Every few years, Alabama reviews the instructional materials used in public school classrooms. The process rarely attracts public attention, but the decisions made during this review shape what students across the state will read, study, and absorb for years to come.
Right now, Alabama is in the middle of reviewing K-12 social studies textbooks, and after spending time reviewing many of the proposed materials myself, it is clear that this process deserves far more public attention than it has received.
What becomes apparent after reviewing materials across multiple learning levels is not just a handful of isolated concerns. Instead, a clear pattern of ideological themes emerges. These materials collectively shift classroom instruction away from American civics and historical understanding and toward modern ideological narratives.
Several recurring themes appear throughout the materials being considered.
First, there is a strong emphasis on activism as a model for students. Some lessons highlight modern protest movements and activist figures as examples of civic engagement, presenting demonstrations and youth activism as central ways for students to make their voices heard. While civic participation is an important concept, repeatedly framing activism as the primary model of engagement risks encouraging students to see protest culture as a normal expectation of their role in society before they even understand the issues involved.
Second, many lessons introduce identity-based activism and political movements. For example, some sections spotlight protest imagery and slogans tied to the Chicano movement—phrases like “Brown and Proud” alongside depictions of marches and demonstrations—without providing balanced historical context about the movement, its debates, or its place within the broader sweep of American history. Teaching the history of different communities in America is important, but it should be done in a way that reinforces a core civic principle: in our constitutional system, individuals are not defined by race, and public leadership should not be judged or elevated on the basis of racial identity. Presented without that broader context, the focus can shift toward identity-centered activism rather than helping students understand the full historical context of the period being studied and the shared civic ideals that unite Americans.
Third, the materials introduce ideological political theory, including references to Karl Marx and the development of socialism. These ideas have undeniably played an important role in world history, but they are also tied to revolutionary political systems that have dramatically reshaped governments and societies across the globe. When these theories are presented without sufficient historical critique or context—particularly without acknowledging the historical outcomes and economic consequences associated with socialist systems—they risk creating the impression that socialism and capitalism produce similar results for everyday citizens, rather than encouraging students to critically examine how different economic systems have impacted societies in practice.
Fourth, some lessons encourage students to view themselves primarily as global citizens rather than as citizens of the United States. The materials frame history as preparation for participation in a “global society” and emphasize developing a global identity. While understanding the world beyond our borders is certainly valuable, civics education in American public schools should first and foremost prepare students to understand their responsibilities as citizens of the United States and the constitutional system that governs our nation.
Finally, some sections move beyond historical voting rights and introduce contemporary debates about election laws and voting policies. These passages frame modern election integrity discussions—such as voter identification requirements and other voting regulations—primarily through the lens of voting restrictions. Presenting complex and ongoing political debates in a one-sided manner risks bringing partisan policy arguments directly into the classroom rather than teaching students the historical development of voting rights in America.
The issue is not that difficult topics should be avoided. History is full of complex ideas, social movements, and political debates. Students should absolutely learn about these subjects when they are presented with appropriate historical context and when students are developmentally ready to evaluate competing perspectives.
The concern arises when instructional materials move beyond teaching about history and civics and begin encouraging students to adopt particular political perspectives or view activism itself as a central part of their role as students.
Public schools exist to educate students, not to guide them toward ideological viewpoints.
Parents send their children to school expecting them to learn the foundations of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and American history. They expect schools to teach students how our constitutional system works and how to evaluate ideas critically.
They do not expect their children to be introduced to protest culture, ideological activism, or modern partisan policy debates through classroom materials before they are developmentally prepared to understand the complexity of those issues.
When educational materials blur the line between instruction and advocacy, trust between families and schools begins to erode. That erosion of trust is one of the biggest challenges facing public education today.
That is precisely why Alabama has a textbook review process in the first place.
The State Board of Education has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that materials placed in classrooms are academically sound, age appropriate, and focused on genuine learning rather than ideological messaging.
Parents across Alabama deserve confidence that the curriculum used in public schools reflects those priorities.
As the State Board moves forward in determining which materials will be approved for local adoption, members should take a careful and thoughtful look at whether the proposed books truly serve the educational needs of Alabama students.
If instructional materials focus more on promoting ideological activism—whether related to protest movements, identity-based politics, revolutionary political theory, global citizenship frameworks, or modern election debates—than on teaching students how to think critically about history and civics, they do not belong in Alabama classrooms.
This review process presents an opportunity for Alabama to reaffirm a simple principle: our schools should be places where students learn how to think, not where they are quietly taught what to think.
The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the current social studies textbooks on March 12. They should vote not to approve these materials as they currently stand. Alabama’s students deserve instructional materials that prioritize knowledge, critical thinking, and genuine civic understanding. We can—and should—do better.
