Rethinking Teacher Assessments and the Era of Wokeness

Oklahoma’s Shifting Education Landscape: A Clash of Values and Curricular Changes

The debate over what should be taught in public schools has come to the forefront in Oklahoma, where state Superintendent Ryan Walters has implemented measures that many see as an attempt to steer education in a politically conservative direction. This op-ed examines how political ideology is melting into Oklahoma’s educational framework, how these changes affect teachers and students, and what the broader implications might be for a system already struggling with low academic rankings.

At the heart of this debate is an effort by state officials to create a curriculum that emphasizes “red-state values” and excludes what they call left-wing influences. Walters’s initiatives include testing new teachers for adherence to traditional views on issues like gender and election results, as well as adding classroom material that spotlights discrepancies in the 2020 election—changes that raise tricky questions about educational balance and academic freedom.

Political Influence and the Rewriting of Curricula

Oklahoma’s state education policies are now in the spotlight due to a series of controversial events. The introduction of an ideological “purity test” for teachers, along with controversial curriculum updates, reflects a broader political battle over what constitutes “appropriate material” in public schools. While some argue that these measures are simply a return to teaching basics and reinforcing American values, others see them as politically charged moves that could alienate diverse groups of students and educators.

Consolidating a Conservative Vision

In his public statements, Superintendent Ryan Walters has outlined a vision for education that favors a conservative interpretation of American history and values. He advocates for a teaching approach that, according to him, is “universal” and intended to keep schools a place free of what he deems “radical gender ideology” and left-wing indoctrination. Walters’s rhetoric frequently uses phrases that emphasize a return to traditionalism:

A focus on the basics of academics and citizenship
An insistence on teaching a specific view of American exceptionalism
An effort to exclude politically charged content on gender and sexuality

Critics argue that this approach does not fully account for the tricky parts of American history, where the twists and turns of past mistakes are as critical as the successes. The debate centers on whether reinforcing a particular set of values truly benefits students or if it restricts the organic, open-minded discussion that schools have traditionally offered as a fertile ground for learning about diverse perspectives.

Curricular Adjustments: Elections and Pandemic Narratives

One of the most contentious changes involves classroom discussions of recent historical events, particularly the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic. Walters’s newly introduced curriculum requires high-school history students to “identify discrepancies” in the 2020 election results, a mandate that many consider politically loaded and overly simplistic. In a similar vein, teachers are expected to discuss the origins of COVID-19 with an emphasis on certain theories while leaving out others.

This approach brings up a host of confusing bits, including:

The challenge of representing multiple sides of controversial events in history
The risk of oversimplifying events that have many tangled issues
An emphasis on specific data points that can steer students toward a predetermined conclusion

By insisting on identifying “discrepancies,” the curriculum may inadvertently promote a narrow framing of events that are inherently full of problems and subtle parts. The intention is to allow students to see evidence firsthand and form their own conclusions, yet the framing of the lesson is already angled toward a conservative interpretation of those events.

Impact on Educator Freedom and Classroom Dynamics

Beyond the content of the curriculum, the implementation of ideological tests for teachers has profound implications for educator autonomy. Walters’s program seeks to ensure that new teachers, especially those coming from states like California or New York, adhere to what he calls “red-state values.” This requirement brings several nerve-racking challenges for educators, forcing many to either align their personal views with state expectations or risk marginalization.

Teacher Recruitment and Ideological Screening

State officials claim that recruiting top educators remains a priority, and that several measures have been adopted to attract quality teachers by offering signing bonuses and merit-based pay. However, this initiative is paired with ideological screening that could discourage teaching professionals who do not share conservative beliefs. This connects to broader questions about academic freedom and the professional integrity of educators. Teachers like Michael, a social studies instructor at a public high school, expressed concerns over how their roles might be compromised as a result of these stringent standards.

Michael explains that while he once related openly with his students by sharing hints of his personal beliefs, he now feels compelled to simply relay the state-mandated curriculum. The shift has forced him, and many of his colleagues, to figure a path through a landscape that once encouraged diverse thinking and genuine inquiry. In his words, the tensions of this new framework make daily teaching both overwhelming and off-putting, as he must balance professional obligations with his personal convictions.

