In the fall of 2023, when the Minnesota Council of Teachers of English (MCTE) board met to set priorities for the upcoming academic year, Pen America had released a report, Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression and Students’ First Amendment Rights, which detailed its first comprehensive count of banned books. The report identified “alarming trends” with 1586 individual books banned and described the lack of processes in which these bans were carried out as “disturbing” (Friedman and Johnson). The American Library Association recorded the highest number of book bans since they started tracking data over 20 years ago, a trend echoed in state news headlines. A Minnesota Public Radio News story that fall, for example, reported that in Bloomington, hundreds of residents attended board meetings to discuss potential book bans, particularly targeting “sexually explicit” books, many of which feature LGTBQIA+ characters or scenes (Shockman). Minnesota newspapers, such as the Star Tribune, covered several book challenges throughout 2022, including a high-profile case in Edina that had been ongoing for years over “identity politics” in schools (Kersten) and “political indoctrination” by teachers (Otárola).
In this climate, members of the board recognized that such acts of censorship were part of a broader trend toward deprofessionalization of teachers and the field of education as a whole and prioritized providing support for teachers to navigate these challenges. Although MCTE has consistently provided support to its members on issues of censorship throughout its history, members of the board sought to place an even greater emphasis on this priority by forming an advocacy committee. The committee’s charge was to facilitate advocacy work and initiatives to disseminate information and serve as a resource to offer support and guidance to its members.
As the advocacy committee began meeting and planning, we quickly realized that our task was more complex than sharing web resources from our parent organization, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). While book challenges were making news headlines in Minnesota, our conversations with colleagues across the state revealed “quieter” forms of censorship and actions limiting curricular and pedagogical input—issues that were seldom covered in the news or made public in school board meeting minutes. Additionally, the distinction between censorship and professional guidelines can, at times, seem blurry, making it challenging to identify acts beyond direct censorship as a challenge to intellectual freedom. While censorship seeks to prohibit specific curricula or pedagogical methods, professional guidelines emphasize processes to determine curriculum and pedagogy. Minnesota statutes, for example, require K-12 educators to address curriculum through a district-approved process, and state law mandates alignment to established learning standards and benchmarks. Some schools adhere to pedagogical models, such as project-based or experiential learning, that naturally limit teacher autonomy. These considerations are reinforced by NCTE’s position statement “The Students’ Right to Read,” which articulates “professional guidelines” on teachers’ use of texts. However, when professional educators are not situated as the primary experts in curriculum and pedagogical decisions, these guidelines risk being misused and transformed into censorship—a critical issue highlighted in Pen America’s report (Friedman and Johnson).
To effectively support Minnesota educators during this pivotal time in our organization’s history, we recognized the need to first gain a deeper understanding of educators’ specific experiences with these issues. We decided the most efficient way to gather a large amount of possibly sensitive data would be to develop and share an anonymous exploratory survey that could be distributed through our member email listserv, and via QR code link at tables at our spring conference. We agreed that it was essential for our survey to go beyond issues of book censorship, exploring the interconnected ways administrative policies, engagement from the community, and the decisions of educators impact the texts, curriculum, and pedagogical practices that are or are not aligned with NCTE positions on intellectual freedom.
Survey Design
To ensure that we captured perceptions, trends, and specific experiences of Minnesota teachers, we chose a mixed methods survey approach using primarily Likert-scale and dichotomous questions followed by opportunities for participants to comment on their numerical responses. The survey was designed by Danielle, the lead author who was serving as MCTE’s Intellectual Freedom Chair at the time, with input from second author Lisa, who is the current Intellectual Freedom Chair and heads the advocacy committee, and two other members of the MCTE advocacy committee, Rachel Malchow Lloyd, a teacher educator at Augsburg University in Minneapolis; and Zach Brandt, an English teacher at Worthington High School.
Survey questions were designed based on the language in NCTE intellectual freedom position statements, including “Statement on Academic Freedom,” “The Students’ Right to Read,” and the “Statement Regarding Rating or ‘Red-flagging’ Books.” When the survey was developed, many of the challenges and bans in schools across the nation centered on books authored by or highlighting the voices of BIPOC and/or LGTBQIA+ people (Friedman and Johnson). For this reason, we also crafted questions around NCTE’s “Statement on Anti-racism to Support Teaching and Learning” and “Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy.” Definitions of other forms of censorship were drawn from David and Consalvo’s article addressing threats to intellectual freedom in Texas as David is one of the leaders of NCTE’s Standing Committee Against Censorship (see Table 1). Once the survey questions were developed, the Advocacy Committee and then-President of MCTE, Burke Scarbrough, provided feedback.
The resulting survey included six multiple-choice demographic questions, eight Likert-scale questions on a range of 1-5 from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and several multiple-choice questions regarding censorship and professional development that supports effective teaching of diverse literature. Additionally, there were 11 open written response questions prompting specific personal experiences that related to quantitative survey questions. Open-response questions were optional, and therefore not all respondents provided written data.
