United Daughters of the Confederacy

The public school curriculum in the United States plays a critical role in shaping the knowledge, values, and social understanding of millions of students across the country. While the curriculum is often taken for granted by students and parents alike, the process of determining what is taught in American public schools is complex and involves multiple layers of decision-making, influenced by a variety of stakeholders, including local, state, and federal government agencies, teachers, school boards, political interest groups, and textbook publishers.

The public school system in the United States has evolved considerably since its inception in the 19th century. Early public education in the U.S. was heavily influenced by religious instruction and the teaching of moral values. As the nation industrialized, public education expanded, and the focus shifted to creating an educated workforce and informed citizens. The Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a push for standardized education and a more child-centered approach that emphasized critical thinking and problem-solving rather than rote memorization.

Throughout much of the 20th century, curriculum development in public schools was largely localized. Individual school districts had significant autonomy in deciding what was taught, and teachers often had substantial freedom to adapt lessons to their students' needs. However, as the U.S. became more diverse and politically complex, the federal and state governments began to take a more active role in regulating education, leading to more standardized curricula and a greater emphasis on accountability.

The process of deciding what is taught in public schools is governed by a decentralized system that involves local, state, and federal stakeholders. Each level of government plays a role in shaping the curriculum, with local school boards and state education departments bearing the most significant responsibility for what students learn.

Local school boards hold a central role in determining the public school curriculum. These elected bodies are responsible for overseeing individual school districts, and they have the authority to adopt or modify curriculum standards, choose textbooks, and approve instructional materials. Because local school boards are elected, their decisions are often reflective of the values, concerns, and preferences of their communities. This localized control means that the curriculum in public schools can vary significantly from one district to another, as local boards respond to the needs and interests of their constituents.

State governments play an essential role in setting curriculum standards and guidelines for public schools. State education departments develop statewide standards that outline what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. These standards, often called "state learning standards" or "academic standards," serve as the foundation for the development of local curricula. While states do not dictate every aspect of what is taught, they establish the broad framework within which schools operate.

The adoption of state learning standards is typically a collaborative process involving input from educators, policymakers, and subject-matter experts. Once adopted, these standards guide the development of instructional materials, assessments, and teacher professional development. Many states also create standardized tests aligned with these standards to measure student achievement and ensure accountability. One of the most significant examples of state-driven curriculum reform is the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. Developed in 2010 by a coalition of state governors and education leaders, the Common Core sought to create a uniform set of academic standards in English language arts and mathematics.

The federal government’s role in shaping public school curricula is more indirect than that of state and local governments. The U.S. Department of Education does not have the authority to dictate curriculum directly, as education is primarily a state and local responsibility under the U.S. Constitution. However, the federal government exerts influence over curriculum decisions through funding, legislation, and policy initiatives.

Federal education policies, such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, have emphasized standardized testing and accountability, indirectly shaping the content taught in schools. Under these laws, schools must demonstrate adequate yearly progress on standardized tests, which has led many schools to align their curriculum with the material covered on these assessments. As a result, subjects like mathematics and reading often receive more instructional time than social studies, the arts, and physical education. Moreover, federal funding programs, such as Title I funding for schools serving low-income students, come with specific guidelines and accountability measures that impact curriculum choices. In exchange for federal dollars, schools are expected to meet certain academic benchmarks, which can further influence what is taught in classrooms.

While policymakers set the standards and guidelines for public school curricula, teachers play a crucial role in implementing these standards in the classroom. Teachers often have the discretion to adapt lessons to meet the needs of their students, choosing which materials, activities, and pedagogical strategies to use. However, their autonomy can be limited by standardized testing requirements, prescribed textbooks, and the curriculum frameworks established by state and local authorities.

Curriculum developers, including textbook publishers and educational software companies, also play an influential role in determining what is taught in schools. Textbooks are often designed to align with state standards, and the content included in these materials shapes the lessons that teachers deliver. In some states, the selection of textbooks is a highly politicized process, with state boards of education reviewing and approving textbooks for use in public schools.

Public school curricula are also shaped by the involvement of advocacy groups, political organizations, and special interest groups. These groups often lobby school boards, state education departments, and legislators to promote or oppose certain content in the curriculum. For example, organizations promoting science education have advocated for the inclusion of climate change and evolution in science curricula, while conservative groups have pushed for the inclusion of creationism or the restriction of sex education. Interest groups also play a role in influencing textbook content. In states like Texas and California, which are among the largest buyers of textbooks in the U.S., decisions about which textbooks to approve can have a nationwide impact. As textbook publishers seek to sell their materials to large states, they may modify content to align with the preferences of these states' education boards.