Classroom Environment: Balancing State Standards and Personal Integrity

The effect of these policy changes on classroom dynamics cannot be understated. Educators are now asked to put aside their personal insights in order to adhere strictly to state standards. Michael describes a scenario where he would say, “The state standards mandate this,” thereby curbing any personal input that might have previously established a more open dialogue among students.

This situation creates several problematic outcomes:

Teachers may feel stifled, leading to a reduction in creative lessons that encourage students to think critically
Students risk receiving one-sided historical narratives, missing out on fine points and small distinctions that are integral to understanding the complete picture
An atmosphere emerges where the classroom is less a space for debate and more a platform for reciting state-approved content

The idea of a “universal view” is particularly problematic. While proponents of the new standards assert that they are simply refocusing education on teaching the basics, many view this as a move that neglects the complex twists and turns that come with an honest appraisal of American history.

Repercussions for Parents and Broader Community Voices

Political polarization has also seeped into parental opinions and community participation in school governance. Some parents, comfortable with conservative ideology, welcome the redefined curriculum. Others fear that the state’s actions may create an exclusive environment that discourages diverse perspectives.

Parental Concerns Over Ideological Exclusion

The notion of “red-state values” being the highlight of the state’s curriculum can make many parents feel like outsiders, particularly those who hold more progressive belief systems. When the Education Department directs schools to observe moments of silence in honor of specific political figures or mandates that all schools integrate chapters of Turning Point USA—a conservative organization co-founded by Charlie Kirk—it creates a sense of unease among parents who value pluralism and the inclusion of diverse cultural or political views.

This challenge is further compounded by what some view as a political agenda being injected into public education, potentially sidelining broader community concerns about balance and fairness. A significant number of parents and religious leaders have taken legal action against state officials, accusing them of using public education as a tool to impose religious and political values. The allegation is that by favoring one set of beliefs over another, the state is making schools a battleground where civic unity is undermined.

Table: Contrasting Parental Perspectives on the New Curriculum

Conservative Parents	Progressive Parents
Welcome a focus on traditional American values	Worry about the exclusion of diverse viewpoints
Support the emphasis on exact historical “facts” regarding national events	See political tests as a form of indoctrination
Believe the new standards safeguard academic integrity from radical ideas	Fear that limiting classroom discussion stifles free inquiry
Find reassurance in state-supported curricula that echo their personal values	Feel that public schools should be an engine for embracing multi-faceted communities

This table underscores the contrasting approaches seen at the community level. Both sides want what’s best for schools, yet their definitions of “best” differ markedly when it comes to educational approaches and priorities.

The Role of Controversies in the Public Discourse

Amid the heated debates, a series of controversies have emerged that underscore the tensions within Oklahoma’s education system. One notable example is a perplexing incident involving a television in Ryan Walters’s office, which at one point showed images that some described as inappropriate. The ensuing media frenzy not only distracted from the substantive issues at hand but also underscored how retaliatory actions might be used to distract from policy shortcomings.

A Closer Look at the “Pornography” Allegation

During a board meeting, allegations arose that nudity was being displayed on a TV in the Superintendent’s office—a claim that was quickly tied into his hard-line stance against what he referred to broadly as “pornography” in schools. However, further investigation revealed that the incident was much less sinister than first reported, being the result of an R-rated film playing on a preprogrammed channel. Despite this, Walters’s reaction to the allegations—as well as the political motivations behind them—highlight the charged atmosphere that now pervades Oklahoma’s school environment.

Such incidents tend to obscure the more profound topics at stake. Instead of focusing only on isolated moments, it is important to take a closer look at what these controversies reveal about how state officials are managing school policy and public perception. They not only divert attention from the intimidating challenges of low academic performance—as evidenced by Oklahoma’s ranking near the bottom of national reading and math scores—but also raise questions about the integrity of the decision-making process in education.

Political Battles Overshadowing Educational Outcomes

Even as high-profile disputes take center stage, the everyday reality for many educators remains one of working through intricate challenges that have little to do with ideological battles. The aggressive politicization of school boards, combined with the introduction of state-controlled curricula, risks undermining a system that desperately needs improvement.

Consider these points:

Oklahoma’s public schools were already grappling with low academic rankings, with student scores in reading and math falling behind national averages.
The high-profile conflicts divert attention from systematic issues such as funding, teacher retention, and critical support services.
The politicization of education can further alienate teachers who might otherwise bring innovative teaching methods to the classroom.

