Teaching the Bible Badly

Ryan Walters may have finally arrived at his "Have you no sense of decency" moment over his Bible directive, with several superintendents stating that there will be no classroom Bible instruction in their district in widespread pushback. (Walters, for his part, has offered no argument other than Eric Cartmanesque declarations that schools "will comply" or else.)

It seems entirely probable that it will all end up in court where, unfortunately, it's at least even odds that the court will decide that to scratch the rule would infringe on Ryan Walters' First Amendment Free Exercise rights (I'm only sort of kidding). 

But in the meantime, it's worth noticing just how bad the OSDE guidelines for teaching the Bible are, not just from a Violating The First Amendment standpoint, but from a Being a Fan of Holy Scripture standpoint as well as an Actual Education standpoint.

You can find a copy of the guidelines here.

The guidelines kick off with more chest thumping about how the "superintendent's directive" is absolutely "mandatory for the holistic education of students." The directive includes providing a copy of the guidelines and a physical copy of the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Ten Commandments (but no indication that the state will be helping pay for all that). Also no discussion of adding a unit about how Republicans were once the party of small government and local control. 

Then the guidelines offer some helpful tips on how to incorporate the Scriptures into lessons.

Influence on Western Civilization. The Bible, says Walters, has been a "key cornerstone" in the development of Western thought, "influencing legal systems, ethical frameworks, and cultural norms" along "the concepts of justice, human rights, and the rule of law."  While the Bible has a slice of involvement, this also points to one of the odd contradictions in Walters' decree and the whole classical education movement.  

Because the roots of classical Western civilization are in ancient Greece and Rome and the great thinkers like Aristotle and Socrates-- all well before Jesus ever set foot on the planet. In fact, if we want to talk about Western civilization and the Bible, we should talk about how Paul clearly has taken pieces of his Greek education and grafted them onto the work of Jesus. Like many conservative christianists, Walters sems way more attached to the Old Testament than the new one.

As for the notion that it was the Bible that laid the foundation for ideas such as the rule of law, that's just silly. Many, many civilizations planted these ideas without any help from the Bible at all. It would make far more religious sense to suppose that God somehow worked a similar message through many channels, but that's the other thing about Walters' policy and others like it-- it's not nearly as expressive of devotion to God as it is a fetishizing of the Bible. 

Impact on American History. In much of American history, leaders have quoted and alluded to the Bible. Also, Shakespeare, pop music lyrics, and racist literature. The attempt to prioritize the Bible is weak sauce. I can, however, imagine an interesting unit studying paces where the Bible is NOT quoted or mentioned (like, say, the Constitution).

But where Walters really gets in the weeds with the topic of Literary Significance.

Canonical Literature. Yes, the Bible gets quoted and alluded to a bunch. Fine. Probably already done in plenty of English classes. Not sure how to just drop this into First Grade spelling or a phys ed class.

Literary Techniques. This is where things really head into the weeds. 

The Bible uses numerous and various literary techniques, including allegory, metaphor, and parable. Teachers can use biblical texts to illustrate these techniques, enhancing students’ literary analysis skills. This approach allows students to appreciate the Bible’s literary craftsmanship without delving into religious doctrine,

First, this depends a great deal on the translation being used. 

But more to the point, this invites students to treat the Bible as if it were just a work of literature, a piece of writing that some human just made up. If you were raised to believe that the Bible is the actual Word of God, divinely inspired, ten what exactly are we doing here? Critiquing the Almighty's writing skills? Suggesting that the Word of God belongs on a shelf next to Huckleberry Finn and Rome and Juliet and other works of fiction? And how exactly does one consider literary craftsmanship without considering the purpose for which it was crafted--and again--who is the teacher supposed to say did the crafting? 

Artistic and Musical Influences. Maybe you could trot out some pieces of art and music that are about Bible things?

Walters offers some "implementation strategies" which are, again, in the weeds. Do some textual analysis, in which you "analyze biblical texts as they would any other historical or literary document." Yes, I'm sure devoutly Christian parents will be happy to have their children taught that the Bible is a book just like any other book.

Or maybe compare the Bible to other works, like, say, Greek myths. Because, again, families of faith will really dig the idea of treating the Bible like it's a work of mythology. Walters also endorses encouraging "critical thinking" and respectful dialog, which is a great thing that he should consider modeling in his work as education dudebro-in-chief.

There are also grade-specific guidelines which are pretty vague but which definitely double down on the whole "treat the Bible like it's a storybook or a myth" aspect, which one could fully expect to clash horribly with families who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. 

Walters has come up with an edict sure to make absolutely nobody happy except for christianist nationalist policy pushers, who will not have to deal with how this plays out on the ground. It's a policy that violates the First Amendment not just because it puts one religious text in the public classroom, but because it will inevitably require classroom teachers to explicitly or implicitly answer the question, "So, is this stuff real or not?" 

Here's hoping that the courts do everyone a favor and strike down this unconstitutional policy edict