(Image Courtesy of UMass Lowell) “Coburn Hall, home of the UML School of Education”
Jack Vollaro and Elaine Costa
Connector Contributors
In January, President Trump signed an executive order intent on “ending radical indoctrination” in education nationwide.
Executive Order 14190, passed nine days into the President’s second term, outlines proposed changes to how schools discuss topics like race, gender, and the nation’s history. Citing past anti-discrimination legislation, the order aims to discourage teachers from incorporating racial inequity, white privilege, and gender discrimination into their instruction. Specifically, the order defines concepts like “gender ideology extremism” and “discriminatory equity ideology” and states its aims to remove them from schools.
Schools that refuse to abide by the order’s limitations could potentially have their federal funding cut, giving the order a tangible impact on how schooling is conducted in the nation. For a replacement to instruction about discrimination and identity, the order offers “patriotic education.” The principle is defined in the text as “an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of America’s founding and foundational principles.” Dr. Patricia Fontaine, a professor of clinical education at UMass Lowell, is skeptical of this change. “A patriot is not necessarily someone who supports what the government is doing, but supports the idea that we constantly question it to make [the United States] a better place to live,” she said.
Fontaine also noted the novelty of the order in the context of the history of education lawmaking. “This is the first time through executive order that the federal government is telling us what not to teach,” she said. According to Fontaine, this sets a precedent for the country going forward.
Fontaine also fears that the changes are emblematic of a shift toward greater parental control over K-12 education. “Parents are going to decide what we teach, how we teach and when we teach it, and that’s a very scary proposition,” she said. “We’re no longer relying on the professionals who know the history.”
Students in the education program also have opinions on the order. Michael Agostino, a second-year undergraduate in the UMass Lowell education program, is not worried about the changes. “Worst case scenario, it sticks for four years and nothing really happens,” he said of the order. Agostino has faith that Massachusetts’ strong education infrastructure won’t be affected too heavily by the order. In his eyes, the subjects the order is trying to discourage are too important for the state’s standards to change significantly in the long term. Either way, Agostino remains optimistic about the degree to which the order will affect UMass Lowell’s education majors.
William Hampson, a sophomore outside the education program, is much more apprehensive. “They’re taking great measures to ensure that children gain nothing from eighteen years of schooling,” he said. He is worried less about the direct impact of the order and more on the standard it sets for the next four years. “[The changes] are not sustainable. I don’t like them, and I don’t think they’re going to do any good for the country,” Hampson said when asked about his long-term outlook on the order. Even if the changes themselves don’t stick, he argues, the order is a bad sign of things to come.
Fontaine hopes that the United States will return to focusing on the subjects the order has prohibited, worrying that “patriotic education” will downplay the problems the country has historically had. “There are so many cases in American history where we’ve broken that pact with people, that social contract,” she says. “Some of [our] noble principles weren’t so noble.” It remains to be seen just how much this order will shape American education in the future.