Until these fundamental issues are addressed in a non-partisan way, any changes to the curriculum or teacher screening protocols will likely be seen as mere distractions from deeper systemic troubles.

Impact on Teachers: Navigating an Environment Filled With Tension

For educators like Michael, the new policies are more than just abstract debates—they represent real challenges that affect their day-to-day work and overall well-being. Michael, a dedicated social studies teacher, now finds himself in a position where he has to recite state standards verbatim, without adding his personal insights or engaging in robust academic debates. This constraint is not only nerve-racking but also diminishes the richness of classroom interaction.

The Dilemma of Authentic Teaching vs. Political Conformity

Michael once felt free to share his personal perspectives, making connections with his students that went beyond mere textbooks. Today, however, he confesses that he feels stifled by the need to align perfectly with state-mandated narratives. In many ways, this environment forces teachers to choose between their own authenticity and a politically safe version of education.

This drawing of a line creates several complications:

Personal Integrity vs. Career Security: Educators are forced to suppress their own views in fear of professional consequences. The real-life impact is significant: when teachers change how they express themselves to fit into narrow criteria, the entire educational experience loses a degree of genuine discourse.
Compromised Critical Thinking: When classroom discussions are formulaic, the chance for students to engage with multiple angles of an issue is drastically reduced. Critical thinking and independent analysis—the very foundations of democratic education—are at risk.
Increased Stress and Isolation: Conversations with colleagues reveal a growing sense of isolation and overwhelm. Many educators feel that each twist and turn in policy only further alienates them from their core mission of teaching.

In this context, the fine points of balancing state expectations with personal conviction become not just a professional challenge, but a personal dilemma that many teachers must wrestle with every day.

Unintended Consequences on Teacher Retention

The pressure to conform politically can lead to serious consequences when it comes to retaining skilled educators. Some teachers have already chosen to resign over these contentious issues, while others have hinted that they might leave if the political mandates continue to tighten. The loss of experienced educators can set back years of progress within the public education system, leaving behind a vacuum that is often filled by less experienced teachers who may not be equipped to manage the delicate, nuanced parts of classroom dynamics.

This situation presents a series of risks for Oklahoma’s public schools:

A decrease in experienced educators, which can hurt student achievement in the long run.
An atmosphere of uncertainty that could deter new, talented teachers from entering the profession in Oklahoma.
A growing divide between teachers and policymakers, which may lead to increased tension and decreased effectiveness in educational delivery.

The Broader Implications for American Public Education

Oklahoma’s experiment with politically charged educational reforms is reflective of a broader national conversation about the role of public education in a democratic society. Public schools have long been seen as the cornerstone of American democracy—a space where people from divergent backgrounds come together to learn, debate, and form the future of the nation. Emphasizing a single ideological perspective, however, threatens to upend this balance.

Public Schools as a Microcosm of Democracy

One of the key arguments in favor of public education is its ability to host a multitude of voices, creating classrooms where diverse opinions can coexist. Historically, schools have enabled students to consider a range of perspectives—from staunch atheism to devout religious participation—thereby nurturing a well-rounded understanding of the world. Critics of Oklahoma’s current trajectory argue that by privileging one political philosophy, the state risks losing a major part of what makes public education so essential.

A well-functioning school system should strive to do the following:

Present the little details and subtle parts of historical events with balance and honesty.
Allow teachers the flexibility to present multiple sides of an issue.
Emphasize a critical approach where students learn to question and analyze rather than simply memorize state-sanctioned viewpoints.

When any single perspective is given undue dominance, the resulting educational environment loses much of its richness, ultimately doing a disservice to the very notion of democratic education.

Potential Long-Term Cultural and Democratic Fallout

The push for a conservative-centric curriculum in public education, if continued, may have repercussions that extend well beyond the classroom. When students are restricted in what they can learn and explore, there is a risk that they will not develop the necessary tools to effectively participate in a complex and evolving society. With each politically charged policy change, an essential opportunity to cultivate independent, critical thinkers is missed.

This issue is laden with challenges that affect the present and the future:

Educational methodologies become more about reciting approved content than about questioning and understanding the world.
Students grow up with an awareness of only one side of political and historical debates, which might impede their ability to engage in genuine civic discourse.
The erosion of a balanced educational curriculum could lead to broader societal divisions, as the seeds of partisan thinking are sown early in a citizen’s development.