The committee presented the initial survey design to the full MCTE board for further discussion and wordsmithing, and it was launched in February 2024 and ran through July 2024.
| Table 1 NCTE position statement alignment and key terminology | ||
| Key Term | Definition | Source |
| Academic Freedom | ||
| Intellectual freedom | Freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, of English educators and students when teaching and learning the discipline of English Language Arts (ELA). | NCTE Position Statement on Academic Freedom |
| Teacher autonomy | ELA teachers’ right and responsibility to use professional criteria to select and use teaching methods and materials that meet the learning needs of a diverse student population; teacher participation in and access to pedagogical and instructional decision making that directs what and how they teach. | |
| Book banning | Administrative and/or legislative actions that restrict educators’ use of and students’ access to a text in a public school or library. | |
| Book challenge | A formal contestation to a teacher’s use of, or a school library’s inclusion of, a specific text that follows the existing procedures and/or policies of a school district, or school board. | |
| “Right to Read” and Censorship | ||
| Direct censorship | Restricting students’ access to a text by “removing the text from a library, classroom, or by requiring the school board to vet text selection.” | David & Consalvo |
| Self-censorship | A personal decision to remove texts from the classroom, library or curriculum, or to “restrict student access to texts that may be deemed controversial to avoid retribution from students or their families, colleagues, or administrators” within the past three years. | |
| Red-flagging | An unsupported practice of labeling a book as “dangerous” or “controversial” by using a letter rating, content warning, or other gatekeeping method that restricts students’ access to the book. | NCTE Position Statement Regarding Rating or Red-Flagging Books |
| Affirming Diversity | ||
| Diverse books | Books that are authored by and/or feature experiences of Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), lesbian, gay, transgender, queer (LGBTQIA+), neurodiverse, (dis)abled, etc. individuals, cultures, and communities. | NCTE Statement on Anti-Racism to Support Teaching and Learning |
| Antiracist teaching | Teaching practices, administrative decisions, and teacher preparation efforts that are committed to working toward the eradication of racism, discrimination, and bigotry in educational institutions. | |
| Gender diversity | Understanding that gender is a cultural construct that is not limited to binary categories, and using language that includes all gender identities including boy, girl, woman, man, nonbinary, gender fluid, gender queer, and transgender. | NCTE Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity Through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy |
| Rationale for text selection | A written statement articulating educators’ selection and use of a specific text including student learning goals, alignment to state standards, acknowledgement of difficult subject matter, instructional and pedagogical uses of the text etc. | NCTE Position Statement: The Students’ Right to Read |
Analysis
Fifty-seven respondents completed the full survey, 55 of whom teach English Language Arts (ELA), while two respondents teach both ELA and social studies. Seventy percent (n=40) of the respondents teach grades 9-12, 25% (n=14) teach grades 6-8, and the remainder teach grades K-5 (n=3). Four percent (n=2) of the respondents identified as BIPOC; 18% (n=10) identified as LGTBQIA+, and no one identified as both BIPOC and LGTBQIA+. We asked respondents to specify the region, community size, and type of school where they teach to assess whether intellectual freedom issues differed by location, community size, or school context across our state. The demographics of respondents are presented in Table 2.
| Table 2 Regional, community, and school contexts of respondents | ||
| Profile of respondents by regiona | ||
| % of Total respondents | # of respondents | |
| Northwest | 11 | 6 |
| Northeast | 12 | 7 |
| Central | 21 | 12 |
| Metro | 44 | 25 |
| Southwest | 7 | 4 |
| South Central | 1 | 2 |
| Southeast | 4 | 2 |
| Profile of respondents by community sizeb | ||
| % of Total respondents # of respondents | ||
| Urban Area (50,000 people or more) | 35 | 20 |
| Large Town (10,000-49,999 people) | 32 | 18 |
| Small Town (2500-9,999 people) | 9 | 5 |
| Rural (2499 people or fewer) | 25 | 14 |
| Profile of respondents by school type | ||
| % of Total respondents | # of respondents | |
| Traditional Public | 84 | 48 |
| Public Charter | 2 | 1 |
| Private School | 4 | 2 |
| Public Virtual/Online | 4 | 2 |
| Other | 7 | 4c |
| a Respondents were provided the Minnesota Emergency Communications Board (2023) graphic of regional breakdowns b Community size defined by Minnesota State Demographic Center (2017) c 2 identified as public alternative schools; 2 alternative learning centers | ||
To analyze quantitative data, the frequencies and percentage of each response relative to the total respondent population were calculated. Mean and median scores were calculated for Likert-scale responses; but we chose to focus on the range in analysis to better reflect respondents’ diverse experiences. This approach to exploratory research on subjective opinions prevents mischaracterization of ordinal data clustered at the high and low ends of the scales (Norman; Sullivan and Artino). We then examined relationships between responses and demographic data of the respondents. Given the small sample size of the respondents (N=57), statistical significance testing was not merited. Instead, we used cross-tabulation to identify potential patterns based on demographics. Any notable demographic patterns are presented in the findings. Preliminary quantitative analysis was shared with the advocacy committee and with a small group of attendees at the MCTE Spring 2024 Conference. Discussion and questions from the committee members and attendees helped inform analysis directions of the full data set.