At the time of the U.S. Constitution’s creation, the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation vastly different from the one that exists today. Their idea of the United States was a loose confederation of sovereign states, each with its own unique culture, economy, and governance, but bound together by a shared commitment to the success of the nation. These states were intended to operate semi-independently, allowing regional differences to flourish while still contributing to a unified national economy. A central driver of that economic system was slavery, which underscored not only the Southern economy but the very fabric of the United States’ early success on the global stage. This fragmented and decentralized structure also extended to education, where the Founding Fathers set up a system that reflected the needs and ideologies of the 18th century—a system that, as it stands today, no longer fits the realities of modern America.

When the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Founding Fathers designed the framework of a government that balanced power between individual states and a relatively weak federal system. The states were seen as independent entities, each with its own identity, governance, and societal values. The primary concern was maintaining the autonomy of these states, many of which had starkly different economies, social structures, and legal systems.

Southern states, for example, relied heavily on agriculture, with slavery as the bedrock of their economic systems. Northern states, while less dependent on slavery, were more focused on commerce and trade. The Founders envisioned a country where these disparate regions could coexist, each contributing to a broader national economy but retaining control over their internal affairs. This vision was rooted in a sense of pragmatism: the federal government would maintain order, oversee foreign relations, and regulate the economy, but individual states would handle matters like education, governance, and local economies on their own terms.

Slavery played a key role in shaping this vision. Many of the Founding Fathers, even those who publicly opposed slavery, saw it as an institution too entrenched in Southern society to be easily eradicated. They understood that preserving the union of the states required compromise on the issue of slavery, and so they structured the Constitution in a way that allowed it to continue. This gave the Southern states the autonomy to perpetuate a system of human bondage that drove their economic engine while also contributing to the overall economic strength of the young nation.

The Founding Fathers' approach to education mirrored their vision of state sovereignty. In the 18th century, education was largely a local matter, with individual communities, religious institutions, and wealthy families taking responsibility for educating the youth. Formal schooling was rare for most Americans, and higher education was reserved for the elite. At the time of the Constitution, there was no national education system—nor was there a perceived need for one.

Education, where it existed, was designed to reflect local values, religious beliefs, and the economic needs of the community. In the South, education for white children, particularly boys, focused on managing plantations, agriculture, and business, while enslaved people were largely forbidden from learning to read or write. In the North, education was more varied, with greater emphasis on literacy, trade skills, and, for the elite, preparation for roles in government or commerce.

The Founding Fathers did not foresee a unified national educational system because it simply wasn’t necessary for their vision of the United States. They expected that each state or locality would manage education according to its needs, with little to no interference from the federal government. This decentralized approach to education was appropriate for a time when the country was a patchwork of agrarian economies, small towns, and local governance. However, it also laid the groundwork for a system that would become increasingly inadequate as the nation industrialized and grew more interconnected.

The educational framework set up during the Founding Fathers' time no longer aligns with the needs of the United States in the 21st century. As the country has evolved, the vision of independent states operating within a loose confederation has given way to a complex, interconnected economy where the actions of one state directly impact the others. While the U.S. remains a federal republic, the challenges it faces today—globalization, technological innovation, and socioeconomic disparities—require a more cohesive national approach, particularly in education.

In modern America, education is not just a local or state matter. It is a key driver of economic competitiveness, social mobility, and national cohesion. Yet, the decentralized system of education left over from the 18th century has created wide disparities in the quality of education across states and regions. Students in wealthier districts or states often receive better educational opportunities than those in poorer areas, reinforcing cycles of inequality. Local control of education, which made sense in a largely agrarian society, now leads to fractured curricula, where students in different states can receive vastly different understandings of critical issues like American history, science, and civics.

Many contentious issues can highlight the flaws of the decentralized U.S. education system—such as the teaching of science or religion—but none is more deeply connected to America’s foundation than slavery and its lasting impact on race relations. Slavery played a pivotal role in shaping the two dominant political parties, establishing a social hierarchy, laying the groundwork for the capitalist economy, and influencing the structure of government, all of which continue to shape American society today. Despite its fundamental importance in the nation's history, the decentralized nature of curriculum control results in wide disparities in how slavery is taught across the country, often leaving students with incomplete or distorted views of its significance.

One of the most prominent flaws of the decentralized U.S. education system is the vast difference in how critical events in U.S. history are taught from region to region, controlled by local school boards. While decisions about teaching evolution, sex education, and climate change have sparked heated controversies in school board meetings across the country, nowhere is this more evident than in the teaching of slavery and the Civil War, where states and localities—particularly in the South—have long had the power to shape the narrative in ways that reflect regional biases rather than historical fact.

In many Southern states, textbooks and curricula have downplayed the role of slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War, framing the conflict instead as a matter of "states' rights" or economic differences between the North and South. While states' rights were indeed a factor, they were inextricably tied to the defense of slavery. By allowing local school boards to determine how such topics are taught, regions with strong cultural or political attachments to certain interpretations of history can present students with a distorted view of the past. This can perpetuate misconceptions and hinder a deeper understanding of systemic issues that continue to affect American society today, such as racism and inequality.

