms: effective instruction, rigorous content, and genuine equity—not symbolic spending.
Footnotes
- Alberta Teachers’ Association, “Moving forward with bargaining,” October 15, 2025, https://teachers.ab.ca/news/moving-forward-bargaining ↩
- CBC News, “Back-to-work legislation to end Alberta teachers’ strike coming Monday,” October 23, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/back-to-work-legislation-to-end-alberta-teachers-strike-coming-monday-says-premier-9.6949884 ↩
- OECD, Education at a Glance 2024, Table B1.1, https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/ ↩
- OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I), 2023, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2022-results.htm ↩
- Statistics Canada, “Elementary-Secondary Education Expenditure,” 2023, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-582-x/81-582-x2023001-eng.htm ↩
- Fraser Institute, “Comparing the Provinces on Education Spending and Student Performance,” 2024, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-provinces-education-spending-student-performance ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Brookings Institution, “The Geography of Education Inequality,” 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/research/geography-education-inequality/ ↩
- Mountain States Policy Center, “Education Spending and Student Outcomes,” 2024, https://mountainstatespolicy.org/education-spending-outcomes ↩
- NCES, Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Table 236.10, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_236.10.asp ↩
- NBER, “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes,” Working Paper 24649, 2022, https://www.nber.org/papers/w24649 ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- Alberta Education, “Funding Manual 2024/25,” https://www.alberta.ca/funding-manual ↩
- Nate Horner (@NateHornerAB), X posts, October 2025, https://x.com/natehornerab ↩
- Alberta Teachers’ Association, “Bill 2 won’t fix the crisis,” October 24, 2025, https://teachers.ab.ca/news/bill-2-wont-fix-crisis-alberta-classrooms ↩
- Angus Reid Institute, “Alberta Teachers’ Strike Poll,” October 2025 (summary via media) ↩
- Hanushek, E., “The Impact of Differential Expenditures on School Performance,” Educational Researcher, 1989. ↩
- OECD, PISA 2022 Results, Country Notes: Estonia. ↩
In Prince George, British Columbia, Grade 12 students were recently asked to “map their identities” on a wheel of power and privilege and define how overlapping traits like race, gender, and class shape their lives. The exercise was meant to foster empathy. Instead, it taught students to see themselves—and one another—through a hierarchy of guilt and grievance.
This is intersectionality in action. Coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, the theory originally sought to highlight how overlapping identities could compound discrimination. But in today’s classrooms, HR seminars, and activist spaces, intersectionality has evolved into something more aggressive: a political sorting tool that assigns moral value based on group identity rather than personal conduct. When used this way, it becomes weaponized intersectionality.
1. Define It Precisely
When arguing against it, start by defining intersectionality clearly. Don’t caricature it. Acknowledge its original intent—understanding overlapping forms of discrimination—but distinguish that from its modern mutation, which treats identity as destiny. This makes your critique credible and inoculates against claims of ignorance or bad faith.
2. Expose the Hidden Premise
Weaponized intersectionality rests on a simple but flawed assumption: that all disparities are the result of oppression and that moral authority flows from victimhood. Challenge that premise. Inequality does not always mean injustice. Lived experience matters, but it does not override evidence or reason.
3. Defend Universalism
Reassert the Enlightenment principle that all individuals possess equal moral worth regardless of group identity. Intersectionality divides by assigning virtue or guilt to immutable traits; universalism unites by judging actions, not ancestry. This is not denial of injustice—it’s the precondition for solving it.
4. Point Out Its Social Effects
Weaponized intersectionality erodes solidarity. It breeds resentment, teaching students and citizens alike to view each other as oppressors or oppressed. Even some leftist thinkers, like Nancy Fraser, have warned that intersectionality replaces economic analysis with “cultural essentialism,” fracturing potential alliances for real reform.
5. Offer a Better Vision
Don’t just oppose—propose. Replace identity grids with human rights frameworks. Discuss shared values such as dignity, equality before the law, and freedom of conscience. These ideas have lifted more people from oppression than any taxonomy of privilege ever could.
The Prince George lesson shows what happens when ideology replaces education: empathy becomes accusation, and learning becomes confession. Weaponized intersectionality promises justice but delivers division. The antidote is not denial of difference but defense of common humanity—an argument every student deserves to hear.
