Burning Down The House: Teachers Willing To Hurt Kids Over Enforcing 'Anti-CRT' Laws
It is almost like this anti-CRT stuff was never about children's well-being and was just a proxy for censorship this whole time.
I know you want to learn, Kevin, but what about my feelings?
Last month, I shared that the 3rd annual Critical Race Theory Summer School came correct this year. They brought out real heavy hitters: The Kimberlé Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris, the list went on. You can get more details on the learning extravaganza here. As much as I’d like for everyone to supplement the biased history they were probably fed from elementary school onward, I know that not everyone has the stomach to stomach… a more accurate documentation and analysis of the history that influences our laws and social relationships. Much anti-CRT law has been passed to protect innocent children from the horrors of being told what their grandparents or their grandparents’ friends may have done — so much so that we’ve been distracted from the real victims of CRT: grown-ass adults. And they won’t let their big age prevent them from stepping on the aspirations of the little people. No really, these teachers are willing to trash the accreditation of their kid’s schools.
The state board of education downgraded the accreditation for Tulsa Public Schools, Oklahoma’s largest district, because of a teacher’s complaint about staff training on implicit bias, which the teacher claimed “shamed white people.”
The teacher from Memorial High School in Tulsa complained to the Oklahoma Department of Education in February that a staff training from August 2021 violated state law HB1775, which restricts conversations on race and racism. (HB1775 is sometimes known as the anti-critical race theory law.) The law wasn’t in place at the time of the training.
The state board also downgraded Mustang Public Schools’ accreditation in the same meeting after the district self-reported a violation of the law.
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Nothing says caring for our children’s futures like ex post facto punishments! When asked for clarification, the Board felt that this was a borderline issue and decided to dock the schools’ viability in order to send a message. Before we get all uppity, I think we should give the School Board a fair shake and look at the offending comments, yes?
The audio included an overview of racial biases, how they were shaped by history and are present in classrooms and how they can impact student learning and outcomes if left unchecked.
It also included statistics, noting, for example, that while just 18 percent of preschool students were Black in 2015, they accounted for 42 percent of the out-of-school suspensions, that Black students were suspended three times more than White students, that Black students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended or restrained, and that teachers hold lower expectations (explicitly or implicitly) for Black and Latino children as compared to White peers.
“There is no reason to doubt those statistics are accurate, but the totality felt like the rule language that prohibits any staff development from being based on those general principles in the statute, so that’s where we landed,” Clark said in an interview with Education Week.
You read that right. There was no disputing the facts. The conversation intended to curb known (presumably negative) impacts on student learning and outcomes that would likely occur if left unchecked. What happened when teachers were introduced to information that could protect minority children from disparate outcomes at a time when it was legal to share the information? The Board moved them a little closer to not being a viable school option. In their own words, “Accredited with warning is sufficient in this case, because we need to send a message.”
What is the message? Teacher comfort is more important than facts and student outcomes? Wasn’t all this anti-CRT stuff supposed to protect our kids? How does not addressing teacher biases that no one factually objects to maintain that goal? I’d ask which kids, but I’m afraid that the Board may come for me next.
Sponsored
Legal Contract Review in Under 10 Minutes? Here’s How
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Tackling Deposition Anxiety: How AI Is Changing The Way Lawyers Do Depositions
How Thomson Reuters Supercharged CoCounsel With Gen AI Advances
Two Okla. Districts Get Downgraded Accreditations for Violating State’s Anti-CRT Law [Ed Week]
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.
Sponsored
