Guest Column by Juan Garcia Oyervides
TX HB4093 “Critical Race Theory” Bill has been passed and signed by the governor. Regardless of where you stand politically, this is a loss for everyone whose children will attend public schools in Texas in the fall because of the effects it is already having on educators across the state.
To be clear, the changes will have no effect on the actual use of Critical Race Theory in our classrooms. This is in part because the writers, sponsors and signatories of the law are not actually looking to limit the academic framework. Instead, the law aims at limiting certain professional and individual freedoms in the classroom, at the same time that it limits schools’ abilities to request teachers to participate in anti-bias and anti-racist trainings. This has been widely reported by state and national news outlets. However, it is also important to note that this is not an empty legislative statement, but a law that aims to steer classroom behaviors based on misused political influence.
There is some confusion about how the changes in the law will affect the classrooms this coming school year. This set of changes has been framed by its supporters as an attempt to “stop indoctrination” regarding the racialized history of the United States and the contemporary implications of that history. Conversely, its detractors have denounced the politicization of the classroom by conservatives, which could lead to self-censorship by cautious educators. Both sides seem to agree that the new law’s intent is to regulate the conduct and limit the individual freedom of the educators. As of next school year, they will lose significant breath in their ability to choose what topics would be more appropriate and indeed urgent for their students to discuss.
Unfortunately, the changes are vague in stating that “For any social studies course in the required curriculum: A teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs”. The idea here may have been that students would refrain from talking about the killing of Black Americans by the police and other “controversial” topics dealing with racial disparities. However, this law additionally pauses any discussion of gun ownership as a constitutional right, as this too has been widely debated and remains a passionate issue with social implications. In reading the law, it should become clear how misguided it is in its attempt to mandate classroom discussion through legislation. It is already challenging for teachers to engage students without this political intervention in their day-to-day work. According to the Texas Education Agency, only 32% of 8th graders learning Social Studies meet grade levels or above.
One additional change that should have us scratching our heads is why the law explicitly prohibits educators to incentivize students’ civic engagement. Its subsection 3 states that: “a school district, open-enrollment charter school, or teacher may not require, make part of a course, or award a grade or course credit,including extra credit,for a student’s: political activism, lobbying, or efforts to persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct communication; or participation in any internship, practicum, or similar activity involving social or public policy advocacy.”
Beyond this highly politicized discussion, the law will certainly hinder local school districts’ ability to keep their curriculum relevant in today’s changing environment. In a school district such as Amarillo ISD, where 49.7% of the students are considered at risk of dropping out, we should make every effort to keep students engaged. We should not let our children’s education be a casualty of national and state partisanship.
Ultimately, I would encourage concerned parties to read the extent of the law and join ongoing discussions on how these changes will affect children, their schools and after-school programs.