Following an email exchange with Dr. Ben Proctor of the Kansas State Department of Education KSDE), Lansing school board member Kirsten Workman is unconvinced that the state will heed her warnings about the Second Step Social Emotional Character Development (SECD) curriculum for “at-risk” middle schoolers.
According to its website, KSDE promotes SECD: to provide schools a framework for integrating social-emotional growth (SEG) with character development so that students will learn, practice and model essential personal life habits that contribute to academic, social-emotional and post-secondary success. It is about learning to be caring and civil, to make healthy decisions, to problem solve effectively, to value excellence, to be respectful and responsible, to be good citizens and to be empathetic and ethical individuals.
Workman, who has spoken out about Second Step, most recently this summer before the State Board of Education, counters that the program has a “previous history of unapologetically exposing young children to sexually explicit content and websites that teach them to hide it from their parents.”
Dr. Proctor, Deputy Commissioner in the Division of Learning Services, pledged to Workman: I will work with our research team to determine if it is appropriate to look at Second Step as several different programs instead of just one. I think that might be the major concern with how KSDE is viewing the program as meeting the statutory requirements, and you are not. I will also make sure our team sees the information you shared with the State Board. While we have made significant improvements in our Evidence-Based Programs and Practices list for use of at-risk funds since last year, we do know there is more work to do, and we do appreciate you sharing your concerns as we work to improve the list and our review processes.
Although encouraged by the “substantive and specific response to my questions” from Deputy Commissioner Proctor, Workman, in an interview with The Sentinel, remained dubious that minds in the KSDE will be changed about Second Step:
“I don’t have high hopes KSDE will change its position on Second Step. First of all, no one wanted to ask me more about why this company exposed middle schoolers to sexually explicit content via third-party websites like Scarleteen.com (the site’s tagline is “Queer Sex Ed For All Since 1998). That’s a giant red flag I expect KSDE will continue to ignore with depraved indifference.
“Additionally, when I asked Dr. Proctor why Second Step curriculum is on the approved list of evidence-based curriculum for at-risk funding as an entire company rather than by specific program/grade level when the programs (and their associated evidence) vary significantly and are updated frequently, he said that would require more analysis on the part of KSDE.
“Second Step has already differentiated its Middle School curriculum as not evidence-based, and I provided KSDE and the state BOE a screenshot from the Second Step website which details as much. When the authors and publishers of this program state it is not evidence-based, no further analysis is necessary.
“It is my opinion that KSDE likes Second Step because the company embraces CRT and modern, left-leaning interpretations of DEI, so it will stay on the list regardless of the Middle School program’s abysmal track record of actual scientific effectiveness.
“The only other point of contention I have is learning from Dr. Proctor that our KSDE relies on “third party analysis” to make these decisions rather than review the evidence itself. Analysis paid for by whom? What’s worse, he stated that for the papers which cost money to download, the committee only reviewed the abstracts! That practice is an academically unacceptable method for reviewing and evaluating research. College students are taught to never do that, and I’m confident our state leaders in education know better.
“Access to the papers were $52 online, but you can go to just about any university library and download them for free. Why does our state department of education not have access to the scientific databases that house these studies? Why do our PhD-prepared leaders in education feel it’s acceptable to base decisions on the quality of research by only reading the abstract of a scientific paper? I believe it is their job to analyze information and use it to help our students, not to cut-and-paste advertisements onto a metaphorical state-funded billboard. That is not helpful to local school districts.
“Academically at-risk students deserve proven curriculum, not to be data-farmed research subjects for sub-par studies conducted by for-profit companies with a political agenda.
“What is going on in Topeka?!”
