How to respond to community concerns about critical race theory

School leaders can use elements of political messaging to discuss difficult subjects like critical race theory with their communities.

Many had never heard of critical race theory (CRT) until 2020, when the term suddenly seemed to be everywhere. CRT is a legal theory and a framework for uncovering the roots of structural racism and its enduring effects on everyday life (e.g., Bell, 1980, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). However, some politicians and activists have successfully morphed this term to describe almost any mention of social justice or racism in public schools (Pollock et al., 2022; Stoughton, Lynch, & Lee, 2022).

These opponents have voiced their opinions at school board meetings, online, and in the media. As described in Kenneth Teitelbaum’s (2021) Kappan article, these debates are the most recent version of long-standing conflicts over multiculturalism and American identity. Teitelbaum writes that such conflicts are an inherent and ongoing part of schooling because “what we teach in our schools embodies our values and priorities, our interpretations and understandings, our expectations and hopes” (p. 49).

Many in K-12 and higher education have responded by stating that CRT is a legal theory usually encountered in graduate school — and therefore not explicitly present in K-12 curricula. Teitelbaum (2021) encourages educators to respond pragmatically “by avoiding public statements and classroom assignments that would further inflame tensions” (p. 52). We think education leaders should respond boldly and strategically. We believe there are positive elements of CRT that can help students “unpack and rethink the social construct of race that divides so much of U.S. society” (Farag, 2021). Therefore school and district leaders must support teachers in including discussions about race in education in ways that are aligned with CRT principles. We think that leaders can both respond to CRT opponents’ criticism and offer proactive messages about how their schools and districts are addressing racial and other disparities. Proactive messaging can prevent leaders from falling into the trap of reactively defending their practices and letting those with the most extreme views set the direction of the conversation.

Effective political communication

Educators can look to the world of politics for lessons on overcoming the messages of division being propagated in the media. Right-wing politicians have relied on activating the fears of white Americans as a strategy to win elections for decades. Consider the negative and stereotyped messages you may have heard, such as those about immigrants “ruining ‘our’ way of life” by “coming in ‘illegally’ and committing crimes,” or “taking our jobs.” Such messages create resentment toward government services perceived to go to an undeserving “them” and motivate primarily white voters to support limited government (Shenker-Osario, 2018).

Because these messages create fear and anger, they are highly persuasive: Fear increases people’s desire to learn about a potential threat, and anger can make people susceptible to stereotypes and generalizations (Haney López, 2019, p. 682). We — like others (e.g., Pollock et al., 2022) — argue that the messages about CRT spreading through activist parent groups on social media are these kinds of divisive messages. They provoke parents’ fears and anxieties about students’ emotional safety in ways that pit parents of different racial and ethnic groups against each other.

Fear increases people’s desire to learn about a potential threat, and anger can make people susceptible to stereotypes and generalizations.

To overcome messages of division, reduce fear, and promote unity across a school and district community, education leaders can follow principles gleaned from research on political canvassing (Haney López, 2019; Lake Research Partners, 2018; Shenker-Osorio, 2018). The research focuses on how to effectively counteract racially coded language that divides American citizens by emphasizing our shared values and calling out divisive tactics.

To understand how educational institutions have communicated about race, racism, and the role of CRT, we used a list of all publicly accessible Facebook pages of schools and districts (Burchfield et al., 2021; Rosenberg et al., 2021) to examine mentions of “critical race” on these pages. We noticed that school and district leaders often responded to these comments by stating that their curriculum does not include CRT. However, research in political messaging suggests this tactic may backfire, sowing more division rather than creating unity (Haney López, 2019).

Three components of an effective response

Effective responses to divisive messages have several similar elements (Haney López, 2019; Lake Street Partners, 2018):

• They open by describing a shared value.
• They use active voice to name an antagonist (e.g., the people who are trying to divide us) and call out divide-and-conquer tactics.
• They end with a strong, positive call to action that affirms common values. Instead of being race-neutral or colorblind, they talk about making education better for students of different racial and ethnic groups.

Mentioning CRT directly draws the reader’s attention to a concept that has a negative connotation and an unclear meaning (and risks having the reader perceive CRT as the antagonist). A message of unity, on the other hand, speaks to many individuals. Consider opening a message with a broadly shared value; describing the problem (with careful attention to naming an antagonist and pointing out how they benefit from sowing division); and then offering a shared vision that emphasizes “us” as a community.