For example, in Texas, one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the country, school boards have been known to influence the content of history textbooks to present a more "patriotic" view of U.S. history, downplaying or omitting discussions of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and institutional racism. In 2015, there was a controversy in Texas when a high school textbook referred to enslaved Africans as "workers" rather than slaves, a deliberate attempt to soften the brutal reality of slavery. This incident illustrates how local control can lead to historical revisionism that prioritizes political and cultural agendas over the accurate teaching of history.

Beginning just after the Civil War, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) emerged as a prominent organization dedicated to memorializing the Confederate cause and preserving what they referred to as the "Lost Cause" narrative. The Lost Cause narrative was crafted by former Confederates and their descendants to reshape the memory of the war and its causes in a way that absolved the South of guilt and celebrated its legacy. Central to the Lost Cause was the idea that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and Southern honor, rather than the institution of slavery. This mythology depicted Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee as heroic and virtuous, while casting the Union as an aggressive force that unfairly oppressed the South. The UDC played a pivotal role in shaping how the South, the Confederacy, and the Civil War were portrayed in public education, particularly through their efforts to influence the content of textbooks. One of the most powerful ways the UDC promoted this ideology was by lobbying to ensure that history textbooks in Southern schools reflected their interpretation of the Confederacy, portraying it in a favorable light.

From the late 19th century through much of the 20th century, the UDC worked tirelessly to promote their version of history in Southern schools. This included lobbying school boards, state governments, and textbook publishers to ensure that textbooks used in the South presented the Confederacy in a positive light.

They formed textbook review committees that carefully examined history books before they were adopted by Southern school boards. If a textbook portrayed the Confederacy or its leaders in a negative light, or if it emphasized slavery as the cause of the Civil War, the UDC would lobby against its adoption. Textbooks that met their approval were those that aligned with the Lost Cause narrative, downplayed slavery, and highlighted the bravery and honor of Confederate soldiers. These efforts often amounted to historical revisionism, as they sought to sanitize the legacy of slavery and the Civil War. In their ideal version of history, the Confederacy was not fighting to preserve slavery, but rather to defend states' rights and a way of life rooted in Southern values. The organization pushed for textbooks that described enslaved people as "content" with their situation, framing the institution of slavery as benign or even beneficial to both slaves and slaveholders. This revisionist history presented the Civil War as a tragic conflict brought on by Northern aggression, with little to no emphasis on the moral issues surrounding slavery.

The UDC was not shy about using public pressure to achieve their goals. They actively campaigned against textbooks that failed to meet their standards, sometimes going as far as organizing letter-writing campaigns, protests, and petitions to have textbooks removed from schools. Their influence was particularly strong in Southern states where many school boards, composed of community leaders who shared the organization’s views, were sympathetic to their goals. In some cases, when the UDC found existing textbooks unsatisfactory, they took matters into their own hands by writing and publishing their own materials. These textbooks were designed to tell the story of the South and the Confederacy from a Lost Cause perspective, ensuring that Southern children would learn a version of history that aligned with the UDC’s ideals. These texts were often adopted by Southern school boards and used for decades, leaving an indelible mark on how generations of students understood the Civil War and Reconstruction.

The UDC’s influence on textbooks had profound and lasting consequences for how Southern students were taught about the Civil War, slavery, and Reconstruction. By controlling the narrative taught in schools, the UDC helped to create a distorted view of history that erased the realities of slavery and downplayed the Confederacy’s role in perpetuating human bondage.

One of the most significant consequences of the UDC’s textbook lobbying was the erasure of slavery as the central cause of the Civil War. While most historians today agree that slavery was the primary factor leading to the war, many Southern textbooks during the 20th century framed the conflict as a struggle over states' rights, thus diverting attention from the moral implications of slavery and reinforcing the idea that the Confederacy was fighting for a noble cause. The UDC’s efforts also reinforced racial stereotypes and justified the segregationist policies of the Jim Crow era. By portraying slavery as a benevolent institution and depicting African Americans as inferior or content in their role as slaves, the textbooks influenced by the UDC helped perpetuate racist attitudes in Southern society. This revisionist history aligned with the broader social and political context of the South, where white supremacy was maintained through segregation, disenfranchisement, and violence.

Their influence also extended beyond textbooks and into the broader realm of public memory. By controlling how the Civil War was taught to generations of Southern children, the UDC played a key role in shaping Southern identity and regional pride. The Lost Cause narrative they promoted became ingrained in Southern culture, influencing how people in the region viewed their history and their place in the United States. This contributed to a long-lasting sense of regional distinctiveness and resistance to broader narratives that acknowledged the Confederacy’s role in perpetuating slavery and racial inequality.