After quantitative analysis was complete, we sought to discover if the practices and experiences of Minnesota teachers regarding the issues of intellectual freedom were in accordance with the guidelines articulated by our parent organization, NCTE. The survey generated 184 open response items, eight of which were omitted from analysis due to being vague (i.e., “see above,” and “none”). The remaining 175 responses were analyzed using qualitative analysis methods (Cresswell and Plano Clark; Patton). First, we used open coding of the full data set, comparing incidents across all items generating initial codes. Constant comparison of codes and categories refined the coding scheme by merging and expanding codes to account for all incidents in the data. This process led to the codes of “active school or district censorship policy,” “administrative control,” “partial teacher autonomy,” “full teacher autonomy,” and “practice misaligned with NCTE position.” Each response was assigned one code. Data was then organized by question item and analyzed for frequency. Results of this analysis are presented in Tables 4, 5, and 9. Additionally, we provide examples of participant quotes from written responses to specific questions as illuminative of quantitative analysis findings.
Findings
We present the results across three themes, discussing our results in relation to the NCTE statements used in analysis. The results in theme academic freedom includes data derived from questions shaped by NCTE’s “Statement on Academic Freedom.” The theme affirming diversity presents data from questions formed by NCTE’s “Statement on Anti-racism to Support Teaching and Learning” and “Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy.” The results in the “Right to Read” and censorship theme reflect responses to questions based on NCTE’s “Position Statement Regarding Rating or ‘Red-flagging’ Books” and “The Students’ Right to Read,” as well as definitions of censorship outlined in the article by David and Consalvo.
Academic Freedom
When asked about their ability to participate meaningfully in the curriculum they teach, 81% (n=46) either strongly or somewhat agreed, while 18% (n=10) somewhat or strongly disagreed. Responses were similar regarding participation in pedagogical decisions, with 86% (n=49) expressing strong or moderate agreement and 11% (n=6) indicating strong or moderate disagreement. A higher percentage of urban and large-town respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed about their ability to participate meaningfully in curricular decisions compared to their rural or small-town counterparts (see Table 3); however, this difference was not observed in responses related to pedagogical practices. Although 63% (n=36) of respondents felt that they could express their views without fear of professional retribution, provided those views did not infringe on others’ rights, 30% (n=17) somewhat or strongly disagreed. Agreement was lower with respondents who teach in rural areas, at 43% (n=6). Additionally, both respondents who identified as BIPOC somewhat or strongly disagreed with this statement.
| Table 3 Participation in Curricular Decisions by Community Size | ||||
| Urban Area (50,000+) | Large Town (10,000-49,999) | Small Town (2500-9999) | Rural (2499 or fewer) | |
| Strongly Agree | 50%a (n=10) | 50% (n=9) | 80% (n=4) | 43% (n=6) |
| Somewhat Agree | 30% (n=6) | 22% (n=4) | 20% (n=1) | 43% (n=6) |
| Neither Agree nor Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7% (n=1) |
| Somewhat Disagree | 15% (n=3) | 22% (n=4) | 0 | 7% (n=1) |
| Strongly Disagree | 5% (n=1) | 6% (n=1) | 0 | 0 |
| a refers to % of respondents in community size category, not % of total respondents | ||||
Qualitative data, on the other hand, suggest that teachers may have less academic freedom pertaining to pedagogical and curricular decisions than the quantitative data indicated. Analysis revealed higher numbers for codes of “administrative control” (32%), “partial teacher autonomy” (19%), and lower numbers for “full teacher autonomy” (15%) (see Table 4). This means the majority of written responses provided examples where teachers perceived a lack of autonomy in the classroom. Fifty-seven (32%) responses indicated perceptions of administrative control including the use of scripted curriculum aligned with state reading initiatives, administration fearing community pushback on uses of diverse texts, and LGBTQIA+ identities and issues being silenced by administration (e.g., coexist and pride flags forcibly removed). This finding correlates with quantitative analysis, which revealed a larger percentage of respondents who identify as LGBTQIA+ somewhat or strongly disagreed that they could participate meaningfully in curricular decisions (80%, n=30).
Thirty-three (19%) statements were identified where teachers expressed feeling that they have “partial teacher autonomy,” which included sentiments that although they may be able to choose their texts and pedagogies, they feel some restrictions by curriculum mandates, as well as feeling restricted by “student discomfort with LGTBQIA+ texts,” “age-appropriateness” of texts, or limited resources to include a range of diverse authors. Only 26 (15%) of written responses were coded as “full teacher autonomy,” where patterns exhibited teachers feeling they had full control over what and how they teach, they were able to teach diverse texts regularly, and had administrative support for their teaching choices. They named examples of being allowed to hang a pride flag in their classroom and being able to teach BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ themed literature freely. One question prompted teachers about their experiences with any professional development (PD) on uses of diverse books or other related topics, which we coded as “DEIB PD” or diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging professional development.