Making current responses more effective

The following is a hypothetical example of a typical social media post from a district leader responding to CRT concerns, using elements aggregated from multiple messages by actual school districts that we found during our research (Burchfield et al., 2021; Rosenberg et al., 2021):

A recent news article claimed that several current members of the school board support the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in our schools. This notion is not at all accurate. We have clearly and succinctly addressed CRT on multiple occasions at our board meetings: We do not teach nor do we have any plans to teach CRT in our schools. Our curricula are publicly adopted documents that are accessible through a public records request. Our district serves almost 40,000 students who hold many different beliefs and perspectives. Our district values each student and is committed to providing a welcoming and supportive environment for every family, child, and employee. Our district encourages acceptance, understanding, and achievement for all students and families. Additionally, we provide culturally relevant teaching training for staff, and we celebrate a variety of cultural holidays throughout the school year. As a district, we remain committed to continuous improvement so that all students have the same opportunities to attain the educational success they are capable of achieving.

This response begins by referring to a newspaper article claiming that school board members support CRT, and then proceeds to directly contradict that claim over several sentences. The response draws readers’ attention to a news article they may or may not have read and to the idea that school board members may support CRT, a concept that parents have likely heard has negative connotations. The idea that curricula are accessible to parents through a public records request could imply formality and inaccessibility even though conversations about curriculum are a regular part of interactions between parents and teachers.

This statement describes the district’s values and accompanying actions and ends by emphasizing “continuous improvement” and educational opportunity. While these goals are important to name, the statement does not directly address supporting any specific populations, such as Black or Latinx students, making it read as race-neutral, rather than an acknowledgement of the history and present realities of racism and segregation. The mentions of providing professional development on culturally relevant teaching and celebrating cultural holidays are relatively anemic views of culturally relevant instruction — few would object to celebrating a variety of cultures. This statement does not take a strong stand in explaining why education for anti-racism is necessary.

As fraught and frustrating as these conversations can feel, research suggests they also present a chance to communicate in a way that makes progress toward a widely shared, democratic vision of education.

Let’s apply the three components of an effective response — 1) opening with a shared value, 2) identifying the antagonist as the problem, and 3) offering a shared vision — to see how we might change this statement. First, we suggest that district leaders begin with statements similar to those now in the middle: “Our district values each student and is committed to providing a welcoming and supportive environment for every family, child, and employee. Our district encourages acceptance, understanding, and achievement for all students and families.” In the current statement, the author of a misleading news article is implied as the antagonist, but no antagonist is clearly stated. Instead, school leaders might consider calling out politicians or even newspaper reporters who are trying to divide the school community with rhetoric that pulls the school community apart. Finally, a stronger and more specific statement of support for specific student groups would be helpful to affirm students without being race-neutral. Applying these guidelines, here is the revised message:

Research shows that to thrive, all children need to be affirmed and supported in our classrooms. Recently, certain politicians are misleading the public about education efforts in our schools while at the same time trying to remove public school funding at the expense of Black, Latinx, Asian, Indigenous, and white students. We need to recognize the invaluable role of public education in our democracy and embrace the diversity students bring to our schools. When we all learn about, with, and from each other, education can provide the path to a better life for all of us.

This statement begins with a value-based statement about affirming all students, names an antagonist (politicians), calls out the negative effects of their tactics, and labels the harm done to specific groups of students before offering a shared vision that everyone in the community (“we”) can support.

Responding to other issues

Although we used these elements to respond to concerns about CRT, these components can also be used to communicate about other issues. For example, district leaders might have used a statement like the following to respond to debates about masking during COVID-19:

In our district, we all value the physical health and well-being of our students. COVID-19 has demonstrated how important practices like staying home when sick and handwashing are to protecting those we care about. Politicians who do not understand our tight-knit community are using the issue of whether students wear masks in schools to sow division among us. In our district, we affirm the value of the most vulnerable among us — those who are immunocompromised or live with immunocompromised family members or young children. Because of this, we will prioritize mask-wearing in school and during school activities when rates of COVID-19 exceed certain thresholds set by public health professionals, in addition to using other measures like frequent handwashing. We recognize the importance of each human life in our districts — students; their family members; and those in the community, especially those who cannot be vaccinated or are immunocompromised. As a community, we are all committed to the health and well-being of each person in the [district’s name] family.

