Public education is under fire because many students are leaving school without basic skills in reading and math, and critics say unions are part of the problem. At the same time, union-sponsored professional development increasingly focuses on social and cultural issues rather than fundamentals. That context makes the NEA conference subject matter especially controversial among people who want schools to prioritize literacy and numeracy. The contrast between falling NAEP scores and this kind of teacher training is central to why the meeting drew sharp criticism.

The NEA convened a session centered on “Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice,” and critics argue the curriculum strays from classroom basics. The training reportedly included lessons on neopronouns such as “xe/xem/xyr,” “ey/em/eyr,” and “ze/zir/zirs,” described there as “nontraditional” pronouns. The organizers also introduced “xeopronouns” or conceptual identities, with examples like “star/stars/starself” and “cat/cats/catself,” which left many readers incredulous. For opponents this is not just odd vocabulary, it’s a sign of priorities that are out of sync with the urgent academic crisis facing students.

Materials obtained by a conservative education watchdog were said to offer explicit guidance about how school staff should respond when someone announces they are transitioning. The training included guidance intended to prevent questioning or discouraging someone who states they are transitioning. Those exact words were published in the materials and are reproduced here: “When someone calls you and tells you they are transitioning, do not question them about what they are doing.” and “NEVER talk someone out of transitioning or question their decisions around their identity.”

That directive troubles critics who argue that adults in schools should be able to ask reasonable questions, involve parents, and consider a student’s wellbeing in a full context. The materials also reportedly contained a slide meant to map gender terminology and explained that “People’s gender identity and sexual orientation can shift at different times.” Critics see this as teaching fluid identity concepts to young people rather than focusing on subject-area instruction. For many parents, the idea of incremental cultural shifts being introduced inside classrooms feels like surreptitious social engineering.

Beyond terminology and response rules, the training allegedly outlined tactics for promoting LGBTQ topics “gradually” so the public could adjust over time, which raised alarms for those who prefer transparency and parental involvement. If an initiative is solid and harmless, critics ask, why the need for staged rollouts and pace management? The answer from opponents is that gradual implementation reveals an awareness these ideas would face resistance if presented all at once. That perceived lack of openness is a core gripe among those calling for more local control and clearer communication with parents.

Part of the controversy is also political. The training reportedly framed opponents—particularly Republicans—as villains and positioned union members as activists in a broader culture war. Critics say that teaching tactics to “mobilize” staff and shape public opinion crosses a line from education into political campaigning. Meanwhile, the policy environment is charged: an executive order banning various gender identity policies at the federal level has been invoked by critics, while union leaders and progressives argue for inclusive practices and protections for LGBTQ students and staff.

All of this is unfolding as standardized test results show alarming declines in student performance, which fuels the argument that unions and some school systems are not focused on core academic outcomes. Data showing many high school seniors scoring below basic in math and reading is often cited by those who want a return to basics. Opponents of the NEA’s approach argue that attention to identity politics cannot be permitted to overshadow efforts to teach literacy, math, and critical thinking skills that prepare students for work and civic life.

Public discourse over schools will keep getting louder because parents, policymakers, and teachers all want influence over what happens in classrooms. Some want more emphasis on reading, math, and vocational skills; others want schools to be safer and more affirming for LGBTQ students. The clash over what comes first — academic rescue or cultural transformation — is the core of the debate sparked by the conference materials. The exchanges are likely to shape school-board battles, state laws, and federal education policy debates for months to come.

Voices on both sides are yelling, and the conflict shows no sign of cooling. Supporters of inclusive policies argue school employees need training to protect vulnerable students and reduce harassment, while opponents demand that instruction focus on measurable learning gains and full parental engagement. The debate will remain fraught as long as test scores continue to fall and competing visions for public education collide in the policymaking arena. For many observers, the practical question is whether schools can both improve basic academics and handle sensitive social issues responsibly at the same time.

Woke is not dead. Our schools are still encouraging gender transitions behind parents back. The NEA is a far-left insane asylum.