CRTLS and CRT: The Uncomfortable Truth

By Aaron J. Lawler
Journal | January/February 2022

“Critical Race Theory is an ideology that threatens to overturn the advances of human civilization,” television host and author Pete Hegseth said on his program. Hegseth is not alone. Others have said that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a system used to indoctrinate children to become more racist, or that Critical Race Theory is “forced white guilt.”

Is CRT what Hegseth and others say it is?

As an educator, I have struggled to come up with an answer. Should I go through a lengthy explanation beginning with the work by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, a law professor at UCLA and Columbia, who is among those credited with the development of Critical Race Theory? Should I use a Venn diagram to discuss the similarities and differences between personal racism and systemic and institutional racism? Or should I spend time talking about the fallacy of “colorblindness” and how “not seeing race,” in itself demonstrates inequity?

Truthfully? None of these points matter much. Research, like DM Kahan’s Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus, tells us that using experts and statistics is ineffective when trying to convince people — especially of something that might contradict their ideologies. Likewise, in the study When Ignorance is Innocence, JJ Van der Weele shows that we often choose a stance of “strategic ignorance” to avoid information that might force us to reconstruct our identities. Confirmation bias is rampant in our public life, and we readily avoid inconvenient truths that would have us change what we think we already know.

Herein lies the issue: Most who have criticized CRT cannot define what it is. Rather, they describe what it represents to them personally. The truth is, CRT is a lens used to see how sociological issues intersect. Developed 40 years ago, this theory was established in response to stark racial disparities that exist within our society, many remaining to this day. And so legal scholars like Derrick Bell and Mari Matsuda began to examine whether racist beliefs and practices had a continued influence on the nation’s laws.

We must ask the question: Does teaching about historical and present-day racism necessarily state that a “white person” is inherently racist? No. Of course not. You can look at the history of a nation through a critical lens without pointing personal blame at individuals.

Despite this, a frantic Culture War persists, forcing people to choose a side, as if somehow a complex discussion about diversity, equity, and inclusion could be boiled down to being a White Sox or Cubs fan. Perhaps the most ridiculous part is that if you ask Illinois educators if CRT is in their curricula, their textbooks, or their lesson plans, the unequivocal answer is, “No.” CRT is a graduate-level topic; it is not being pushed on first-graders as some kind of indoctrination.

Where did the outrage stem from? It appears to be a complicated timeline, but in short, CRT has become a catch-all phrase for any discussion about racism, unearned privilege, inclusion, or equity.

What is CRTLS?
CRT and CRTLS have been conflated, likely due to an unfortunate accident of abbreviations. Because they sound alike, and because they are peripherally linked under a vague umbrella category of “Race,” the two have become one. Yet, cathode-ray tube, Charitable Remainder Trust, and Community Response Team also suffer from the unfortunate shared C-R-T. Thankfully, we are not seeing protests of cathode-rays.

Because CRT is poorly understood, the Illinois Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards (CRTLS) have also become muddled for and by supporters, opposers, activists, and cynics. But they are separate and different ideas.

In 2020, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) met and approved the Illinois State Board of Education’s (ISBE) implementation of a new set of standards for Illinois educators, known as Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards. With misinformation circulating around these standards, it is important to make the distinction: CRTLS are professional educator standards, not learning standards for students. Learning standards are benchmarks for student growth; professional education standards are requirements that help teacher preparation programs ensure they are meeting the needs of the profession.

CRTLS will join other standards already in effect for teachers including content area expertise, pedagogy, differentiation in instruction, developing a positive learning environment, instructional delivery, assessment and outcomes, and teaching diverse students. The latter of these serves as a baseline for the CRTLS, meaning the new standards ISBE has created already exist at a more basic level. What the CRTLS is not, is an unfunded mandate, a failed initiative, the 1619 Project, or an indoctrination of students.

How do we know? The CRTL standards were in a large part, educator-initiated and educator-driven. But more importantly, the CRTL standards do not ask a teacher to do anything he or she is not already supposed to be doing: fostering an open learning environment for all students, of all walks of life.

