The documentary "Precious Knowledge" was an extraordinarily well-constructed piece that shared logos, ethos, and pathos surrounding the issue. The program has clear statistics supporting the success of their students, both within the school (GPAs, attendance, and graduation rates) as well as beyond the experience (post-high school education). These combined results are sufficient to provide the framework necessary to support the school's goals, completely separately from any arguments about what roles schools ought to have or ought to be teaching.
The reality of the United States legal structure is that private and charter schools are allowed to make curriculum choices like this. Unfortunately, state governments are more volatile and less restricted by the Federal Government. The bill, which provides State Superintendents with the power to make curriculum choices is a clear constitutional issue that ought to have standing in the Supreme Court in violation of the equal protection clause. The disparate impact of accommodations of student interests is sufficient grounds to see the programs should be maintained and increased.
The documentary framed the extreme xenophobic backlash in a way that prevented me from having any idea what any argument FOR the Superintendent's choices could be. This indicates a strong argument in favor of the programs. However, I am concerned because I am confused as to how this bill could be passed, supported, and defended in this way. I feel like the documentary would have been more credible if it allowed testimony about that side, and then discredited it. I am more cautious about my approach because I see the gap in that side of what information I have. It didn't go so far as to harm their credibility, but only because the extreme, racist clips they did show were so unreasonable that they opted to discredit the other side rather than consider their points. I would have preferred they do both.