| Table 4 Qualitative Analysis of Teacher Autonomy and Academic Freedom | |||
| Code | Frequency | Patterns | Quotes |
| Administrative control | 57 (32%) | Admin fear of pushback Scripted curriculum Read Act Admin personal opinions LGTBQIA+ teacher identities silenced LGTBQIA+ issues silenced DEIB PD somewhat ineffective | Although I have always chosen the books I want to teach–with very little blowback from the community, recently our school district office is pushing toward all choice all the time. They claim that the reason is Penny Kittle’s Book Love; however, I know from behind the scenes that it is largely to do with avoiding book bans. Between state common core standards and a large district that wants everyone on the “same page” for “fidelity”, we are not given much space for adding into or talking about curriculum choices. If I were not an openly queer teacher, I would agree with that statement. We are a very conservative school district, but with a large BIPOC population. There are no issues speaking about race, immigration, or refugees. However, there is a lot of push back from students, parents, and admin when it comes to talking about LGTBQIA+ and gender issues. |
| Partial teacher autonomy | 33 (19%) | Curriculum mandates, but pedagogical autonomy Student discomfort of LGTBQIA+ texts DEIB PD around limited topics Elective courses provide autonomy Censoring due to age appropriateness | We are told which units we need to teach, but we have some discretion in how we teach those units. There is so much available for working with indigenous students, but I would love to see more in regard to teaching literature to students of other races. I have had a student object to a gay author on religious grounds and my colleagues were supportive of my choice of text and we worked with the student to navigate a respectful way to engage with the text for all involved. In response to the sociopolitical landscape I knew our students were experiencing, I proposed and got approved to teach a queer literature course. However, I do not feel as comfortable including those same voices in a non-elective course. I censor books that I think are inappropriate for students to handle emotionally; however, this rarely happens. |
| Full teacher autonomy | 26 (15%) | Teacher 100% autonomy Full admin support in choices Pedagogy provides opportunity for autonomy Openly supportive of LGTBQIA+ identities Teach diverse texts regularly | I have full freedom to teach what content and curriculum I choose for my students in my classroom. I have a Pride flag hanging on my required US flag pole and have not had any questions or comments. YES! If kids select to read BIPOC and LGTBQIA+ books, I am strongly encouraged and financially supported to provide them with those texts. |
Affirming Diversity
Most respondents (79%, n=45) strongly or somewhat agreed that they could express solidarity with people of diverse backgrounds in alignment with NCTE’s “Statement on Antiracist Teaching to Support Teaching and Learning,” with 18% (n=10) somewhat disagreeing. No one strongly disagreed; however, 30% (n=3) of LGTBQIA+ and 50% (n=1) of BIPOC respondents somewhat disagreed that they could express solidarity with diverse people. Slightly more respondents agreed that they could promote cultural diversity in their school/district (79%, n=45).
Results were less aligned with NCTE’s guidelines affirming gender diversity, including LGTBQIA+ identities, in the classroom through texts and discussion. While 61% (n=35) strongly or somewhat agreed they could support gender diversity in the classroom, 26% (n=15) strongly or somewhat disagreed. A higher proportion of respondents in urban areas (85%, n=20) agreed; whereas, 50% (n=14) of teachers in rural areas strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement. When asked whether their school or district provides ongoing professional development to counter racism and other forms of bigotry, slightly more than half (51%, n=29) strongly or somewhat agreed, and 40% (n=23) strongly or somewhat disagreed. Nine percent (n=5) neither agreed nor disagreed.
Qualitative analysis of written responses revealed a small number, 14 (8%), of practices that were misaligned with NCTE position statements and guidelines (see Table 5). Examples of these included reports of self-censorship of texts with diverse authors and themes, labeling LGTBQIA+ literature as “sexually explicit,” the belief that students “can’t handle” the hard conversations that diverse literature brings up, and a lack of money or time as a reason not to include diverse literature in the ELA curriculum. One respondent’s comments on every question directly stated that they “would never” teach LGTBQIA+ themed literature, in direct opposition to NCTE’s “Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity Through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy,” which calls ELA educators to build their readiness and dispositions toward inclusion of a spectrum of gender expression, critically review curriculum and pedagogies for bias/lack of representation/oppression of gender diversity, and prepare to overcome obstacles and fears of the communities they serve. This respondent’s comments showed a strong bias against LGTBQIA+ people and the comments they made were in stark contrast to the rest of the data set.
| Table 5 Qualitative Analysis of Misaligned Practices | |||
| Code | Frequency | Patterns | Quotes |
| Comments signal teacher practices misaligned with NCTE intellectual freedom statements | 14 (8%) | Self-censorship LGTBQIA+ themes labeled “sexually explicit” Students “can’t handle” hard conversations Lack of money or time to include diverse texts | Most teachers in my department choose texts based on the color of the author and not on the literary merit of the work. Many times the text is not even read by the teacher prior to teaching. Any suggestions to have a combination of typical works with other quality works from BIPOC authors falls upon deaf ears. There is a real push for the LGBTQ community; however, there is no opportunity for anyone to voice opposition in ideas to – especially – the trans movement. |
“Right to Read” and Censorship
As shown in Table 6, over a third of the respondents have been impacted by some form of censorship in some form. Additionally, 60% (n=6) of respondents who identified as LGTBQIA+ and one of the two BIPOC respondents indicated involvement in a book or curricular challenge, figures that are much higher than those reported by the overall survey population. Of the eight respondents who experienced direct censorship, five (63%) are from the metro area, two (25%) from the central region, and one (12%) from the northwest. In terms of community type, four (50%) were from an urban area, three (37.5%) from a large city, and one (12.5%) from a small town. No rural respondents reported experiencing direct censorship. No other demographic patterns with other forms of censorship emerged.
