Political Pressure on Schools and the Teaching of Race and Racism

By Sophia Collins

UCLA’s School of Law defines critical race theory as an “interdisciplinary practice and approach to understanding the foundations and maintenance of race and racial subordination in the legal system throughout history.” Critical race theory contests the assumption that the legal system is a neutral apparatus and questions why racial inequality has persisted in a society that has repeatedly adopted laws to eliminate it. Critical race theory has been around since the 1980’s, so why have debates over critical race theory suddenly flooded the media? The protests in response to the killing of George Floyd prompted a new discussion between conservatives about structural racism in the United States, and shortly after that, Donald Trump began to warn against critical race theory.

On September 4, 2020, Donald Trump issued a memo to federal agencies that warned against the practice of critical race theory, and this was followed by Executive Order 13950 on the 22nd of September. Executive Order 13950 stated that it is a “pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country” and that “malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country”; it continues on to say that the United States shall not promote race or sex stereotyping in the Federal workforce or Uniformed Services, and that grant funds cannot be used towards this purpose. Ultimately, this executive order effectively banned any training regarding workplace diversity.

After the election of January of 2021, Biden revoked Executive Order 13950, but it had already begun to impact racial and sexual diversity in schools and the workplace. Biden’s decision to revoke Trump’s executive order pushed conservatives to attempt to replicate the ban at the state level and start a war against critical race theory. Three years after Donald Trump’s executive order, and states are still working to introduce laws and legislation to limit the discussion of critical race theory within schools and the work force. Despite the increase in proposed legislation, there is a lack of coverage regarding the laws and legislation that is being proposed or passed in various states regarding the discussion of critical race theory.

With all the bills that are being proposed, it can be overwhelming trying to keep track of the legislation that is making its way into schools, but CRT Forward is tracking educational censorship across the United States and can be your go-to source for staying informed on the latest proposed education. They are currently tracking 670 anti-critical race theory bills at the local, state, and federal levels for the public to stay informed on all updates that encompasses all bills and legislation that restricts teaching and training in K-12 schools, public universities, and workplace settings regarding race.

So far in 2023, there have been seventeen bills adopted into law in various states that restrict the discussion of race in the classroom. In Arkansas there are currently two bills that have been signed into law. Executive Order 23-05 was adopted on January 10th and it prohibits the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 education, as well as in private businesses and non-profits. On February 20th, Senate Bill 294 was adopted. This bill is aimed at K-12 education to place more restrictions upon to teaching of racial inequalities. This bill states that all teaching material must be reviewed to ensure that no material would “indoctrinate students with ideologies, such as Critical Race Theory”. These bills are blunt in their language and do not attempt to hide their goals of censoring what is being taught within schools.

In Florida, on January 1st, the Department of Education adopted a policy that limits instructional materials in K-12 education. This policy ensures that all teaching material is subject to review and must meet the state’s academic standard; this policy is related to House Bill 7 that took effect on July 1, 2022. House Bill 7 states that no individual will be forced to review material that includes of discussions of race, color, or national origin. It also requires the State Board of Education to develop a “Stories of Inspiration” curriculum, wherein American History demonstrates the importance of individual freedom that enables individuals to prosper. House Bill 7 is not only restricting the teaching of critical race theory, but it is working to fabricate a false American history.

On March 9th, in Arizona, the Superintendent of Education released a policy targeting K-12 education that has been titled the “Empower Hotline” and it encourages citizens to report “inappropriate public school lessons”. The goal of this is to ensure that no teachers are teaching critical race theory because it is being considered a “personal ideology” rather than an academic way to study and understand how society perpetuates racism, as well as scare teachers and parents alike that support the teaching of critical race theory in the classroom.

These bills and policy are no longer limited to red states, and are now beginning to appear in states that are typically regarded as more liberal. In 2023, there have been 66 bills introduced across the United States, and these bills are appearing in states like Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, Bill H.459 was proposed on February 16th targeting curricular content and trainings in K-12 education and private businesses, as well as non-profits. Under this bill, school boards are required to upload all their teaching material for parents and the public to view. The bill states that this is to “ensure that public schools do not compel students to engage in political or social activism or advocacy” and to prevent entities from forcing teachers, students, or administrators from affirming specific beliefs. Further, this bill states that no teacher, administrator, or student should affirm to the belief that “the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any other state or commonwealth within the United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist”. Despite Massachusetts leaning more liberally, Bill H.459 has still been proposed in the Senate and has been referred to the committee on education.

Since Trump’s memo in 2020, anti-critical race theory policy has been sweeping across the United States at the local, state, and federal level, but a lack of media coverage has left many people unaware at the policies being proposed. Continue to track all anti-critical race theory legislation and policy at CRT Forward, and if you are looking for ways to participate in the pro-critical race theory discussion, check out the ACLU’s “Defend Every Student’s Right To Learn” pledge.