In 2018, The Diverse and Learner Ready Teacher Network (DLRTN) was established to serve as an advisory board to ISBE, to help improve the disparity between teacher and student demographics, and to improve culturally responsive practices. Since 2008, the state’s “students of color” population has grown from 46% to 52%, while 80% of Illinois teachers are white. Closing the disparity gap between white and non-white is not merely a question of equality, but is about benefiting both students of color and white students alike.

Why is CRTLS Necessary?
According to many studies, specifically ones conducted by Indiana University over the past five years, seeing teachers of color counteracts negative characterizations and implicit biases: those stereotypes which are unconscious but influence assumptions and decision-making. There is a powerful, positive impact on students when they see a teacher who looks like them or who shares the same culture as them. Teachers serve as our children’s role models. Teachers are often the first outside-of-the-home authority figures in a child’s life.

JCAR’s approval of CRTLS redefines, in a comprehensive and impactful way, what it means to be prepared to educate in Illinois. The way teachers are mentored and trained matters, and these new standards ask teachers to critically think about their own biases and teaching practices, and specifically to better diminish racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege, etc. The aim of the standards is to make every student — regardless of background — feel welcomed, comfortable, and represented both in the school and in the curriculum.

How do these standards translate to representation in the classroom and in pedagogy? The goal is to show that teachers can overcome their biases, refute ethnocentrism, and create professional development that demonstrates a real commitment — not lip service — to diversity. The hope is, that if teachers are trained to explore the contributions made by all cultures of the world in every subject matter, then the field of teaching will attract a wider pool of diverse candidates, and students will see teaching in a new, more inclusive way.

In other words, if students see themselves better represented in the curriculum, they grow up believing education is for all children, regardless of background. When those children choose a profession, teaching may now be an option, whereas before it was not seen as a viable path because education was reserved for a person different from them. CRTLS is both a short-term solution to inequity in representation and a long-term goal of attracting more diversity in the teaching pool. For examples of how standards might shift perspective, see page 24.

Criticism of CRTLS includes that it promotes a liberal political agenda, that the standards are the same as Critical Race Theory, and that there is a need for color-absent curriculum. In response, first, we must remember that CRT and CRTLS are not the same, and contrary to what pundits have said, CRTL standards do not promote a singular or specific curriculum. Illinois State Senator Cristina Pacione-Zayas, a 20-year veteran educator, clarified this point in a Chicago Tribune op-ed: “These standards are a crucial step toward facilitating greater equity for students who have historically been asked to check their culture and language at the school door.”

The Spectrum of Allies
As a lifelong educator and learner, as a local school board member, and as a parent, I believe — and want to believe — that a problem can be better understood by discussing, clarifying, and analyzing. Surely the issue of CRTLS is merely a matter of misinformation, right?

However, as I began to shape my explanation and differentiate CRT from CRTLS, I found myself losing steam. Like most social change situations, changing behaviors and winning the hearts and minds of vehement opposers seems insurmountable. The insistence that CRTLS is simply covert CRT goes to show that the research is right: convincing detractors is virtually impossible.

Unwilling to give up, I found an old idea from the 1960s that may provide the answer. Winning over the opponent is not necessary. The hardliners on either side of any argument are unlikely to budge. However, George Lakey and Martin Oppenheimer provide a tool and a little hope. Lakey’s and Oppenheimer’s “Spectrum of Allies” visualizes the sides of an issue along a spectrum ranging from “active allies” to “active opposition.” In the center of the spectrum lies the undecided and neutral. According to Lakey and Oppenheimer, this is the sweet spot — the so-called, Goldilocks Zone: “Not too cool, not too hot.”

Unable to convince others that CRTLS is good for schools, test scores, curricula, and children, I realized my tactics were all wrong. Instead of trying to win everyone, it is with the neutral or undecided folks that alliances can be forged.

We need to divert attention to where it counts. We are beyond the point of convincing some people that CRT and CRTLS are not the same, and that CRT is not the evil it has been made out to be. Instead, we should support our administrators and teachers as they begin and continue to work towards implementation of robust, diverse, and inclusive curricula.

Aaron Lawler, Ph.D. is a school board member with Kaneland CUSD 302 and a professor at Waubonsee Community College. He is an educator with 20 years’ experience, mostly at the high school and college levels. He holds a Ph.D. in Educational Philosophy from Concordia University