| Table 6 Forms of Frequencies of Reported Involvement in Censorship | ||||
| Direct censorshipa | “Red flagging”b | Self-censorshipc | Involved in challengesd | |
| Yes | 14%e (n=8) | 28% (n=15) | 38% (n=21) | 27% (n=15) |
| No | 66% (n=37) | 41% (n=23) | 61% (n=34) | 73% (n=41) |
| Unsure | 20% (n=11) | 32% (n=18) | 2% (n=1) | — |
| a Defined in the survey as “when a school or district restricts students’ access to a text by removing the text from a library, classroom, or by requiring the school board to vet text selection (David and Consalvo). b Defined as “rating a text for controversial content and/or reducing access to the text labeled as controversial” (David and Consalvo). c Defined as within the past three years, “the personal decision to remove texts from your class library or curriculum or to restrict student access to texts that may be deemed controversial to avoid retribution from students or their families, colleagues, or administrators” (David and Consalvo). d Refers to direct involvement in curricular or book challenges in the respondents’ school e Percentages are rounded to whole numbers. | ||||
When asked about student choice of readings, 81% (n=46) strongly or somewhat agreed that they were able to provide students with reading choices, while 12% (n=7) strongly or somewhat disagreed, and 7% (n=4) neither agreed nor disagreed. Twenty-three percent (n=13) of the respondents reported that their department had a statement explaining why texts were taught and how they were selected, and 52% (n=29) indicated that they did not have a statement, and 25% (n=14) were unsure if their department had such a statement. Respondents who indicated the presence of a statement also reported its content and entities responsible for its development, shown in Table 7.
| Table 7 Content and entitiesa responsible for development statement on text selection: | |
| Supports teacher choice of supplementary materials. | 54%(n=7) |
| Supports teachers’ ability to build a diverse classroom library | 46% (n=6) |
| Supports discussion of controversial issues if they are related to the curriculum | 38% (n=5) |
| Developed by department members | 77% (n=10) |
| Developed by school administrators | 46% (n=6) |
| Developed by district administrators | 15% (n=2) |
| Developed by school board | 8% (n=1) |
| a Respondents were asked to select all entities involved in developing the statement. Many selected more than one option. | |
Additionally, respondents were asked to identify which groups implemented policies or statements that impacted how or what they taught. Forty-two percent (n=23) indicated that no groups implemented policies that impacted how or what they teach, and 11% (n=6) stated that they didn’t know if there were policies. The remaining 47% (n=28) reported that one or more of the entities shown in Table 8 were responsible for developing statements or policies that impacted their teaching.
| Table 8 Entities responsible for developing policies/statements that impact teaching | |
| Department | 20% (n=11) |
| School administration | 31% (n=17) |
| District administration | 31% (n=17) |
| School board | 16% (n=9) |
| a Respondents were asked to select all entities involved in developing the statement. Many selected more than one option. | |
Although the quantitative data showed that the majority of participants did not believe their autonomy was restricted by active school policies, the majority of written responses 45 (25%) named school policies and practices that signal censorship according to NCTE statements. Patterns in this code included school board campaigns to remove specific texts from libraries and curriculums; LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC literature removed, red-flagged, or omitted from curriculum; texts with racial slurs removed from curriculum; and DEIB professional development programs being suddenly suspended. Stories were shared about parent and community disagreements with educators that are analogous to stories shared from more politically conservative states.
| Table 9. Qualitative Analysis of Censorship Policy & Practices | |||
| Code | Frequency | Patterns | Quotes |
| Active school or district censorship policy or practice | 45 (25%) | School board campaigns Parent, community, & external group campaigns LGTBQIA+ identities silenced LGTBQIA+ texts removed Teachers omitted from censoring process Diverse texts removed Texts with racial slurs removed Admin red-flagging controversial texts No DEIB PD provided | I was teaching fallacies of logic in my composition class, and one parent complained to admin that I was making anti-Trump statements. We had a conversation. The parent claimed that by saying ad hominem should not be trusted I was making “antiTrump” statements because in the parent’s words “he does that all the time”. It’s only one or two parents, but they feel empowered to make their beliefs the law of the school. We can no longer advertise or show public support for LGBTQIA+ students in our classrooms because the district has deemed their identities as political, and we are not allowed to be political in the classroom, which is a oxymoron. The act of public education is, itself, political, as is the accommodation for religious practices of our students during the school day, so it makes zero sense outside of it just being an homophobic policy. Self-censorship is becoming far more prevalent because teachers do not feel they have the support of the admin to fight back against parents or other groups wishing to censor readings. Our current district administration and school board are actively trying to undo past curriculum approvals—right-wing advocacy and a vocal minority of parents leads this pressure My district superintendent has made it his goal to hide discrimination behind “neutral stance” positions. Targeted campaign to remove LGBTQIA+ supportive flags, brochures, books, etc. The only limitation I currently have faced is in situations where I provide the choices of book. For example, I proposed a novel in verse unit and due to the fact that there were references to LGBTQ relationships in some of the books, I was not able to teach the unit. |
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to survey English Language Arts and social studies educators in Minnesota about their experiences with intellectual freedom in their teaching, particularly regarding inclusion of diverse perspectives and identities in their texts, curriculum, and pedagogies. Our analysis also examined potential regional and/or demographic trends and how responses aligned, or not, with NCTE position statements on intellectual freedom, anti-racist teaching, and gender diversity.