Sophia Collins was a Rise Out intern in the spring of 2023. They are a student at Lesley University.

Anti-Trans/LGBTQ+ Legislation in the Education System

By Sophia Collins

Over the past few years, and increasingly so over the past several months, states have been proposing, and in some cases passing, legislation targeting gays and lesbians and transgender people, especially transgender youth. The ACLU reports that it is currently tracking 452 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that have been introduced across the country. Advocates of these new laws say they protect children and safeguard parental rights, but a closer reading of the bills in question shows they actually restrict parents’ ability to make decisions about their children’s healthcare. They also impinge on the ability of local schools to create an environment of safety for LGBTQ+ students, and have a particularly chilling impact on teachers, who in some cases could be fined or fired for something as simple as calling a student assigned female at birth by a masculine-sounding name.

A bill proposed in Kentucky was vetoed by the Governor, but the veto was overridden in both the State House and the Senate because of the Republican majority. This bill bans surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy for children under eighteen. It also forbids school districts from requiring that students be referred to by their chosen pronouns, restricts which bathrooms that students can use, and limits discussion of sexuality and gender in the classroom. There are many similar bills like this being proposed across various states that are purposefully targeting transgender and LGBTQ+ youth within schools and the education system.

The ACLU is mapping this slew of anti-trans legislation. Their mapping technique specifies what the proposed/passed legislation is targeting, and links to an explanation of each proposed bill. Currently, 211 of these bills are related to education.  

In Texas, there are 17 education-related bills that are currently advancing. Bill SB 393 prohibits instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity within the public school system and requires schools to implement policies of disclosure that could result in students being “outed,” such as notifying parents when a student participates in a club with themes of gender and sexuality. Bill HB 23 restricts sports participation by biological sex, which the bill defines as “(1) entered at or near the time of the student’s birth; or (2) modified to correct any type of scrivener or clerical error in the student’s biological sex.” Bill HB 4534 prohibits public school employees from assisting a student with social transitioning at the penalty of losing state funding for the school. This means that a teacher will not be able to use a student’s chosen name, pronouns, or recognize other expressions of gender that deviate from the student’s biological sex as defined above. Bill HB 5236 outlines the regulations for bathrooms and changing rooms in public schools and states that students must use the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex. Bill HB 4961 states that a parent is entitled to information regarding a child’s gender identity no later than 24 hours after an employee of the school district has become aware that the student is considering or identifying with expressions or behavior that does not align with the child’s biological sex. The vague wording in this bill is cause for concern for teachers and youth advocates alike, because it is unclear what behaviors teachers would be required to report.

Not all of these bills originate in so-called red states. In Massachusetts, Bill H.509 targets what teachers are allowed to teach in terms of gender and sexuality in core classes. Bill H.509 is an amendment to Section 32A of Chapter 71 of the General Laws as they appear in the 2020 Official Edition; the amendment states that any class or school-sanctioned activity/program that discusses or involves sexual education, human sexuality issues, or sexual orientation issues must have a written policy that ensures parental/guardian notification; additionally, Bill H.509 states that all classes involving these topics must clearly be stated as non-mandatory elective courses, all class material must be made available to the students guardians, and no teacher will be required to teach any curriculum that deals with sexual education, human sexuality, or sexual orientation issues. The new phrase, “or sexual orientation issues,” was purposely added to ensure that no teacher can teach or discuss anything other than cis-gendered straight relationships without notifying all guardians. Since parents already have the right to view curricular material and discuss it with teachers and school officials, this language does not expand parental rights in any meaningful way, but does foster a culture of silence around LGBTQ+ issues.  

While this research was focused specifically on anti-trans/LGBTQ+ legislation within the education system, the ACLU is tracking all laws related to anti-trans/LGBTQ+ legislation within healthcare, public accommodations, free speech and expression, accurate IDs, and civil rights.

These states currently have bills advancing that would deny necessary healthcare access to transgender people: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Read about the individual bills here.

For example, in Texas, Bill SB 1029, which takes effect on September 1, 2023, bans all forms of gender-affirming healthcare for any resident in Texas. This includes so-called “top” and “bottom” surgeries (which are very rare among minors), but also puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Bills like these are leading families with transgender youth to flee their homes and seek refuge in other states that have declared themselves as safe havens. 

Just as it is important to know what laws are being proposed and advancing in relation to anti-trans/LGBT+ legislation, it is also helpful to know the states that are signing executive orders that secure a trans individual’s right to access gender-affirming health care. In New Jersey, the governor recently signed an executive order that directs all state agencies to protect transgender people in New Jersey from being persecuted for seeking or obtaining gender-affirming care, as well as those providing gender-affirming care.