The UDC’s campaign to influence Southern textbooks had a lasting legacy that continued well into the 20th century. Even as historical scholarship shifted to more accurately reflect the role of slavery in causing the Civil War, many Southern textbooks continued to promote the Lost Cause narrative. It was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and the accompanying push for more accurate representations of history, that the UDC’s influence began to wane. However, the legacy of the UDC’s textbook lobbying can still be seen today. Debates over how to teach American history, particularly regarding slavery, racism, and the Civil War, remain contentious in many parts of the United States, especially in the South. Recent controversies over the inclusion of Critical Race Theory in school curricula echo the earlier struggles over how history is taught and who gets to control the narrative.

A significant flaw in the current education system is the power given to local school boards to determine what is taught in schools. Taking slavery as an example, the consequences of this decentralization become clear. For instance, a school board in Mississippi may be influenced by individuals who grew up during an era shaped by the UDC. This influence could lead to a distorted version of American history being taught, one that downplays the horrors of slavery and frames it in a more favorable light.

The negative impact of such biased teaching is profound, particularly when considering that the student population in many of these schools may be predominantly African American. By sanitizing or misrepresenting the reality of slavery, this kind of curriculum can further marginalize Black students, distorting their understanding of their own history and undermining their sense of identity and belonging. For example, if slavery is framed as a "benevolent institution" or merely a footnote to the Civil War, it can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and minimize the struggles and contributions of African Americans.

This bias doesn't only affect Black students—it also impacts white students. A skewed version of history may reinforce prejudices or promote ignorance, leading to misunderstandings about race, equality, and justice in contemporary society. For instance, white students may not learn about the systemic racial inequalities that slavery helped establish, resulting in a lack of empathy or awareness about ongoing racial disparities. This incomplete education limits students’ ability to critically engage with modern social issues and perpetuates racial divisions.

In both cases, the curriculum shapes students’ perceptions of American history and their place within it. When local school boards are allowed to introduce bias into what should be an honest reckoning with the past, it affects the entire community, deepening racial divides and hindering efforts toward racial reconciliation and equality.

School boards, often composed of elected officials, are subject to the pressures and influences of political and cultural movements within their communities. As a result, the education students receive can be shaped by local political climates, leading to the teaching of content that aligns more with the dominant regional ideologies than with objective, evidence-based facts. In areas where one political ideology prevails, this can skew how history and other subjects are presented.

For example, in the Southern United States, where many school boards may be controlled by conservative or Republican majorities, there is a tendency to promote a version of history that aligns with more traditional or nationalist viewpoints. In the context of slavery, this might mean downplaying the brutal realities of the institution or emphasizing states' rights over the moral and human implications of slavery. Textbooks or curricula could frame the Civil War as primarily about economics or federal overreach, minimizing the centrality of slavery and its lasting effects on race relations.

This political influence can also determine what is left out of the curriculum. The history of resistance to slavery, the contributions of Black Americans, or the long-lasting effects of systemic racism might be omitted or glossed over. In these cases, students, particularly those from marginalized communities, are left with an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate understanding of the nation's past. This type of selective teaching reinforces the dominant ideologies of the region, often to the detriment of historical truth and the broader social good.

In conservative regions of the U.S., topics such as evolution, climate change, and sex education—alongside slavery—have often become politicized. School boards in these areas may omit or downplay these subjects, promoting alternatives like creationism, climate change skepticism, or abstinence-only education instead. These curricular choices are frequently influenced by lobbying from fossil fuel industries and religious organizations, which push for agendas aligned with their interests.

As a result, students in these environments may not receive a comprehensive or scientifically accurate education, leaving them ill-equipped to understand critical global issues or pursue higher education in fields like biology, environmental science, or public health. This limited exposure to key scientific principles and contemporary challenges hinders their ability to engage meaningfully with the world and limits their opportunities for future academic or professional growth.

A clear example of this politicization in education is seen with PragerU, an online platform developed by a fossil fuel billionaire that offers content promoting conservative viewpoints to children. PragerU produces videos and resources that often present controversial or revisionist takes on topics like climate change, racism, and economics, framing them in ways that align with conservative ideologies. For instance, in the case of climate change, PragerU content frequently downplays the severity of human impact on the environment, echoing talking points from the fossil fuel industry, while promoting skepticism toward established scientific consensus. By positioning itself as an educational tool, PragerU provides a curriculum alternative that some conservative school boards have adopted or promoted. However, critics argue that the platform often presents biased, incomplete, or misleading information, which can hinder students' ability to critically engage with these topics. This approach can leave young learners with a distorted understanding of significant issues, such as climate change, that are crucial for addressing pressing global challenges and shaping informed citizens.

