Several school districts say they will not – as of now – amend curricula following superintendent’s order
As a new school year looms in Oklahoma, some educators in the state are pushing back against a new state order to incorporate the Bible into their lesson plans.
In late June, Oklahoma’s Republican state education superintendent, Ryan Walters, ordered public schools in the state to immediately incorporate the Bible and the Ten Commandments into their curricula, following the passage that month of a law in Louisiana with a similar mandate – and which was quickly challenged on constitutional grounds.
Walters appeared at a state education board meeting and called the Bible “one of the most foundational documents used for the constitution and the birth of our country”, though the US’s founders explicitly called for a substantial separation between church and state. And he said that the Bible was a “necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system”.
Walters’ policy and remarks not only reignited the conversation about keeping state and church affairs separate. They also drew criticism from civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers who argued that the order violated federal rights to freely exercise one’s religious faith as well as a constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
Nonetheless, on 24 July, Walters released guidelines for his new orders, in which he stated – among other directives – that a physical copy of the Bible should be in every classroom, along with copies of the US constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Ten Commandments.
“These documents are mandatory for the holistic education of students in Oklahoma,” Walters wrote, adding that lessons on the Bible should discuss its influence on western civilization, American history, as well as its literary, artistic, and musical significance.
Oklahoma law already allows for the Bible to be taught in classrooms, the office of the state attorney general told the Associated Press. But whether to do so is a decision left up to individual districts.
Since Walters announced the new guidelines and order, several public school districts have said that they would not – as of now – be amending their curricula. They said they would also adhere to the current set of standards aligned to the Oklahoma academic standards approved by the state’s legislature.
Rob Miller, the district superintendent in Bixby, Oklahoma, south of Tulsa, released a memo to his local community in recent days saying that the new guidance “poses more questions than it answers”.
Miller pointed out that the new order’s directive to place a physical copy of the Bible in every classroom “provides no clarity on which version” of the tome is required “or how to pay for them”.
“There are also legitimate constitutional issues associated with public schools purchasing religious materials with taxpayer dollars,” Miller said, adding that state law calls for local control of the selection and purchase of teaching materials.
Miller said that his district would continue to teach the legislatively approved Oklahoma academic standards in classrooms during the upcoming academic year using curricular resources vetted and formally approved by the Bixby education board.
Earlier, in a different memo to the school community, Miller also noted how Walters reporedtly boasted about looking forward to lawsuits being filed against his mandate. Miller said he believed that meant Walters realized his directive “may not pass constitutional muster based on current statutes and legal precedent” – and that it might ultimately require a review by the US supreme court.
In fact, a parent has already filed a lawsuit against Walters’ order, contending that the directive is unconstitutional.
Another public school district which has announced that it would not implement Walters’ order was the one in Owasso, Oklahoma. District officials said “it is crucial that we maintain neutrality and objectivity in our curriculum and instructional practices”.
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism as we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes in 2024.
We have never been more passionate about exposing the multiplying threats to our democracy and holding power to account in America. In the heat of a tumultuous presidential race, with the threat of a more extreme second Trump presidency looming, there is an urgent need for free, trustworthy journalism that foregrounds the stakes of November’s election for our country and planet.
Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.
From threats to election integrity, to the spiraling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualize, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organization with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.