From our analysis, some encouraging trends can be noted. An important finding of this study was that educators understand their rights and the limitations of intellectual freedom, as it is outlined by NCTE position statements. In particular, respondents recognized that intellectual freedom of educators does not mean freedom without restrictions. Participants named cases where community, school and district curriculum, and policies naturally limit their autonomy as teachers. One respondent, for example, highlighted this by stating that they taught at an International Baccalaureate (IB) school and were required to follow the IB curriculum and they did not frame this as an infringement on intellectual freedom. These comments suggest a common understanding of intellectual freedom as it pertains to the K-12 classroom.
Also, 80% of respondents felt they could participate meaningfully in curricular decisions that impact them and 79% felt they could express solidarity with people of diverse backgrounds. The majority of respondents either did not believe there to be, or were not aware of, a school district policy in place that restricted or banned use of diverse texts. We did, however, find several patterns in the data that were misaligned with NCTE statements and reflect findings in Pen America’s annual reports (Friedman and Johnson; Meehan et al.), as well as data that seemed to contradict.
For example, although a substantial number of respondents reported that they could meaningfully contribute to curricular and pedagogical decisions, several trends in the data indicated that they perceive barriers to their participation. Forty-six percent reported that their district or school’s statements on why and how texts are taught did not explicitly support teachers’ ability to supplement their curriculum. Fifty-four percent reported it did not support their right to build a diverse library, a guideline that is expressly supported in multiple NCTE position statements. The majority of qualitative responses (51%) named some form of administrative censorship including direct policies, school board sentiments, school politics, or administrator personal philosophies guiding these forms of censorship. Over one-third of the respondents report experiences in some form of censorship, either self-, direct, or “red-flagging,” and 27% report being involved in book challenges, which are time consuming and can potentially increase preemptive self-censorship (Sachdeva et al.).
A particularly notable trend were multiple indicators of troubling examples of targeted campaigns against representation of LGTBQIA+ identities in schools and the literature students read. Self-identified LGTBQIA+ teachers report lower rates of meaningful input in curricular decisions than other respondents and were over represented in the data on experiences with direct book challenges. Multiple comments from several respondents highlighted concerns regarding censorship of Pride flags and schools framing conversations about LGTBQIA+ identities as “political.” A fewer number of all respondents report the ability to affirm LGTBQIA+ identities in their classroom, particularly in rural areas, compared to those who report affirming diversity more broadly. Additionally, a small minority of the written responses expressed views misaligned with NCTE position guidelines, including restricting students’ access to texts deemed “sexually explicit” or “inappropriate” for students, and one respondent expressed repeated views in direct conflict with the NCTE position guidelines on affirming gender diversity across all qualitative response items. Although this was just one respondent, we elected to include their data in the analysis, recognizing that these views are likely representative of a small minority group within the larger population of teachers in the state.
A tension that emerged pertained to the passage of the Minnesota Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act in 2023, resulting in significant and sudden curricular changes for K-8 Elementary, K-12 Reading, and 5-8 ELA teachers. At the time of this study, the state had required any school district that wished to access READ Act funds to adopt one of five approved reading acquisition curricula, deemed aligned to the Science of Reading (SoR) practices and methods. Some respondents indicated the sudden shift in teaching with a curriculum that required “adoption with fidelity” led to limited time or ability to teach whole texts of any kind. Some of these state approved curricular programs were found to “not meet” cultural and linguistic diversity requirements during the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) curriculum review, as they did not provide resources for teaching dialectical variations and multilingual learners (Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement). Currently, the MDE states that these curricula must include diverse perspectives and that they will conduct a deeper analysis of these curricula for cultural responsiveness this academic year. In the meantime, teachers are caught in the middle as MDE and administration make quick and costly changes.
The passing of the READ Act coincided with the implementation timeline of the 2020 MN ELA standards, which emphasize diverse perspectives in literature, critical media literacy, and specifically call for inclusion of Dakota and Anishinaabe perspectives and texts. Many respondents noted that the new ELA 2020 standards requirement for including Dakota and Anishinaabe perspectives and texts has led to district professional development on literature and histories of Minnesota Indigenous peoples, which we included in analysis of DEIB professional development responses. Several respondents noted that Native American literature was a frequent topic of professional development; however, other forms of diversity were not explicitly included in DEIB professional development.