In contrast, in regions where progressive ideologies dominate, conservatives or Republicans may argue that the curriculum could also reflect a biased worldview, just as they claim occurs in conservative regions. However, proponents of progressive education emphasize that subjects like history and science form the core of their approach, with a focus on equipping students to think critically and engage with evidence-based reasoning.

Progressive education often aims to present history in a more inclusive and complex manner, highlighting marginalized voices and encouraging students to analyze historical events from multiple perspectives. Instead of adhering to a singular narrative, students are taught to critically examine sources, question accepted interpretations, and draw their own conclusions based on a broad array of evidence. For example, in the study of slavery, a progressive curriculum might delve into the economic, political, and human dimensions of the institution, discussing its long-lasting impacts on race relations and systemic inequality in the U.S.

Science education, too, is a pillar of progressive ideology. Students are not simply asked to accept scientific principles but are encouraged to explore, question, and even challenge them through inquiry-based learning. Science, as a discipline, is inherently about questioning and testing, with the understanding that ideas are meant to be revised or disproven based on new evidence. This approach instills a mindset of skepticism and curiosity, pushing students to engage with scientific concepts as dynamic and evolving, rather than static beliefs to be accepted uncritically.

Ultimately, progressive educators argue that their approach empowers students to think independently, ask difficult questions, and engage with the world in a more informed and thoughtful way. This contrasts with the concerns of some conservatives, who may fear that progressive curricula emphasize social justice or certain political viewpoints at the expense of traditional values. However, at the heart of progressive education is the goal of fostering critical thinking and a deeper understanding of history and science—both of which are seen as essential for navigating an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

What this leads to are two contrasting approaches to education. In some parts of the country, students are taught the foundations of philosophy, reason, logic, math, science, and history in a way that encourages them to critically examine the world around them. This approach challenges students to apply these tools to frame their worldview and to continuously revise it as new evidence emerges. In these regions, the focus is on fostering independent thought, encouraging inquiry, and promoting a willingness to question and evolve their understanding of complex issues.

On the other hand, there are portions of the country where education leans heavily on faith-based instruction, teaching students to follow religious doctrines without question, to be skeptical of science, and to reject new evidence that contradicts their established beliefs. In this model, students may be discouraged from engaging in critical thinking or questioning their worldview, leaving them less equipped to adapt to new information or perspectives. This creates a significant divide in the way young people are prepared to engage with an increasingly complex and changing world, with some being empowered to think critically and others being taught to hold fast to inherited beliefs, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

This contrast in educational approaches contributes significantly to the polarization of society. When some students are taught to embrace critical thinking, question assumptions, and adapt their worldview based on new evidence, while others are encouraged to follow established beliefs without scrutiny, it creates two very different ways of engaging with the world. These divergent educational experiences shape how individuals process information, respond to societal challenges, and interact with those who hold opposing views.

As a result, individuals educated in environments that promote inquiry and scientific reasoning may struggle to communicate with those taught to reject or distrust new evidence and uphold tradition above all else. This divide not only fosters misunderstanding and mistrust but also exacerbates the cultural and political divisions in the country. On issues ranging from climate change to public health to social justice, these polarized approaches to education can lead to vastly different interpretations of facts and realities, making it increasingly difficult to find common ground or engage in productive dialogue. For example, the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent national reckoning with racial injustice highlighted how these educational divides shape public responses. In schools that emphasize critical thinking, history, and social justice, students are more likely to engage with the systemic roots of racism, understanding events like Floyd’s death within the broader context of police brutality, institutional discrimination, and the long legacy of racial inequality in America. These students are taught to examine the evidence, question societal structures, and seek solutions based on justice and reform. Students and adults in these areas were more likely to protest police brutality, partake in important conversations about race relations in America, and push for police reform, voting for policies that defunded police militarization and promoted more funding to police training.

Conversely, in regions where education is grounded in tradition, faith, or a resistance to challenging established beliefs, students may be taught to view such events through a lens that minimizes systemic racism or rejects the need for social change. They may be encouraged to see Floyd’s death as an isolated incident or to uphold the status quo by focusing on narratives that defend law enforcement and traditional values. This approach often dismisses or downplays evidence of widespread racial injustice, framing calls for change as politically or culturally motivated rather than fact-based. Students and adults in these areas were more likely to blame George Floyd for not following police commands, defend police behavior, protest against people pushing for police reform or defunding police militarization.

As a result, these differing educational experiences create two very distinct worldviews in both students and adults who have been exposed to the education system. Those who have been encouraged to critically examine history and engage with new evidence may see Floyd’s death as a catalyst for addressing deeper racial problems, while others may view the protests and demands for change as unjustified or radical. This divide not only fuels misunderstanding and mistrust but also deepens political and social polarization. It becomes increasingly difficult for these groups to find common ground, as their differing education has shaped how they interpret the facts, understand racial issues, and respond to calls for reform. This polarization further stifles meaningful dialogue and impedes the nation’s ability to move toward greater equality and justice.