In turn, this cultural shift could further polarize American society, making it all the more challenging to find common ground in other essential areas of governance and community life.

Looking Ahead: Can a Balance Be Achieved?

There is no simple answer to the question of how to balance state standards with the diverse needs of American students. While proponents of the current changes argue that the goal is simply to “teach the basics” and eliminate what they consider left-wing interference, critics emphasize the importance of maintaining an educational space where multiple perspectives can coexist. The broader public discourse needs to acknowledge the fine points of this debate, rather than reducing it to partisan talking points.

The Need for Open Dialogue and Flexibility

To move forward, it is essential that policymakers, educators, and parents engage in an honest and open dialogue about what public education should represent. Key areas of focus should include:

Preserving academic freedom while ensuring that curricular standards are clear and evidence-based.
Incorporating both historical achievements and mistakes in ways that invite discussion rather than mandate a single interpretation.
Creating a supportive environment for teachers that allows for a wide range of teaching styles and personal viewpoints, which are crucial for student engagement and learning.

The challenge lies in managing your way through a set of policies that are already loaded with tension. All stakeholders must be willing to get into tough conversations about the state’s values and the role of education in a democratic society. Rather than surrendering to political pressures from either extreme, a middle path that respects the heritage of American education while remaining open to new ideas is essential.

Strategies for Restoring Trust in Public Education

Restoring trust in the public education system will require concerted efforts on several fronts. Moving beyond the immediate controversies, several key strategies should be considered:

Incremental Policy Adjustments: Rather than sweeping changes, policies should be fine-tuned gradually to allow for feedback from all sides. This approach can help to steer through the confusing bits and ensure that no single ideology dominates the educational discourse.
Inclusive Curriculum Development: Bringing together educators, historians, community leaders, and subject matter experts to develop curricula can help mitigate the risk of one-sided narratives. An inclusive process is key to ensuring a balanced approach that welcomes a range of perspectives.
Transparent Decision-Making: Transparency in how rules and changes are adopted goes a long way in building public confidence. When the decision-making process is open and involves input from multiple stakeholders, it reduces suspicions of political maneuvers.
Professional Support for Educators: Providing teachers with professional development opportunities that encourage the sharing of diverse viewpoints can help reduce the nerve-racking pressures of conforming to rigid standards. This support could include workshops, collaborative forums, and protected spaces for classroom dialogue.

Ultimately, successful education policy will find a balance between upholding essential standards and allowing for the rich diversity of thought that makes public schools a stronghold of democracy.

Conclusion: The Road to a More Inclusive Educational Future

Oklahoma’s experiment with politically influenced education is a clear reflection of broader national tensions. The measures introduced by Superintendent Ryan Walters—from teacher screening tests to specific curricular mandates—are emblematic of a current moment in which the line between politics and education is becoming increasingly blurred.

While there is an argument to be made for returning to the basics and emphasizing traditional American values, it is equally important to recognize that public education has historically thrived on debate, diversity, and the welcoming of multiple perspectives. The current policies, though intended to safeguard specific ideals, risk undermining the open dialogue that is critical for nurturing informed citizens.

This discussion is not purely academic. The experiences of teachers like Michael, who must now choose between personal integrity and compliance, and the struggles faced by educators like Summer Boismier, who have paid a steep price for their refusal to censor themselves, illustrate the nerve-wracking impacts these policies have on the everyday reality of teaching. Their stories serve as a reminder that education is, at its core, a human endeavor—one that should celebrate a plurality of voices rather than restrict them.

As policymakers, educators, and community members continue to grapple with these issues, it is essential to remember that the goal of public education is to prepare future generations to think critically and to participate meaningfully in a democratic society. Achieving that goal will require a careful, balanced approach—one that recognizes that the hidden complexities and subtle parts of our shared history are what truly make our educational experience rich and transformative.

In the coming years, the challenge will be to find common ground amid the competing demands of political ideology and educational excellence. The road ahead might be loaded with issues and off-putting twists and turns, but with open dialogue and a commitment to inclusiveness, it is possible to create a public school system that truly serves every child, regardless of their background or the political views of the moment.

Originally Post From https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/09/oklahoma-public-education-ryan-walters-teachers/684342/

Read more about this topic at
Battle Ground Public Schools
Battle Ground Public Schools