We were surprised to learn that only 23% (n=13) of respondents either have or are aware of their department having a written statement outlining the rationale for text selection and associated instructional approaches. Of those who do have rationale statements, the majority (77%, n=10) reported that their department members played a role in the development, and that just 8% of the statements were developed with school board input. The need for clearly articulated text and pedagogical rationales is likely to grow in response to the rapidly evolving political landscape at the state and federal levels since the 2024 election. During the survey period, Minnesota enacted State File 3567, which requires that all decisions regarding what materials to stock in libraries be overseen by licensed media specialists or a person with a master’s degree in library or information sciences. Following this legislation, Education Minnesota, which closely follows book bans and censorship in Minnesota schools, added a “note of caution,” or reminder, that even with the legislation, K-12 educators must work through the curriculum review process outlined by the district or charter, which is mandated by state law, so there are limits to how much this legislation may impact K-12 ELA classrooms.
On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education issued a press release titled “U.S. Department of Education Ends Biden’s Book Ban Hoax,” announcing that the Office for Civil Rights has dismissed multiple challenges to what it referred to as “so-called book bans,” stating that “these decisions will no longer be second-guessed by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education.” Since that press release, numerous government actions at the federal, state, and local levels have impacted intellectual freedom in education, such as the U.S. Department of Education’s launch of an “End DEI” reporting portal (“U.S. Department of Education Launches ‘End DEI’ Portal”) and elimination of multiple diversity initiatives. While the full implications of these developments remain unclear, it is clear that the sociopolitical conditions that initiated our study have significantly worsened.
Furthermore, these orders directly conflict with several of the MDE 2020 ELA standards, placing teachers in a precarious position. Developing explicit written explanatory statements and processes for educator text selection and pedagogical practices will be even more crucial in navigating these tensions to support our students and protect teachers.
Limitations
There are many limitations to this study. The sample size is small and did not yield statistically significant quantitative data nor does the respondent population reflect the state teaching population not only because of its size, but because it was disseminated through MCTE, so it’s likely that the majority of the respondents were affiliated with MCTE. There was a large rural respondent population compared to the state’s teaching population as a whole, and BIPOC respondents were underrepresented in the dataset.
Another limitation was the length of the survey, particularly the large number of qualitative questions that may have led to participant fatigue and did lead to redundancy of information in responses across questions. Because the survey was created to align to NCTE statements, it may not capture other relevant issues and beliefs.
Despite these limitations, diverse perspectives were collected from all community types and regions of the state, and the data presented a range of experiences with intellectual freedom, experiences that we feel compelled to address as an advocacy committee.
Conclusion
When we first began this project to examine how widespread the intellectual freedom issues were in our state, we genuinely weren’t sure what we would find. Anecdotally, we were aware that teachers were feeling pressure from communities, school boards, and administration to make changes to their ELA teaching. Initially, when we began analyzing data, results indicated educators in our state were fairly aligned with NCTE’s position statements and guidelines; however, through deeper analysis of qualitative responses, we found some surprising and troubling results. Our study has important implications for our MCTE organization and other organizations in the state who work to support intellectual freedom in schools.
The NCTE book rationale database and the American Library Association’s Unite Against Book Bans book resume database continue to be of the few reliable sources for written statements in defense of diverse children’s, young adult, and adult books. Written by educators and for educators, the rationales and resumes can be a resource to MN ELA teachers who are facing issues of intellectual freedom in their schools. Many members of MCTE, including both of us, have written book rationales for the NCTE database. Each rationale provides summaries, teaching resources, and explicit links to academic standards that can be addressed through the use of the text. Rationales also provide statements on why a book may be viewed as “controversial” and a response to any potential critique that presents the rationale for its use in classrooms. Additionally, we have provided resources for educators who wish to write their own rationales on our MCTE website.
While MCTE’s mission is to support all ELA teachers in the state, these results suggest that LGTBQIA+ members may need extra support, as do those who want to create more inclusive classrooms in communities and districts where it may not always feel safe to do so. As an organization, MCTE has taken several additional steps to affirm diverse voices. These include explicitly stating alignment with NCTE position statements, including those that support and affirm racial and gender diversity; inviting diverse keynote speakers to our conferences; presenting sessions on strategies to combat censorship at the annual spring conference; and hosting a monthly diverse books club. However, in light of the data in this survey, we are uncertain that these efforts fully meet the needs of our members or provide the most effective support.
One important consideration for MCTE is that we need to establish a system for gathering more frequent feedback from educators. We hope to continue surveying both MCTE members and non-members to refine our advocacy approach and share data with stakeholders and policy makers. This study was designed to explore Minnesota teachers’ experiences with Intellectual Freedom to identify possible areas of tension and misalignment with NCTE positions. As a result, we did not examine relationships between perceptions of intellectual freedom and of practices that support it, such as access to professional development to counter racism or a clearly defined process for text selection. Reanalyzing data to examine these factors could potentially inform advocacy efforts and shape the design of future surveys and contribute to more effective monitoring of impacts on intellectual freedom.
