Critical race theory, books, and ChatGPT: Moving from a ban culture in education to a culture of restoration

Any person in tune with the national landscape of education is vastly aware of the plethora of proposed–and in some cases passed–state legislated school bans that restrict what students learn and how they are taught in public schools. Such legislation has focused on banning curriculum deemed divisive, teaching socio-emotional learning, teaching about gender and sexuality, using students’ “preferred” pronouns, restricting diversity training for educators, and removing “controversial” books from school libraries. The resurgence of the cultural wars (Hartman, 2019) taking root in education has significant implications for schools, educators, and students (Natanson et al., 2022; Ravitch, 2002; Zimmerman, 2022). For example, in a study of 682 principals, Rogers et al. (2022) found that:

More than two-thirds (69%) of principals surveyed reported substantial political conflict over hot button issues. In many schools, parents or community members have sought to limit or challenge: Teaching about issues of race and racism (50%); Policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ student rights (48%); Student access to books in the school library (33%); or Social Emotional Learning (39%) (p. ix).

Furthermore, in the past 3 years alone, there have been at least 282 proposed laws across 42 states and 64 passed laws across 25 states that have shifted what educators can teach and do in schools (Natanson et al., 2022). Several of these laws come in the form of bans and restrictions on what can happen in schools and the subsequent consequences for educators that do not abide by them.

Although such bans impact all students and educators in public schools, these bans disproportionately impact students of color and LGBTQ+ students through legislation that inherently erases aspects of their identity, experiences, and cultural history, while also eliminating professional development for educators focused on creating more affirming spaces. For example, Pollack et al. (2022) found that 894 school districts, representing 35% of all students enrolled in K-12 public schools across the United States, were impacted by national, state, or local campaigns to “to block or restrict proactive teaching and professional development related to race, racism, bias, and many aspects of proactive diversity/equity/inclusion efforts in schools” (p. vii). At the time of writing this editorial, one such newly proposed bill is Florida Senate Bill 1320 filed March 3^rd that prohibits requiring educators or students from using pronouns or personal titles that do not correspond with a person’s sex assigned at birth.

While the bans largely connected to identity and equity might be the first to come to mind, the discourse around and implementation of educational bans is expansive. Another national conversation within the realm of education is around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered chatbots such as ChatGPT in schools. In fact, several school districts, including the two largest in the country, New York City Public Schools and Los Angeles Unified School District, swiftly moved to ban ChatGPT in schools (Schwartz, 2023). These bans were enacted based on concerns around students using the chatbot to cheat or plagiarize, students’ access to inaccurate and biased information generated by the chatbot, and the potential of the tool to stifle the development of students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. However, similar to the education bans fueled by the culture wars, the bans on AI chatbots in schools are also polarizing in nature. Several critics declared that schools drastically moved to ban ChatGPT even before devoting significant time to evaluating potential merits. These critics argued that a ban on such technologies is shortsighted because AI is a technology of the present and future and therefore educators should embrace and teach students to use it in appropriate ways (Lipman & Distler, 2023). Other advocates have highlighted the potential to use ChatGPT and other AI tools to create an engaging curriculum, to support differentiated instruction, and promote creativity (Duckworth & Ungar, 2023; Roose, 2023; Shields, 2023).

The education bans associated with identities and cultures that come in the form of book bans and the outlawing of teaching divisive topics are different from the bans on AI; however, there are some shared grounding ideologies and implications for teaching and learning that are particularly important for middle-level educators. Education has always been political, and therefore we need to keep a keen eye on how new legislation and school policies come to be and their consequences for students and educators. In the case of these new policies, it is evident that they are not grounded in research-based understandings of youth and that they limit teachers’ autonomy, and undermine the role of education in creating a more equitable and just society.

For example, the Florida Senate Bill 1320 that was discussed earlier also bans teaching about gender and sexual orientation until grade 9. What we know as middle-level educators is that discovery of sexual orientation and attraction occurs during the middle school years. We also know through research that while gender identity starts to form before students enter middle school, student’s understanding of gender identity is of great importance to young adolescents, along with their expression of it. Relatedly, for transgender youth, middle school can be a very challenging time as their bodies enter puberty and start to physiologically change. Emphatically, what any middle-level educator understands is that relationships and self-discovery will occur in middle school regardless of any legislative bans. However, what bans such as Florida Senate Bill 1320 will do is legally disempower educators from supporting students to make meaning of what they are experiencing and guiding them in making healthy and safe decisions. In addition, the inherent message of such bans demonstrates a distrust of educators’ professionalism and expertise in doing what is right for students and educating students in developmentally appropriate and culturally responsive ways. To this end, it weakens the emancipatory potential of education.

When we think critically about the ban on ChatGPT and other chatbot tools, we have to question the swift move to lean into banning the tool versus leaning into the potential that it might have in creating more personalized and relevant learning opportunities. While the fear of cheating and the concern of receiving inaccurate information from chatbot generated tools is important to take into consideration, cheating and students’ access to bias sources are not new concepts within education and thus teachers have developed skills to respond to such realities.

Instead of banning technology from school, we could also lean into entrusting that teachers are equipped with the skills to modify assessments where programs like ChatGPT could not be readily used to complete assignments. In addition, we could entrust educators to teach middle schoolers about the limitations of such technology and the concept of bias and verifying credible sources.

Furthermore, there is another important concern around access that has not been taken up as much within public discourse that needs to be considered. While schools might ban technologies at school, they cannot mandate such bans at home. Therefore, inherently banning tools like ChatGPT within school creates an opportunity gap to who has access to such innovative technologies. Because we live within a stratified society, schools have often served as a great equalizer where students receive resources that they unfortunately might not have access to at home. Schools have made great strides in this area, especially during the COVID pandemic, by providing 1:1 technology and even Wi-Fi access to students out of school. However, we must question what the resulting consequences are when schools take part in creating policies that ban certain students’ access to developing the skills necessary to engage with the innovative technologies of the present and future.

In its most liberating form, education has served and continues to serve as a space for supporting critical thinking, student access and opportunity, students’ understanding of self and the world around them, the development of cultural competency, and student wellness. Contrary to attempts to legislate these things out of schools, this is indeed the work of education, in addition to developing students’ deep understandings of content knowledge. This is particularly the case within the field of middle-level education as highlighted in the 5 essential attributes and 18 characteristics of a successful middle school (Bishop & Harrison, 2021).

An education system that responds to changes in society by enforcing bans does not reflect the democratic ideals around freedom of expression, thoughts, and justice that we proclaim to value within this country. We, the editors of Middle School Journal, argue that instead of focusing on bans, we move to a focus on restoration. In discussing a restorative approach to education, DePaoli et al. (2021) shared:

While the current moment is wrought with crises and difficult reflections, it also presents significant opportunities for schools to reimagine and redesign their structures and practices to pave a more equitable path forward. Redesigning schools so that they are restorative spaces—environments where young people are known, nurtured, and healed—is a key way that schools can embody more equitable approaches to meet students’ immediate and long-term needs (p. 2).

The focus on a restorative approach must also include those who teach within schools, the resources that are provided in schools, and the curriculum that is taught in schools. We must restore respect and trust for educators, restore access to books, and restore accurate accounts of history. When we entrust educators, we expand pathways to creating a more enriched, responsive, and equitable learning experience for students. When we restore access to books, we affirm students, while also exposing them to diverse stories, perspectives, and ways of knowing and being. Lastly, when we develop a curriculum grounded in truthful accounts of historical events in society, we empower students to not repeat the egregious events of the past and rather tap into what is best in humanity as they become the change agents of the future.