The U.S. Department of Education has backed off plans to prioritize projects funded by grants that focus on systemic bias and marginalization in history and civics instruction, following an uproar in the spring. But they haven鈥檛 signaled a total retreat. And what lessons observers should draw from the controversy over the small grant program are less than clear.
In Federal Register notices published Monday, the department said that it would invite grant proposals for the American History and Civics program 鈥渢hat reflect the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students into teaching and learning,鈥� but it would not give such proposals a competitive edge. The same goes for the department鈥檚 invitation for grants to 鈥渇oster information literacy skills.鈥�
That鈥檚 a departure from the department鈥檚 plans in April to prioritize those approaches when doling out grant money. Yet key elements of the agency鈥檚 philosophy about teaching history and civics survive in the new notice, and the department says the issues it highlighted four months ago remain important to the agency.
In Monday鈥檚 notices, the agency did not mention the 1619 Project, the New York Times Magazine series that put the legacy of slavery and racism at the heart of the American experience, and the self-described anti-racist writer Ibram X. Kendi. That marks a departure from the department鈥檚 original proposal, which included references to the 1619 Project and Kendi in its background material.
Such references did not in any way require those seeking the grant money to incorporate the 1619 Project or Kendi into their proposals. But the mention of them helped spark a backlash from conservative groups and politicians; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the top Republican in the Senate, denounced the proposal as 鈥渄ivisive nonsense.鈥�
Conservatives hail the department鈥檚 shift as a victory. For example, Parents Defending Education, a group that helped coordinate thousands of comments opposed to the grant priorities, as a win.
The department鈥檚 preliminary plans from April did not mention critical race theory. Yet the proposed grant priorities also fed into the national political brawl over the academic concept that says racism is embedded in American policies and laws far beyond individuals鈥� prejudices.
As part of this backlash, 11 states this year as of mid-July had enacted bans on teaching critical race theory or restricted how schools address racism and sexism.
At least 4,600 of the public comments submitted to the department about the grant plans referenced critical race theory.
One theme of the comments critical of the department鈥檚 proposal was that it would create unnecessary division and indoctrinate students with harmful ideologies. Yet supporters said such approaches would help foster an accurate and inclusive understanding of American history. (The 1619 Project is the basis for a curriculum developed by the Pulitzer Center.)
Here鈥檚 more of what you need to know about this controversy
The grants, which involve a little more than $5 million this year, do not involve the creation of a curriculum endorsed by the department. By law, the federal government is prohibited from telling schools what curriculum to use or not use, a point the department stresses in Monday鈥檚 notice. The grants fund two distinct programs: for history and civics teachers, as well as
The shift by the department means that someone seeking the grant funding wouldn鈥檛 be any more or less likely to get an award by focusing on the priorities in question, and don鈥檛 have to include them.
In addition, the sheer volume of comments, not necessarily what the general tone of those comments are, appears to have played a key role in the department鈥檚 shift. In Monday鈥檚 notice, the agency says it is continuing to process and respond to the 鈥渟ignificant number鈥� of public comments about the grants.
鈥淎s a result, it is not possible to issue a notice of final priorities in time to use the priorities鈥� to give certain applicants a competitive edge for fiscal 2021, the department鈥檚 notice says.
A federal website has about the department鈥檚 proposal.
Despite dropping mentions of the 1619 Project and Kendi, it鈥檚 also clear the department鈥檚 overall view about what the grants should support hasn鈥檛 fundamentally changed.
For example, the April proposal for these grants highlights instructional approaches that 鈥渢ake into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history,鈥� as well as those that 鈥渃ontribute to inclusive, supportive, and identity-safe learning environments.鈥�
The Monday notice repeats that and other language verbatim from four months ago. Such language about systemic bias and identity-safe environments has helped fuel strife about how schools should approach classes about racism and sexism in America.
All that underscores the fact that while grant proposals stressing such approaches won鈥檛 officially get an edge in the process, they could still end up winning funding.
In a from late last week at the department鈥檚 website, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona reiterated this philosophy with respect to the grants.
鈥淭he Department recognizes the value of supporting teaching and learning that reflects the rich diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students,鈥� Cardona wrote. 鈥淎s every parent knows, when students can make personal connections to their learning experiences, there are greater opportunities for them to stay engaged in their education and see pathways for their own futures.鈥�
The department has yet to respond to a question by Education Week as to whether it would try to revive the proposed competitive priorities in some way for the grants in future years, when the agency might be better prepared for a high volume of public comments.