What this educational divide ultimately led to, in the case of George Floyd’s death and the subsequent racial justice movement, was violence. The differing interpretations of the event and the broader issue of race relations fueled intense and often heated reactions. Those who were taught to critically examine systemic issues, supported by historical evidence, saw Floyd’s death as a clear manifestation of entrenched racial injustice and were more likely to support or participate in protests calling for police reform and racial equity. In many cases, these protests were peaceful, driven by a desire for justice and systemic change.

However, in other regions, where education may have emphasized adherence to tradition or skepticism of progressive ideas, Floyd’s death was framed differently. In these communities, the calls for racial justice were often viewed with suspicion or hostility, and narratives about protecting law and order took precedence. Some saw the protests as an attack on the police or a threat to societal stability, leading to counterprotests and clashes between opposing groups.

As tensions escalated, peaceful protests in some areas gave way to violence, whether through clashes with law enforcement, looting, or confrontations between demonstrators and counter-protesters. The deeply polarized responses, shaped by these educational differences, contributed to this violence by fueling misunderstanding, anger, and an inability to communicate or find common ground. This violence was not only physical but also ideological, as the nation became more deeply divided over how to interpret and address the issues of race and justice.

This educational divide also shaped how people interpreted the roles of police and protesters during the George Floyd protests, further fueling violence. In regions where race relations were embraced and students were taught to critically examine history and understand the complex relationship between racism and policing in America, many saw the police as the aggressors. These individuals were more likely to recognize that the roots of racial injustice, including police brutality, stretched back generations. Their education equipped them to understand how law enforcement has historically been used as a tool to maintain racial hierarchies, and as a result, they viewed the protests as a justified response to systemic oppression. In their eyes, the actions of the police during protests, such as the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and aggressive crowd control tactics, reinforced the very issues of racial injustice they were protesting.

In contrast, individuals from conservative regions, where education often emphasizes respect for tradition, law, and order, tended to view the situation through a different lens. In these areas, students were more likely to be taught to uphold the status quo, with less focus on the historical complexities of race relations and policing. As a result, many saw the protesters as the aggressors, focusing on instances of property destruction, looting, or clashes with law enforcement. From this perspective, the police were viewed as defenders of public safety and order, while protesters—especially those seen as "violent"—were perceived as destabilizing forces threatening community security.

This difference in perception, rooted in educational backgrounds, contributed to the polarization and violence. For those who understood the protests as a reaction to longstanding racial injustices, the actions of law enforcement were seen as perpetuating the very oppression they sought to dismantle. On the other side, those who focused primarily on the damage caused during protests saw the need for a forceful police response to protect property and uphold order. This fundamental divide made it nearly impossible for the two sides to find common ground, with each viewing the other as responsible for escalating the violence.

The truth is more nuanced, and both perspectives on the George Floyd protests, while containing elements of validity, need critical examination. On one side, it's undeniable that a portion of the protests resulted in significant property damage, with estimates ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion, making it one of the costliest instances of civil unrest in U.S. history​. This destruction, including looting and arson, affected many communities—some of them predominantly minority-owned—resulting in considerable economic damage and hardship for small businesses and neighborhoods.

However, focusing solely on the damage obscures the deeper, more systemic issue that fueled the protests in the first place: the long history of racial injustice in the United States. The U.S. government and its Constitution were, in part, designed around slavery, creating an economic system that exploited and oppressed Black people for the benefit of white landowners. This history of racial exploitation is not confined to the past—it evolved into modern forms of institutional racism, with American policing playing a pivotal role.

The roots of policing in America can be traced back to slave patrols, designed to capture runaway slaves and maintain the racial order. Over the years, this system morphed into one that disproportionately targets Black men and women. Statistics back this up: Black Americans are more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts, particularly when unarmed. According to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Black men in the U.S. are about 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police during their lifetime. Furthermore, data from the U.S. criminal justice system highlights the stark racial disparities in incarceration rates, with Black Americans being incarcerated at more than five times the rate of white Americans​.

Beyond policing, institutional racism permeates other systems in American society, from housing to employment to healthcare. These statistics and historical realities lend credence to the protestors' demand for systemic change. The protests were not simply about one tragic incident but rather the cumulative effect of centuries of racial violence and oppression that continue to impact Black Americans today.

Thus, while the property damage caused by some protesters cannot be ignored, it is crucial to recognize that the deeper truth lies in understanding the roots of these protests: a demand for justice in the face of systemic racism that has historically used law enforcement as a tool for control and oppression. Ignoring this context risks further marginalizing the communities most affected by these issues.

