Blog

CRT Forward Tracking Project Trends as of 6/29/22

By: Taifha Natalee Alexander

Newly released CRT Forward Tracking Project data has revealed new anti-CRT national, state, local and content-specific trends. These trends have revealed that: (1) the national introduction of anti-CRT measures in the CRT Forward Tracking Project database have grown by 28%; (2) anti-CRT measures exist in all but one state in the United States; and (3) Local school board officials in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and California have introduced the most anti-CRT measures at the local school board level account which account for nearly 50% of all anti-CRT measures at the local school board level.

The national introduction of anti-CRT activity in the CRT Forward Tracking Project database have grown by 28%.

In May 2022, at least 394 anti-CRT measures were introduced at the federal, state, and local levels. As of June 29, 2022, at least 480 different anti-CRT measures have been identified through the CRT Forward Tracking Project research processes. These measure include newly introduced anti-CRT measures, as well as measures from more than one month ago that have been reported on only recently. For more on the CRT Forward Tracking Project Methodology, please visit: https://map.crtforward.law.ucla.edu/methodology/

Anti-CRT activity exists in every state, except Delaware.

Anti-CRT measures have been passed at either the federal, state, or local level in nearly every state within the United States. As of the CRT Forward Project launch date in March 2022, government officials in Massachusetts and Delaware had not introduced any anti-CRT measures. However, in May 2022, CRT Forward Tracking Project researchers learned of a local government measure in Mansfield, Massachusetts that aimed to ban distorted descriptions of systemic racism and efforts to dismantle it. The measure was drafted, submitted, then removed from consideration. For more on this measure including the institution it targeted and conduct it sought to regulate, visit the CRT Forward Tracking Project Map at https://map.crtforward.law.ucla.edu/ and use either the Map or Table view to select Massachusetts.

California among states that make up nearly 50% of all anti-CRT measures at the local school board level.

In addition to identifying, tracking, and analyzing state and federal anti-CRT measures, the CRT Forward Tracking Project is unique because it also includes local anti-CRT measures, which are more difficult to identify and track. Of the 110 identified local school board anti-CRT measures, local school board officials in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and California have introduced at least 50 local school board anti-CRT measures. Local school board officials in Virginia have introduced 12 anti-CRT measures and enacted 10 of those measures. In Pennsylvania, local school board officials have introduced 11 anti-CRT measures. Of those 11 anti-CRT measures in Pennsylvania, 7 have been enacted, 3 are pending and only 1 has been rejected. Local school board officials in Florida have introduced 10 anti-CRT measures. Of those 10 anti-CRT measures in Florida, 7 have been enacted, 1 expired and 2 have been rejected. In North Carolina, 9 anti-CRT measures have been introduced at the local school board level with 7 being enacted, 1 being rejected and 1 pending consideration. School board officials in California have introduced 8 anti-CRT measures with 5 being enacted and 3 rejected.

While the number of these anti-CRT measures in each state are significant, it is also important to note the rate at which anti-CRT measures at the local school board level are being enacted. Anti-CRT measures in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and California have an enactment rate of 62% - 83%. In comparing the number of enacted anti-CRT measures at the local school in Pennsylvania and California, Pennsylvania has an enactment rate of approximately 63% while California has an enactment rate of 62.5%. In essence, even though Pennsylvania school board officials are enacting more anti-CRT measures, the rate at which the measures are formalized into policy and practice are the almost the same.