James Lindsay’s *New Discourses* podcast (July 9, 2020) contends that Marxist-inspired critical theories—queer theory, critical race theory (CRT), and postcolonial theory—undermine childhood innocence to destabilize Western society. According to this view, “innocence” is not a universal good but a social construct, one that maintains oppressive structures such as heteronormativity and white privilege. In this framing, schools become the frontline where innocence is dismantled, often through social-emotional learning (SEL) and comprehensive sex education, exposing children to adult categories of sexuality and race earlier than previous generations.
This essay acknowledges the conspiratorial risks of Lindsay’s framing but nonetheless argues that there is a coherent intellectual genealogy behind today’s educational shifts. By situating them in the work of Lukács, Marcuse, Gramsci, and Freire, and by engaging primary texts and empirical evidence, the essay concludes that premature sexualization and racialization of children carry measurable psychological risks and are best understood as destabilizing strategies with ideological consequences.
—
Queer Theory: Liberation or Destabilization?
Judith Butler’s *Gender Trouble* (1990) famously argued that identity is performative, “a stylized repetition of acts” rather than a fixed essence.[^1] For advocates, this opens liberatory possibilities, freeing individuals from restrictive norms. Eve Sedgwick similarly contended that destabilizing binaries allows marginalized groups to resist cultural oppression.[^2] In practice, queer pedagogy has translated into inclusive curricula—GLSEN (2022) reports that 43% of LGBTQ students feel safer in schools with gender-affirming materials.[^3]
Yet destabilization comes at a cost. Lindsay connects Butler’s performativity with Herbert Marcuse’s *Eros and Civilization* (1955), where liberation from sexual repression is imagined as a step toward a “non-repressive reality principle.”[^4] Marcuse’s focus was on adult emancipation, but his call for “mature individuals” leaves ambiguity when applied to educational contexts. Graphic materials such as *Gender Queer* (Fairfax County, 2021) in school libraries illustrate how theory, once filtered through activist pedagogy, risks exposing children to sexual content beyond developmental readiness.
Empirical concerns are not negligible: the American Psychological Association (2004) found that early sexualization is associated with depression and anxiety.[^5] While proponents highlight empowerment and reduced bullying, Lindsay’s point stands: identity destabilization in children risks long-term psychological harm.
Sexualization in Schools: Protection or Premature Exposure?
Comprehensive sex education is promoted as a health intervention. The Guttmacher Institute (2022) notes it is implemented in 39% of U.S. states, with studies showing reductions in risky sexual behaviors and teen pregnancy.[^6] Organizations like SIECUS (2021) argue that early, inclusive curricula protect sexual minorities by giving them language and resources.
The counterpoint, however, is about **age-appropriateness**. Some curricula, such as exercises in North Carolina’s 7th-grade program requiring public discussion of bodily changes,[^7] cross into territory that can be experienced as intrusive or shaming. Materials with explicit depictions of sex, regardless of intent, blur the line between protection and premature exposure.
Here Lindsay’s thesis holds: while not designed as “grooming,” the net effect can mimic destabilization. Children’s innocence functions as a developmental safeguard, and undermining it—however well-meaning—risks exploitation rather than empowerment.
Critical Race Theory: Equity or Burden?
Critical Race Theory reframes “racial innocence” as an illusion, a shield for systemic racism. Charles Mills’s *The Racial Contract* (1997) argues that white society maintains domination through unacknowledged compacts.[^8] In educational practice, this has meant materials like Ibram X. Kendi’s *Antiracist Baby* (2022), which encourage young children to see themselves in racial categories early. Advocates such as the American Educational Research Association (2021) claim this reduces bias, and SEL programs aligned with CRT have been adopted in roughly 35% of schools.[^9]
But here too, risks surface. Children may experience racial labeling as destabilizing, especially when framed in terms of guilt or privilege. The National Institute of Mental Health (2022) reports a 25% rise in youth anxiety,[^10] though causation is complex. Lindsay interprets this trend as evidence that CRT primes children for grievance and division. Whether or not one accepts that conclusion, the risk of prematurely burdening children with adult racial narratives deserves scrutiny.