A federal education system would equip students with a more comprehensive and unified understanding of the complex history of race relations in the United States by establishing national standards that prioritize critical thinking, historical accuracy, and inclusivity. This approach would ensure that all students, regardless of geographic location, receive the same foundational knowledge about issues like slavery, institutional racism, and their impact on modern society, rather than leaving such important topics subject to the discretion of local school boards that may vary widely in their ideological stances.

A federal education system would standardize the teaching of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and modern racial issues, ensuring that students across the country learn about these topics from a fact-based, evidence-driven perspective. This curriculum could highlight how the institution of slavery shaped America’s economic and political foundations, while also examining the ways that policing evolved from slave patrols to present-day law enforcement. Students would be taught to critically engage with historical evidence, data on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and the ongoing struggles for racial justice, such as those brought to the forefront by the Black Lives Matter movement.

Under a federal system, students would be taught to question and analyze the information presented to them, rather than passively accepting biased or incomplete narratives. This would include examining primary sources, understanding statistics related to systemic racism, and engaging with multiple perspectives on historical events. For example, students might study data on police violence and incarceration rates, exploring how these patterns reflect historical inequalities.

A federal education system would incorporate more diverse voices into the narrative of American history. This could involve teaching about the contributions and experiences of African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and other marginalized groups whose stories are often minimized or omitted in local curriculums. By fostering a more complete and honest view of history, students would gain a deeper understanding of how institutional racism has shaped many aspects of modern life, from housing and education to healthcare and employment.

A federal curriculum could extend beyond historical events, integrating current issues like the racial wealth gap, voter suppression, and the disproportionate impact of policing on communities of color. By connecting past injustices to present-day challenges, students would be better prepared to engage with social justice movements and policy debates.

A key goal of a federal education system would be to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary for responsible citizenship. Understanding the historical roots of institutional racism and its ongoing effects would empower students to participate in civic discussions and advocate for more equitable policies. They would be taught to apply logic, reason, and evidence in addressing issues of social justice, developing the critical thinking skills necessary for active participation in democracy.

There is a clear reason why many conservatives and Republicans oppose a federal education system and instead advocate for localized control over education: it aligns with their ideological goals and political interests. By keeping education decisions at the state and local level, they are able to influence what is taught in schools, shaping curricula to reflect the values and perspectives of their constituencies. This local control allows for the promotion of conservative views on subjects like history, science, and social issues, ensuring that education aligns with their broader political agendas.

Many conservatives believe that a federal education system would impose uniform standards that could undermine local traditions, cultural values, and religious beliefs. In conservative regions, local control allows schools to reflect community values, such as incorporating faith-based teachings, promoting abstinence-only sex education, or presenting alternative views on subjects like evolution and climate change backed by science. A federal system, on the other hand, could enforce secular, progressive curricula that challenge these local norms.

A centralized, federal system would likely promote teaching about topics like systemic racism, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and climate change in ways that conservatives may find objectionable. For instance, a standardized curriculum on race might emphasize the legacy of slavery and institutional racism, topics that some conservatives believe are overemphasized or presented with a bias toward social justice narratives. By keeping education localized, conservatives can ensure that these issues are taught in a way that aligns with their worldview, or, in some cases, downplayed or omitted altogether.

Local control allows conservative-leaning school boards to directly shape what students learn, and in many cases, these boards are influenced by political groups or think tanks with conservative agendas. For example, organizations like PragerU or the Heritage Foundation have pushed for their materials to be used in schools, promoting conservative interpretations of history, economics, and science. A federal education system would likely limit this kind of direct ideological influence over curricula.

Conservatives often argue that a federal education system would lead to government overreach, reducing the autonomy of states and local governments. This resistance to federal oversight is consistent with broader conservative principles that prioritize limited government and states' rights. Many conservatives view federal involvement in education as an intrusion into an area that should be governed at the local level, where parents and communities have more direct control.

By maintaining control over education at the local level, conservatives can shape the ideological development of future voters. Curriculum choices, especially those concerning history, civics, and economics, influence how young people understand government, society, and their own roles as citizens. In many conservative regions, educational content emphasizes patriotism, free-market capitalism, and traditional social values, which helps cultivate a conservative worldview in students. A federal system, which could introduce more progressive perspectives, might weaken this ideological stronghold.

Ultimately, conservatives and Republicans see localized education as beneficial because it allows them to protect and promote their values, limit federal government involvement, and maintain political influence over future generations. By resisting a centralized federal education system, they can continue to ensure that education in conservative regions aligns with their broader cultural and political goals.

While the United States has a decentralized approach to deciding public school curricula, the situation is different in many other Western countries. In most cases, public education systems in other parts of the world are more centralized, with national or regional governments playing a stronger role in determining what students learn.

