UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Actions by activists and politicians against the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in schools have been front-and-center in the national news headlines for over a year. However, according to Penn State College of Education researchers, the majority of the American public lacks a firm understanding of what CRT really is. The team seeks to counter anti-CRT arguments with evidence-based research as well as educate fellow researchers on the most effective tactics for engaging in debate over CRT and translating research findings into practice and policy.

According to Francesca López, Waterbury Chair in Equity Pedagogy and professor of education (second language education), critical race theory is the idea that “race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.”

López is the lead author on a policy brief, “Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory,” that was published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), which is based at the University of Colorado-Boulder and focuses on producing and disseminating peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Lopez’s co-authors on the brief include College of Education faculty members Royel Johnson, assistant professor of education (higher education); Ashley Patterson, assistant professor of education (curriculum and instruction); and LaWanda Ward, assistant professor of education (higher education).

According to López and Patterson, the decision to write the policy brief was spurred by a series of administrative and legislative actions against equitable educational practices that were being called “critical race theory.” At the time the researchers wrote the brief in early 2021, eight states had passed legislation that in some way seeks to ban historical information and critical analysis related to race and racism in public schools. In addition, they wrote, legislation has been or is being considered in 26 other states and in the U.S. Congress.

“Advocates of these administrative and legislative actions argue that providing students with information on race and racism is un-American, divisive, and itself racist, and that the trend is a result of school personnel being influenced by CRT and embedding it in curricula and staff training programs,” the researchers wrote in the brief.

López and Patterson argue that these actions ignore relevant research and historical precedent. For example, they explained, attacks on CRT often involve attacks on curriculum, particularly the New York Times Magazine’s “The 1619 Project,” a long-form multimedia journalistic report that examines the impact of slavery on American history. Developed by Pulitzer Prize-winner Nikole Hannah-Jones, The 1619 Project is designed to support educators who are concerned that key facts about slavery and its impact on the U.S. have largely been glossed over, minimalized or omitted altogether in K-12 school curricula.

Those who oppose The 1619 Project claim that it promotes “divisive concepts,” “toxic propaganda” and “child abuse.” According to the researchers, similar claims have been made about multicultural curricula and ethnic studies for decades. For example, as recently as 2010, they wrote, “the Arizona state legislature indicated that Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program” — which was established in 1998 in the Tucson Unified School District by high school teacher Curtis Acosta to help Chicano/a and Latino/a students reach their full potential — “promoted separatism, ‘resentment toward a race or class of people,’ and ‘the overthrow of the
United States government.’” However, according to the researchers, the Mexican American Studies program actually showed strong evidence of promoting academic achievement, graduation and college matriculation for students who attended the classes.

“(The attacks on critical race theory) seem sudden but it’s just a reiteration of controversies we’ve seen before,” said López. “To understand how we got to now, it’s important to pinpoint historical markers as well as how some politicians can manipulate messages.”

According to Lopez and Patterson, one problem that some academics have in bridging the gap between CRT research and public policy is that they tend to use language that can be inaccessible to people outside academia.

“Once you build up that knowledge background, one thing researchers have a hard time doing is translating those realities into communications that can be taken up by policymakers and the common public,” Patterson said. “People aren’t going to listen to lengthy explanations. We need to figure out how to distill messages.”

Johnson added, “As researchers we often take for granted the competencies needed for effectively translating our findings in ways that are accessible to policymakers. With funding from the Spencer Foundation, we are working with the Research-to-Policy Collaboration to develop the policy competencies of educational researchers across the country who study race and racism. Our work can no longer sit on the shelves collecting dust — we must actively work to connect it to policy.”

Social media is an area in which many people stumble in communicating strategically, López and Patterson said. Studies carried out by messaging experts have shown that often when people retweet messages on Twitter with the intention of countering misinformation, it doesn’t add clarity but rather gives more coverage to the message they are trying to correct.

“Even if you’re against what’s being said and you retweet a message, you’re escalating that message,” said López.

A common argument among CRT naysayers, López and Patterson said, is that talking about race and racism in the classroom promotes racism. To the contrary, they said, research shows that being educated about racism leads children to be more equity-driven. In support of that theory, López cited a study by the Sesame Workshop, an American nonprofit organization that has been responsible for the production of several educational children's programs, including its first and best-known program, “Sesame Street.” In the study, which included children age 6 to 11 and their families, 86% of the children reported being worried about racism, and most of the children who said they felt like they experienced it were Black.

“Pretending racism doesn’t exist ignores what we know about child development,” said López. “Research also tells us that many parents don’t tend to have these conversations at home. This is one reason why teachers need to be skilled in navigating these conversations in productive ways that ensure all children thrive.”

The recent spate of antagonistic actions against critical race theory is unlikely to be the last time that the CRT movement is challenged by critics, Patterson said, so she and her co-authors on the brief wanted to provide a framework for countering dissenters, by giving a detailed list of historical examples.

“History provides us with a roadmap for understanding, contextualizing and challenging the current attacks on CRT,” Johnson said.

“It’s not about pushing, making people defensive,” López added. “Rather, it’s about asking questions: ‘What scares you about it [CRT]?’ ‘How has your child been harmed?’ By that questioning approach, there’s an interest in getting at what’s really scaring someone. Then in addition to that, it’s really the understanding that every child sitting in a classroom should have the opportunity to thrive. Not just the same students who have always had a chance to thrive, but that everyone in the classroom can experience that.”

The researchers also collaborated on the brief with Alex Molnar, director of publications for the NEPC and a research professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder; and Kevin Kumashiro, an independent scholar and leading voice in educational activism.