Lukács and the Frankfurt School: The Intellectual Roots
George Lukács’s *History and Class Consciousness* (1923) criticized Christian morality as an impediment to revolution. In the short-lived 1919 Hungarian Soviet Republic, he promoted radical educational reforms, including sexual education programs, which opponents claimed encouraged promiscuity.[^11] While some historians downplay this episode as exaggerated,[^12] it remains clear that Lukács saw morality and family life as barriers to revolutionary consciousness.
The Frankfurt School developed this trajectory further. Marcuse in particular fused Freud with Marx, arguing that capitalism relies on sublimated sexuality.[^13] Though intended for adults, modern applications—whether in SEL or in the normalization of explicit material in schools—echo Marcuse’s suspicion of repression, sometimes at children’s expense.
Gramsci, Freire, and Pedagogical Inversion
Antonio Gramsci’s *Prison Notebooks* (1971) emphasized that family and education sustain cultural hegemony.[^14] Paulo Freire’s *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* (1968) reframed education as a site of liberation, recasting students as oppressed subjects.[^15] These ideas empower marginalized voices, as bell hooks celebrated in *Teaching to Transgress* (1994).[^16]
But Lindsay notes a darker possibility: that reorienting children as political subjects destabilizes family authority and primes youth for activism before they are developmentally prepared. Historical parallels, such as Mao’s Red Guards, show how youth mobilization can lead to intergenerational rupture and social turmoil.[^17]
The Family Under Pressure
Modern legislation such as California’s FAIR Education Act (2019), mandating LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, is framed as inclusive and affirming. Surveys support benefits: GLSEN (2022) found reduced bullying in such schools.[^3] Yet CDC (2023) data also show a steep rise in youth mental health crises—up 30% in a decade—raising questions about unintended consequences.[^18]
Gramsci’s prediction that family would be a central site of ideological struggle seems borne out. When curricula bypass or override parental values, trust between parent and child can erode, leaving children caught between competing moral frameworks.
Addressing Conspiratorial Risks
It is important not to collapse every educational reform into a single Marxist “plot.” CRT, sex education, and SEL are diverse movements with many non-Marxist motivations. Critics such as Angela Harris note that CRT is primarily a legal framework for examining structural racism, not a revolutionary program.[^19] Similarly, sex education advocates highlight empirical successes in health outcomes.
The stronger critique, therefore, is not that Marxists control education, but that Marxist categories—sexual liberation, identity destabilization, cultural hegemony—have been influential in shaping educational trends. Once filtered through activist practice, these categories can be misapplied to children with destabilizing effects.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Development
From Lukács’s early experiments to Marcuse’s liberationist theory and Freire’s pedagogical inversion, critical theory has consistently targeted family, morality, and cultural transmission as barriers to social change. Applied to adults, these ideas invite debate. Applied to children, they risk harm.
The evidence suggests that early exposure to explicit sexual material and premature racial labeling correlate with increased anxiety and depression in youth.[^5][^18] Protecting childhood innocence is not a reactionary fantasy but a developmental necessity.
Parents, educators, and policymakers should insist on transparency in curricula, ensure age-appropriate content, and preserve the family’s role as the primary context for moral and cultural formation. Resistance is less about conspiracy-hunting than about reaffirming a principle as old as education itself: children deserve protection while they grow.
References
[^1]: Butler, J. (1990). *Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity*. Routledge.
[^2]: Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). *Epistemology of the Closet*. University of California Press.
[^3]: GLSEN. (2022). *National School Climate Survey*. [https://www.glsen.org/research](https://www.glsen.org/research)
[^4]: Marcuse, H. (1955). *Eros and Civilization*. Beacon Press.
[^5]: American Psychological Association. (2004). *Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls*. [https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report](https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report)
[^6]: Guttmacher Institute. (2022). *Sex and HIV Education*. [https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education)
[^7]: Wake County Public Schools. (2021). *Healthful Living Curriculum*.
[^8]: Mills, C. (1997). *The Racial Contract*. Cornell University Press.
[^9]: National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). *School Survey on Social and Emotional Learning*.
[^10]: National Institute of Mental Health. (2022). *Youth Mental Health Data*. [https://www.nimh.nih.gov](https://www.nimh.nih.gov)
[^11]: Tormay, C. (1920). *An Outlaw’s Diary: The Hungarian Revolution*. London: Allen & Unwin.