Finland is often praised as a model for public education, consistently ranking near the top in international comparisons, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In Finland, the national government plays a central role in setting the curriculum, but the system is also characterized by a high degree of trust in teachers and schools.

The Finnish National Agency for Education establishes the National Core Curriculum, which sets broad objectives and competencies for each subject area at different stages of education. However, while the framework provides guidance, individual schools and teachers have significant freedom to design and implement their own curricula based on these guidelines. This allows for flexibility, creativity, and adaptation to local needs, while ensuring that students across the country meet a set of common learning goals.

A key feature of the Finnish system is the high level of trust placed in teachers. Finnish teachers are highly trained, often holding master’s degrees, and they are granted substantial autonomy in the classroom. Unlike in the U.S., where standardized testing often drives instruction, Finland has minimal standardized testing, and teachers are trusted to assess students’ progress and needs. The result is a more student-centered approach that emphasizes critical thinking, problem-solving, and well-being rather than rote memorization.

In contrast to the decentralized system in the U.S., France’s education system is highly centralized, with the Ministry of National Education playing a dominant role in setting the curriculum for all public schools. The French government establishes a national curriculum, known as the programme, which specifies in detail what students should learn at each grade level in every subject.

The programme is uniform across the country, ensuring that all students, regardless of region, receive the same education. This includes everything from the subjects taught to the textbooks used. Teachers in France are required to follow the national curriculum closely, with limited autonomy to deviate from the prescribed content. This centralization aims to promote equality and uniformity in education, ensuring that all students have access to the same knowledge and skills.

French students also face rigorous national examinations, such as the baccalauréat (or bac), which serves as both a graduation exam and a gateway to higher education. These exams are aligned with the national curriculum, further reinforcing the standardization of education across the country.

While France’s centralized system ensures uniformity, it has also faced criticism for being too rigid and not sufficiently responsive to local or individual student needs. There is less room for innovation or adaptation to specific contexts, compared to systems like Finland’s, where local autonomy is more prominent.

Germany’s education system shares some similarities with the U.S. in that it is federally structured, with education being primarily the responsibility of individual states. However, unlike the highly localized decision-making found in U.S. school districts, Germany’s states have more centralized control over their own education systems.

Each of Germany’s 16 states develops its own curriculum, which means there can be variations in what is taught from state to state. However, to ensure some degree of standardization, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs works to coordinate education policy across the country. This body sets certain national standards and guidelines, particularly regarding core subjects and qualifications, which the individual states must follow.

Despite this coordination, German education is marked by a high degree of diversity, with different states adopting different approaches to schooling. In some states, students are tracked into different educational paths early on, such as vocational training or academic tracks, based on their abilities and interests. The curriculum in these tracks can differ significantly, emphasizing either more practical skills or more academic subjects, depending on the student's path.

Germany also has a strong system of apprenticeships, where students can combine education with practical training in industries. This vocational track is well-established and widely respected, providing an alternative to traditional academic education. Overall, Germany’s education system strikes a balance between state-level autonomy and national coordination, with a greater emphasis on vocational education compared to countries like the U.S.

The education system in the United Kingdom varies by region, with England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each having its own education policies and curricula. The level of centralization also varies across these regions, but England’s system provides a good example of how curriculum decisions are made in a more centralized manner.

In England, the national government plays a significant role in setting the curriculum. The Department for Education establishes the National Curriculum, which outlines the subjects to be taught in public schools, the content of each subject, and the assessment criteria. The National Curriculum is mandatory for all state-funded schools, though academies and free schools, which are publicly funded but operate independently, have more flexibility to deviate from the national guidelines.

In contrast, Scotland’s education system is more decentralized, with its own Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) designed to provide flexibility for teachers and schools while setting national goals for student outcomes. The CfE emphasizes skills development, critical thinking, and interdisciplinary learning, similar to Finland’s approach.

In the UK, as in France, standardized exams play a significant role in shaping the curriculum. Students in England take the General Certificate of Secondary Education exams and later, the A-levels, which heavily influence the content taught in secondary schools. Teachers are often guided by exam specifications, leading to some concerns about teaching to the test, similar to issues seen in the U.S.

The United States urgently needs to catch up with the rest of the world with a centralized federal education system to provide all students with a consistent, fact-based curriculum that fosters critical thinking, logic, and open-mindedness. By curbing the influence of lobbying groups, such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the fossil fuel industry, we can safeguard against biased or revisionist narratives that distort both history and science. This would also reduce the ability of local elected officials to exert disproportionate control over curricula, ensuring that education reflects evidence-based learning rather than partisan agendas. A federal system would empower students with the skills to engage in thoughtful dialogue, challenge preconceived ideas, and adapt their perspectives in light of new evidence. Ultimately, this approach would help cultivate a more informed, united society capable of addressing the complex challenges of the future and reduce the political polarization that increasingly threatens America's stability and progress.