The state of Minnesota also became a safe haven for transgender individuals when the governor signed Executive Order 23-03; this order protects people that are seeking gender-affirming healthcare and those who provide it, forbids state agencies from assisting investigations to penalize transgender people for seeking gender-affirming healthcare, and states that Minnesota will refuse to comply with subpoenas for transgender people who have travelled to Minnesota to seek care. Executive orders like these are a necessary means to protect the transgender community.  

Want to learn more? Explore the ACLU map that is tracking live updates of anti-trans/LGBTQ+ legislation in every state.

Sophia Collins was a Rise Out intern in the spring of 2023. They are a student at Lesley University.

Ann Romney and the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship

I have made at least half a dozen phone calls this summer trying to track down my daughter’s John and Abigail Adams Scholarship award money. This happens: her name is spelled two different ways in the BPS computer system, so things inevitably get lost. Sometimes I’ve wondered why I bother. At this point, it is only my obsessive-compulsive need for her to get all the scholarship money to which she is entitled that keeps me chasing after the paperwork, because the scholarship itself is not a game-changer. The estimated cost of attending UMass–Amherst for one year is $23,167. The Adams Scholarship covers $1,714. (And in my daughter’s case, only $286/semester, since the award overlaps with another one she received.)

So I was surprised last night when Ann Romney, in her speech to the Republican National Convention, championed this program as one of her husband’s strongest achievements during his one-term stint as Massachusetts governor:

“Under Mitt, Massachusetts’s schools were the best in the nation. The best. He started the John and Abigail Adams scholarships, which give the top 25 percent of high school graduates a four-year tuition-free scholarship.”

If you heard that and thought it sounded too good to be true, you’d be right. The Adams Scholarship is only available to Massachusetts public school graduates who go on to public colleges and universities, and in the UMass system, more than 80% of college costs are collected through “fees,” not “tuition.” And that doesn’t include the cost of room and board, books, travel expenses, and health insurance.

So yes, it’s a full-tuition scholarship... but tuition at UMass–Amherst is $857/semester. Families still have to come up with the other $10,000/semester in fees from other sources. (See also UMass–Lowell, UMass–Boston, and Bunker Hill Community College.)

And students who attend private colleges, or those who attend part-time, are not eligible at all.

That said, if you received an Advanced score on one section of the MCAS and an Advanced or Proficient score on the other, and if your combined scored placed you in the top 25% of your district’s graduating class, you will be eligible for the scholarship if you complete your diploma at a public high school in Massachusetts. Over the course of four years, that’s a $6,856 benefit in the form of a grant, not a loan, so it doesn’t have to be paid back. You don’t need to demonstrate financial need to qualify for it, and you don’t even have to fill out any special application; it’s awarded automatically (unless, of course, your name is spelled two different ways in the BPS computer system, in which case you should set aside your summer to track it down). If you are close to graduating but are considering leaving school, you should factor this into your decision. Homeschooled and privately educated students forfeit their eligibility.

One way around this is to transfer to an alternative high school. Initially, this was the reason my daughter enrolled in the Distance Learning Program at the Boston Day and Evening Academy. She did most of her academic work outside the school, but by earning a BDEA diploma she still qualified for the scholarship. BDEA has since become more restrictive about the students it accepts into the Distance program, but they are still far more flexible than most traditional high schools.

Re-thinking vocational education

Last May, education historian Diane Ravitch wrote a guest blog post forThe Washington Post questioning the wisdom of policies that aim to send all high school graduates to college. She called this idea a sham, pointing out that only a quarter of jobs in growth industries require a college degree, and rightly noting that college will change if it becomes compulsory: “It becomes like high school or even junior high school if unwilling and unready students are pushed into [it].”

Agreed. But she should have gone further.

Unfortunately, like so many articles on this subject, her post still assumes that there is a bright dividing line between intellectual and vocational work. The first is comprised of lofty scholarly pursuits (“ancient Greek or philosophy or archaeology or sociology”); the second, trades like plumbing or building a house. She calls these latter jobs “honorable,” which is usually code for “simple.”

We see this kind of either/or thinking all the time. Smart people work with their minds. Slow folks work with their hands. If you don’t like school, you must be in the second group. But that’s okay!you’re told. That work is “honorable.”