[^12]: Anderson, K. (2010). *Marx at the Margins: On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies*. University of Chicago Press.
[^13]: Marcuse, H. (1955). *Eros and Civilization*, p. 87.
[^14]: Gramsci, A. (1971). *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*. International Publishers.
[^15]: Freire, P. (1968). *Pedagogy of the Oppressed*. Continuum.
[^16]: hooks, b. (1994). *Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom*. Routledge.
[^17]: Dikötter, F. (2016). *The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976*. Bloomsbury.
[^18]: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). *Youth Risk Behavior Survey*. [https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs](https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs)
[^19]: Harris, A. (2001). *Critical Race Theory*. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
I’ve given the paper “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” a first read through. I’m quite thoroughly shocked as to how this paper made it publication, and even more dismayed at its content. My first reading response:
A Critique of Queer Pedagogy in Elementary Education
The article “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” by Jill M. Hermann-Wilmarth and Caitlin Law Ryan advocates for incorporating LGBTQ topics into elementary education, relying on critical theory and queer pedagogy. This approach, however, is fundamentally flawed. Teaching queerness—defined as opposition to societal norms—has no place in elementary classrooms, where the focus should be on factual learning rather than activism. The authors employ a motte-and-bailey strategy to conflate inclusiveness with queerness, misuse critical theory in an age-inappropriate manner, and dismiss parental concerns as mere resistance to be navigated. This essay will expose these weaknesses, demonstrating the destabilizing nature of queer pedagogy and the methods used to obscure its implementation.
Conflation of Inclusiveness with Queerness
The article repeatedly equates inclusiveness with queerness, a misleading comparison that masks its radical intent. For example, the authors quote a teacher, Linda, saying, “I like the language that [says] teachers … ‘teach inclusively.’ Because … it helps frame it for parents in a way that is more palatable for anybody who might have an issue” (p. 92). Here, “teaching inclusively” serves as a euphemism for introducing queer theory, which is not the same as general inclusivity. Inclusivity in education typically involves recognizing diverse backgrounds—such as race or disability—without delving into controversial topics like gender identity. By framing queer pedagogy as inclusivity, the authors retreat to a defensible position when challenged, while advancing a destabilizing agenda. Queer theory, as Britzman (1995) states, seeks to “disrupt the commonplace” (p. 95), a goal irrelevant to elementary students’ needs.
Inappropriate Use of Critical Theory
The reliance on critical theory, particularly critical literacy, further undermines the article’s approach. The authors describe critical literacy as involving “disrupting the commonplace” and “focusing on sociopolitical issues” (Lewison et al., 2002, p. 382), which they apply to justify their pedagogy (p. 91). They argue it allows teachers to “disrupt notions of deviance” and “lay bare” power relations (p. 91). Such concepts, however, are too abstract for young children, who lack the cognitive maturity to grapple with ideological frameworks. Elementary education should prioritize facts—reading, writing, and arithmetic—not activism. By embedding critical theory, the authors risk confusing students and diverting focus from foundational skills, revealing the activist intent behind their destabilizing pedagogy.
Dismissal of Parental Concerns
Most troublingly, the article sidelines parental concerns, portraying them as obstacles to overcome rather than valid objections. The authors note how teachers “invited parents into dialogue” but maintained their curriculum, offering only minor accommodations (p. 93). For instance, when a parent objected, the teacher allowed the child to work elsewhere but refused to alter the class curriculum (p. 93). The article suggests teachers justify their choices by “leveraging policy as a shield” (p. 92), a tactic that ignores parents’ worries about age-appropriateness and bias. This dismissal undermines parents’ role as primary stakeholders, reducing them to passive bystanders. The authors’ approach reveals a disregard for parental authority, a critical flaw in their framework.
Conclusion
In sum, Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan’s advocacy for LGBTQ-inclusive teaching in elementary schools is misguided. By conflating inclusiveness with queerness, they obscure their radical aims. Their use of critical theory introduces inappropriate activism into a setting where facts should reign. Worst of all, they marginalize parental concerns, eroding the teacher-parent partnership. A balanced, age-appropriate education—one focused on foundational learning and respectful of parental input—is essential. Queer pedagogy, with its destabilizing goals, has no place in elementary classrooms.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…