In a period of heightened political tension, increased scrutiny of curricular materials, and deprofessionalization of teaching, advocating for intellectual freedom is vital. Organizations like MCTE and its parent organization NCTE play an important role in fostering open dialogue, amplifying diverse voices, and proactively supporting intellectual freedom. To strengthen the foundation of ELA education in Minnesota, these efforts will likely be more effective if they are grounded in ongoing reflection and collaboration with educators, policymakers, and the broader community. Collectively, we must prioritize re-enfranchising teachers as trusted professionals, granting them the autonomy, respect, and support necessary to cultivate an educational landscape where all students experience transformative, inclusive, and engaging learning experiences.
Works Cited
“American Library Association reports record number of demands to censor library books and materials in 2022.” American Library Association. 22 Mar 2022.
Bryman, Alan. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How Is It Done?” Qualitative Research, vol. 6, no. 1, 2006, pp. 97–113.
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAERI). “Literacy Curriculum Review Series: Wit & Wisdom.” College of Education and Human Development. 2024. Retrieved from https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/READ/resources/
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, 2017.
David, Ann D., and Annamary Consalvo. “The censorship storm is upon us: Prepare, respond, report.” English in Texas, vol. 53, 2023, pp. 35-38.
Education Minnesota. “The Rise of Book Bans throughout the U.S. and Minnesota’s Legislative Response.” Education Minnesota. 2024. www.educationminnesota.org/news/minnesota-educator/the-rise-of-book-bans-throughout-the-us-and-minnesotas-legislative-response/.
Friedman, Jonathan and Nadine Farid Johnson. “Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression and Students’ First Amendment Rights.” Pen America, 2022. www.pen.org/banned-in-the-usa/.
Kersten, Katherine. “Racial Identity Policies are Ruining Edina’s Fabled Schools. Star Tribune. 9 Oct. 2017, www.startribune.com/racial-identity-policies-are-ruining-edina-s-fabled- schools/449825893.
Meehan, Kasey, Sabrina Baêta, Madison Markham, and Tasslyn Magnusson. “Banned in the USA: Narrating the Crisis.” PEN America. April 16, 2024. https://pen.org/report/narrating-the-crisis/
Minnesota Department of Education. READ Act. Curricular Resources–Tier I. Minnesota Department of Education. https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/READ/resources/.
Minnesota Legislature. Omnibus Education Policy Bill. SF 2567. 15 May 2024. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=SF3567&y=2024&ssn=0&b=senate
National Council of Teachers of English. “Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity Through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy.” National Council of Teachers of English, 2021, https://ncte.org/statement/guidelines-for-affirming-gender-diversity-through-ela-curriculum-and-pedagogy/.
—.”NCTE Position Statement Regarding Rating or ‘Red-Flagging’ Books.” National Council of Teachers of English, 2018, https://ncte.org/statement/rating-books/.
—. “Statement on Academic Freedom (Revised).” National Council of Teachers of English, 2019,https://ncte.org/statement/academic-freedom-copy/.
—. “Statement on Anti-racism to Support Teaching and Learning.” National Council of Teachers of English, 2018, ncte.org/statement/antiracisminteaching/#:~:text=The%20Committee%20Against%20Ra cism%20and,decisions%20made%20in%20schools%2C%20especially.
—.”Statement on Classroom Libraries. National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, https://ncte.org/statement/classroom-libraries/.
— “The Students’ Right to Read.” National Council of Teachers of English,, 2018, ncte.org/statement/righttoreadguideline/.
Norman, Geoff. “Likert Scales, Levels of Measurement, and the ‘Laws’ of Statistics.” Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 15, no. 5, 2010, pp. 625–632. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
Otárola, Miguel. “Charge of ‘Political Indoctrination’ Heats Up in Edina School Board Race.” Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2017, www.startribune.com/charge-of-political-indoctrination-heats-up-edina-school-board-race/450923413.
Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Sage Publications, 2015.
Sachdeva, Danielle E., et al. “‘It’s Bigger than Just a Challenge’: A Collective Case Study of Educators’ Experiences with Censorship.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, vol. 125, no. 6, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231184515.
Shockman, Elizabeth. “Book Ban Attempts on the Rise in Minnesota Schools.” MPR News, 12 Oct. 2023, www.mprnews.org/story/2023/10/12/book-ban-attempts-on-the-rise-in-minnesota-schools.
Sullivan, Gail M. and Anthony R. Artino. “Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Likert-Type Scales.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, vol. 5, no. 4, 2013, pp. 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-1
“U.S. Department of Education Ends Biden’s Book Ban Hoax.” United States Department of Education. 24 Jan. 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax?fbclid=IwY2xjawIBDl1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUFXW4h7QSDevi0qsz688kDiiV2XWCpCQFEarOBh7pnkxS9lNcTbUMPK7Q_aem_lvVJF62m9VMZ3tKailf0fA
“U.S. Department of Education Launches ‘End DEI’ Portal.” United States Department of Education. 27 Feb. 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-launches-end-dei-portal
Learn more about the authors on our 2025 Contributors page.
MEJ 