This message identifies a shared value, names an antagonist, and offers a call to action aligned with a larger vision — because we recognize the value of each human life, we will use these measures when infection rates are at a certain level. It ends by emphasizing the shared values and bonds within the district community. Similar strategies could be used to respond to attacks about other contentious issues, including standards, testing, social and emotional learning, supporting transgender students, and concerns about particular books in the curriculum or school libraries.

Regardless of the specific area of concern, effective communication on reforms and goals must address the barriers in the “core stories” that many U.S. individuals hold about education (Bales & O’Neil, 2014). Many Americans think that U.S. education is failing and blame individuals —administrators, teachers, students, or parents — for these failures. If education leaders do not provide a structural explanation for the problem they name, people will fill in the blanks by blaming individuals. Even when proactively, rather than reactively, communicating with parents, it is important to appeal to broad, collective values and to create a narrative with an antagonist or otherwise explain the problem and solution (Bales & O’Neil, 2014).

For example, a leader might open their message with a comparison that invokes the positive value of forward progress, such as: “The changes we need to make to our education system are like remodeling a valuable but outdated house — keeping what works, and updating what doesn’t, to make it more functional for today’s needs” (Bales & O’Neil, 2014, p. 30). Then, a leader might describe a problem and a specific solution in line with those values: “Some of the books we used to read in school don’t connect with the diverse set of young people we have in our schools today. Therefore, as part of our district curriculum approval process, we will continue to look for books and materials that will help students see themselves, understand multiple perspectives, and create opportunities for rich conversations on important social issues and current events.”

Messages that use this approach can allay many peoples’ fears. But what if the message does not satisfy parents’ concerns or raises new ones? In this case, we recommend that a leader listen carefully to identify the underlying fear, so that they can reassure the parent or community member, establish their mutual care for the student or students involved, and then reiterate shared values before redirecting the conversation back to collective goals.

Teachers, educational researchers, and even parents who find themselves needing to defend or explain particular texts and practices can use this messaging structure to address a variety of issues. As fraught and frustrating as these conversations can feel, research suggests they also present a chance to communicate in a way that makes progress toward a widely shared, democratic vision of education. Responding with these visions in mind can go a long way with many people who raise concerns and questions about the controversies surrounding schools.

 

References

Bales, S.N. & O’Neil, M. (Eds.). (2014). Putting it back together again: Reframing education using a core story approach: A Frameworks MessageMemo. Frameworks Institute.

Bell, D.A. (1980). Race, racism and American law (2nd ed.). Aspen Publishers.

Bell, D.A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? University of Illinois Law Review, 893.

Burchfield, M., Rosenberg, J., Borchers, C., Thomas, T., Gibbons, B., & Fischer, C. (2021). Are violations of student privacy “quick and easy”? Investigating the privacy of students’ images and names in the context of K–12 educational institution’s posts on Facebook. In I.H. Hsiao, S. Sahebi, F. Bouchet, & J.-J. Vie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 744–749). International Data Mining Society.

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2018). Must we defend the Nazis: Why the First Amendment should not protect hate speech and white supremacy. New York University Press.

Farag, A. (2021). The fear of multiple truths: On teaching about racism in a predominantly white school. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (5), 18-23.

Haney López, I. (2019). Merge left: Fusing race and class, winning elections, and saving America. The New Press.

Lake Research Partners. (2018). Race-class narrative: National dial survey report. Demos.

Pollock, M., Rogers, J., Kwako, A., Matschiner, A., Kendall, R., Bingener, C., . . . & Howard, J. (2022). The conflict campaign: Exploring local experiences of the campaign to ban “critical race theory” in public K-12 education in the U.S., 2020–2021. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.

Rosenberg, J.M., Burchfield, M.B., Borchers, C., Gibbons, B., & Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2021). Social media and students’ privacy: What schools and districts should know. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (2), 49-53.

Shenker-Osario, A. (2018). Communicating race-class. Australian Progress public lecture [Video]. Vimeo.

Stoughton, C., Lynch, M.E., & Lee, M. (2022). Family engagement and conflict about teaching for social justice. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (7), 23-27.

Teitelbaum, K. (2022). Curriculum, conflict, and critical race theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (5), 47-53.

---

This article appears in the November 2022 issue of Kappan, Vol. 104, No. 3, pp. 48-53.