For two individuals who recently released a publication advocating for a conservative perspective on education, the situation in San Francisco has provided ample material. While crafting their book, the local school board, which staunchly resisted reopening schools for almost a year, diverted its attention (unsuccessfully) towards renaming numerous schools — even those honoring controversial figures like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and the late California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The board’s misguided attempt to rewrite history was marred by historical inaccuracies, sloppy research, and sheer ineptitude, earning it the label of a “debacle” by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper and drawing criticism from San Francisco’s Democratic mayor as “offensive and completely unacceptable.”
The educational leaders in San Francisco inadvertently became the perfect foil for the conservative authors. Instead of addressing the significant challenges facing the education system, they were engrossed in trivial woke pursuits.
Just recently, a San Francisco school made headlines by paying a substantial sum to a professional development organization named “Woke Kindergarten.” This outfit, known for its “anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and anti-Israel” stance, conducted sessions promoting radical ideas to kindergarten students, such as envisioning a world without law enforcement, currency, or property owners. Even some progressive educators expressed discomfort with the trainers who ridiculed the United States and posed controversial questions to 5-year-olds regarding defunding the Israeli military.
The founder of Woke Kindergarten, Akiea “Ki” Gross, describes themselves as “an abolitionist early educator, cultural organizer, and creator innovating ways to resist, heal, liberate, and create with their pedagogy.” While it might have been tempting to capitalize on such extreme examples of leftist ideology, the authors chose a different path focused on enhancing American education.
In their book, the authors aim to provide a principled and coherent conservative response to the fundamental question: “What are we for?” They view conservatism as a form of custodianship, emphasizing the importance of preserving and improving essential elements like America, art, literature, and faith for future generations. However, they stress that custodianship does not entail rigidly defending the status quo but rather recognizing and rectifying shortcomings with respect and appreciation.
The authors lament the prevalent left-leaning bias in the American education landscape, evident in various institutions and organizations. They highlight the challenges faced by conservatives in advocating for transparency in education and upholding traditional values like patriotism and personal accountability.
Their vision for change involves empowering students and families, expanding educational options, and promoting a comprehensive agenda rooted in conservative principles. They seek to bridge the ideological divide in education discourse by offering a platform for constructive dialogue and collaboration.
Ultimately, the authors advocate for a values-driven approach to education policy that transcends political affiliations. They emphasize the importance of shared values and problem-solving over partisan agendas, aiming to foster a deeper understanding and appreciation for diverse perspectives in shaping the future of education.
In conclusion, the authors’ conservative vision for education is grounded in the belief that safeguarding and nurturing fundamental values is essential for creating a more robust and effective education system. Their work serves as a call to action for all stakeholders to prioritize principles over politics and work towards a common goal of improving education for the benefit of future generations.