In Arizona, teachers who talk about racism and sexism in violation of a new state law can have their certification revoked by the state. Tennessee will take money away from the teacher鈥檚 school district. And, in New Hampshire, parents will be allowed to directly sue the school district.
That鈥檚 according to an Education Week review of the so-called 鈥渃ritical race theory鈥� laws that 10 states have passed this year and which will go into effect as soon as the end of this month.
Responding to critics鈥� claims that teachers are indoctrinating students to hate white people and accept LGBTQ cultural norms, legislatures are moving to censor or place often-ambiguous conditions on classroom discussions of divisive concepts, using a combination of financial penalties, state-mandated professional development reviews, and the threat of tangling administrators up in court and red tape, according to the review.
鈥淚t鈥檒l be interesting to see what state regulators do with defining what constitutes 鈥榙ivisive,鈥欌�� said Francisco Negr贸n, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association. 鈥淭here鈥檚 going to need to be some more clarity about what those terms actually mean, and how courts [and regulatory agencies] are interpreting them in various states.鈥�
District lawyers in states where so-called 鈥渃ritical race theory bills鈥� have passed have spent the past several weeks poring over the language of the laws and fielding questions from administrators about how to comply.
Critical race theory is an academic framework describing the systemic nature of racism. Only three out of 10 states actually ban critical race theory in their recently passed legislation.
But while much of the language in the laws is vague, Joy Surrat Baskin, the director of legal services of the Texas Association of School Boards, said they have a very specific intent.
鈥淭his sends that message that a teacher will get in trouble if you do something that fits in one of these categories, or a parent will file a complaint that a teacher did something in one of these categories,鈥� said Baskin. 鈥淭he main concern is that there鈥檚 a chilling effect on just basic instruction.鈥�
A district investigation if students claim they feel uncomfortable in class
Education Week reviewed the text of the laws, reached out to state departments who will be tasked with enforcing them, and talked with district lawyers to get a better understanding of what administrators should look out for.
Of the 10 states that have passed laws restricting classroom discussions on race and sex, only Oklahoma鈥檚 state department has so far issued rules detailing how the law will be enforced.
The six-page document released this week by the state department outlines the penalties districts might face for breaking the law. It requires districts to establish a procedure for parents to report violations of the law, and then for administrators to investigate those complaints and send a report to the state department.
Educators could have their teaching licenses suspended or revoked, and schools could lose accreditation if the investigation finds evidence that they taught banned concepts about racism and sexism.
The new rules also allow parents and legal guardians to now 鈥渉ave the right to inspect curriculum, instructional materials, classroom assignments, and lesson plans to ensure compliance.鈥�
In some states like New Hampshire and Montana, the laws empower parents to file lawsuits and encourage formal complaints against schools if they believe the law has been violated.
New Hampshire鈥檚 law states that 鈥渁ny person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this section, including the attorney general, may initiate a civil action against a school or school district in superior court for legal or equitable relief, or with the New Hampshire commission for human rights.鈥� Teachers will be deemed by the state to have violated the state鈥檚 teacher code of conduct if they fall afoul of the law.
Arizona鈥檚 bill, which Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law last week, allows the state attorney general or county attorney to file a civil suit against a school district for violating the law. It also allows the state to take away or suspend a teacher鈥檚 certification for a violation.
Districts face stiff fines if they violate 鈥榗ritical race theory鈥� laws
In Arizona and Tennessee, legislators have directed their state departments to financially punish school districts that violate their censorship laws.
Arizona鈥檚 law says that for every violation, the county court can penalize the school district for a maximum of $5,000.
Tennessee鈥檚 law requires the commissioner to withhold state funds 鈥渋n an amount determined by the commissioner.鈥�
Tennessee鈥檚 state department is working on a framework for enforcing the law which will be made publicly available 鈥渨hen it鈥檚 ready,鈥� according to department spokesman Brian Blackley.
In Montana, asking students to reflect on their race is 鈥渄iscrimination鈥�
Even in states that don鈥檛 have financial or legal implications written into the law, school districts can expect a higher level of scrutiny from parents and community members when they talk about several social issues in the classroom.
Utah鈥檚 law mandates that districts make the content of their professional development for staff freely available to parents upon request. The district will also have to include a rubric explaining how the materials adhere to the requirements of the state department鈥檚 rules.
In late May, Montana鈥檚 Attorney General Austin Knudsen issued an opinion about the state鈥檚 ban on discussing racism and sexism in the classroom, deeming critical race theory illegal. He also condemned anti-racism training as 鈥渄iscriminatory.鈥�
Asking students to reflect on their racial identities and privilege is an example of the 鈥渞ace-based discrimination鈥� that Knudsen said parents or students can file complaints about.
鈥淭he Montana Office of the Attorney General and Montana Department of Justice stand ready to assist OPI and parents, students, employees or other individuals with complaints of unlawful race-based discrimination,鈥� he said.
In at least one state, a complaint has already been filed.
Meanwhile in other states, parents have already started filing complaints.
On June 30, a parent group from Tennessee wrote to the commissioner of education stating that, among other things, a lesson on Ruby Bridges, the first Black child to desegregate an elementary school in Louisiana, made white students feel uncomfortable and violated the 鈥渃ritical race theory law.鈥�
鈥淭argeting elementary age children with daily lessons on fighting past injustices as if they were occurring in present day violates Tennessee law and will sow the seeds of racial strife, neo-racism (and) neo-segregation,鈥� Robin Steenman, the chair of the Williamson County chapter of Moms for Liberty wrote in the complaint.
Commissioner Penny Schwinn wrote in a letter to a Tennessee legislator that the department is in the process of building an enforcement framework, ensuring them that the department is 鈥渃ommitted to enforcing the CRT law as the legislature designed it.鈥�
