The escalating battle over critical race theory has shone a spotlight on a previously obscure process: how local school districts set the curricula shaping what students learn.
Local school board meetings devolved into emotional and chaotic scenes across the country this spring, as parents joined a grassroots movement pushing back on what they described as attempts to indoctrinate their children on the issue of race.
The explosion of opposition to critical race theory — a catch-all term for lessons and policies that encourage children to see themselves and others almost exclusively through the lens of race — has led to debates over who should influence the classroom agenda. School boards, administrators, parent groups, teachers unions, and even outside activists have laid claim to setting the agenda for K-12 children.
But whose job is it?
Morgan Polikoff, associate professor of education at the University of Southern California, said individual school districts typically select what textbooks to adopt and content to teach.
“In the vast majority of states, the decision is basically 100% local,” Polikoff said.
“As far as I’m aware, it’s almost always that case that educators, whether that is a committee of teachers or some kind of standing curriculum committee, will make an adoption decision, usually based on some kind of evaluation process, and then they will take it to the school board,” Polikoff said. “It’s virtually never the school board themselves making some kind of a decision, it’s more the school board rubber-stamping the decision that is made by local educators.”
Parents and activists opposing critical race theory have applied the most pressure to local school boards in their fight to keep the curriculum away from classrooms, given the authority of most local boards to approve or block decisions on things like reading materials.
In Loudoun County, Virginia, parents launched a political action committee in April to organize a recall effort aimed at unseating several Loudoun school board members.
In Southlake, Texas, candidates opposed to critical race theory ran against sitting local school board members and won in May after a race that centered almost entirely on the issue.
But state school boards have also waded into the fight, issuing rules in some states seeking to prohibit material related to critical race theory.
In Oklahoma, for example, the state school board used its emergency powers last week to enact a rule banning critical race theory and certain types of gender-focused instruction.
The rule included provisions that could strip teachers and school staff of their certification if an investigation found they violated rules against promoting the controversial curriculum.
Jonathan Butcher, education fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said state school boards are typically involved in developing the framework individual districts should operate within.
“Usually the way you want the policy process to go is, it’s the responsibility of the state board to set parameters on standards and, broadly speaking, curriculum, and then it’s the local districts that pick the standards in line with the standards that the state board has adopted,” Butcher said.
However, politics has played a role in influencing the school board in some cases.
In Georgia, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp wrote a letter to the state school board in May urging it to “take immediate steps” to prevent critical race theory from being included in curriculum standards. The state board passed a resolution condemning the theory the following month.
The resolution stated no school should accept federal grants involving versions of critical race theory.
The critical race theory debate has even drawn state legislatures into the fray.
At least seven states have passed legislation banning the instruction of critical race theory, according to the Brookings Institution.
“It’s not unusual for school boards to make decisions one way or the other. What’s unusual is for state legislatures to be passing legislation at the state level banning these particular discussions in a broad sweep at the local level,” said Rashawn Ray, governance fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The Biden administration briefly flirted with the issue earlier this year at the federal level before retreating.
The Education Department in April proposed guidelines for a grant program urging applicants to focus on race, citing the work of Ibram X. Kendi, a controversial proponent of critical race theory and the New York Times’s 1619 Project, which sought to contextualize American history around racism and has been criticized for inaccuracies.
However, after receiving thousands of public comments that largely pushed back on the proposal, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona withdrew the references to anti-racist materials and clarified the Department of Education would not push for critical race theory in schools.
“This program, however, has not, does not, and will not dictate or recommend specific curriculum be introduced or taught in classrooms. Those decisions are — and will continue to be — made at the local level,” Cardona wrote in a statement on Friday.
Butcher said the Biden administration’s move could still signal to grant applicants who agree with critical race theory that such controversial curriculum is a priority. He said the federal government has used funding to impose educational policies in the past, such as the implementation of Common Core standards during the Obama administration.
“This has been done before, where administrations will come up with what they feel like is a priority, and then in various ways it will become felt by schools around the U.S.,” Butcher said.
Beyond the process fight, a broader conceptual debate has emerged over whether schools are actually proposing to introduce critical race theory.
“For the most part, overwhelmingly, I would argue 99% of teachers in kindergarten through 12th grade are not teaching critical race theory at all,” Ray said. “I think that is troubling, when you think about it, that critical race theory has become this bogeyman of sorts for really any discussion of racism or sexism in classrooms.”
Proponents of standards labeled as critical race theory argue students need to learn more about how racism has shaped American life. They say schools should help foster conversations about race and equity that are more inclusive than the way those subjects are currently presented.
But opponents claim the style of teaching will only deepen racial divides.
“If we’re looking at this closely, we’re talking about racial prejudice and discrimination that critical race theory compels teachers and students to adopt and follow,” Butcher said. “And that’s inappropriate.”
Some Republican politicians with national profiles and presidential ambitions have begun to take up the grassroots cause, as it takes hold as a major front in the culture wars.
For example, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have become outspoken opponents of critical race theory.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
But the issue remains a local one, largely because the mechanisms for stopping it are at the local level.
“This is where these kinds of debates often play out,” said Polikoff. “Because education, as opposed to many other issues, is very much a local-control kind of policy. Where if it’s healthcare or whatever, you’re going to go to a higher level, but the school board is kind of the site of democratic action in K-12 education.”