But is that division really accurate or useful? In her ethnographic study of surgeons, anthropologist Joan Cassell stressed the way surgeons admired (and envied) each other’s knowledge and experience and other personal qualities, but especially their technical proficiency:

“Fundamental to a good surgeon is technical proficiency, or “good hands.” Lacking technical skill, a surgeon may be a good doctor, but never a good surgeon. A house officer told me that a senior surgeon, whose personal and professional behavior he described as “sleazy,” had very good hands. “He’s an elegant surgeon,” he said. When one observes a surgeon with “good hands” operate, everything looks easy, almost inevitable; the performance has a kind of rhythm, speed, and flow. Even emergencies, such as an unexpected hemorrhage, appear to be under control. Surgeons describe such colleagues admiringly, as a “superb technician,” a “brilliant technical surgeon,” a “good operator.” Of a man characterized as “the absolute essence of the ideal general surgeon,” a young surgeon said: “He just had the most incredibly gifted hands. You could compare him to Michaelangelo. That’s how much of a pleasure it was to operate with him and watch him.””

The young surgeon might also have mentioned Leonardo da Vinci, best known as an artist but also a brilliant cartographer, scientist, musician, and engineer who designed a prototype for the helicopter 400 years before humans achieved flight. Leonardo was so gifted in so many subjects that he has been described as the archetypical Renaissance man, but if he were alive today he’d probably be known as that guy who doodles in notebooks and tinkers in his garage.

If we can challenge the idea that intellectual work contains no hands-on component, it’s even easier to challenge the idea that hands-on work requires no intellect. Author and motorcycle mechanic, Matthew Crawford, Ph.D., wrote a beautiful article about this for The New York Times,“The Case for Working With Your Hands.”

“When we praise people who do work that is straightforwardly useful,” he says, “the praise often betrays an assumption that they had no other options. We idealize them as the salt of the earth and emphasize the sacrifice for others their work may entail.” This portrayal obscures the mental challenge of such work:

“In fixing motorcycles you come up with several imagined trains of cause and effect for manifest symptoms, and you judge their likelihood before tearing anything down. This imagining relies on a mental library that you develop. An internal combustion engine can work in any number of ways, and different manufacturers have tried different approaches. Each has its own proclivities for failure. You also develop a library of sounds and smells and feels. For example, the backfire of a too-lean fuel mixture is subtly different from an ignition backfire…

There is always a risk of introducing new complications when working on old motorcycles, and this enters the diagnostic logic. Measured in likelihood of screw-ups, the cost is not identical for all avenues of inquiry when deciding which hypothesis to pursue. Imagine you’re trying to figure out why a bike won’t start. The fasteners holding the engine covers on 1970s-era Hondas are Phillips head, and they are almost always rounded out and corroded. Do you really want to check the condition of the starter clutch if each of eight screws will need to be drilled out and extracted, risking damage to the engine case? Such impediments have to be taken into account. The attractiveness of any hypothesis is determined in part by physical circumstances that have no logical connection to the diagnostic problem at hand. The mechanic’s proper response to the situation cannot be anticipated by a set of rules or algorithms. There probably aren’t many jobs that can be reduced to rule-following and still be done well.”

Does it really make sense to describe the surgeons’ work as exclusively intellectual, and the mechanic’s work as exclusively “hands-on”? Their jobs are different, but both involve logic, diagnostics, judgment, technical competence (“good hands”), intense scrutiny to detail, participation in a community of learners, and years of acquired background knowledge.

Mythbusters’ Adam Savage is also a hands-on guy — and the work he does is probably even “honorable” in the sense that he inspires others with it — but no one would call that work simple. If you’ve ever watched an episode of Mythbusters, you know that all the what-if? science questions are followed by building and testing. Yet even to say “followed by” implies that the skills are discrete; they are not. Science, design, and construction are interwoven. Would you send a kid who liked that stuff to art school, engineering school, tell them to get a liberal arts degree in math or physics, or steer them towards shop and vo-tech? In an ideal world they wouldn’t have to choose, since each part feeds off the others.

In this video Savage talks about the challenges and joys of being a “maker”:

(For examples of what he means, see 10 Insanely Cool Things We Saw at Maker Faire.)

This debate is an old one. In the 1920s and 1930s, progressive education reformers like John Dewey advocated vocational work as part of the ordinary school day, and designed schools that included farm work and apprenticeships in the trades — for all kids, not just the “not-schoolish” ones. This educational model was popular with farmers in the Midwest, but immigrants to urban areas protested that they had not risked life and limb to come to America in order for their children to feed goats or work in a bakery. They wanted their children to be reading books. Both sides of this argument have merit, and it was never really settled. But that was at a time when technology did not permeate nearly every occupation the way it does today: “thinking” work required little technical competence, and “hands-on” work required little creativity.

Today, students who cast their lot with either side of this false divide — whether from fear, or from prejudice — risk falling behind in both.