Occasional Paper
In this new Occasional Paper from the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, Hannah Kunzman and Danielle Allen offer a case study on contestation over K–12 civics curriculum in Texas.
Beginning in 2021, state legislators introduced or passed numerous bills intended to shape appropriate content in K–12 social studies curricula. The majority of these bills were, in the language of advocates, “essential knowledge” bills or “CRT [Critical Race Theory] abolition” bills. However, at the same time that these bills were making their way through state legislatures, there were also efforts to introduce, again in the language of advocates, “culturally responsive” curricula or “education equity” bills. Culturally responsive, a term coined by education professor Geneva Gay, describes a curriculum that acknowledges the diversity of experiences and identities that students bring to the classroom. Educational equity also often refers to the inclusion of instruction around structural racism and ethnic studies. In other words, distinctive substantive views about education have motivated two different strategies for shaping K–12 education through state legislation.
These different substantive views have become the site of intense political contestation and have sparked a new iteration of the so-called culture wars. Politicians have hit upon curricular contestation as having the potential for partisan political gain. Their engagement can often distort our view of what are very real and substantively important debates about how young people should be taught. These debates have the political salience they do because they touch upon deeply important ideas and questions. To have productive civic conversations, we must focus on the substantive issues at stake in current debates over K–12 education. This paper aims to shift the focus back to these crucial questions.
Contemporary debates over curriculum introduce questions about what it means to be a parent, what it means to be a citizen, and the role of both parents and educators in raising children who can fulfill the demands of citizenship. The full landscape of contestation is an exchange about models of citizenship and the relationship between private and public actors in shaping the lives of young people. It is also a debate about history. Whose voices matter in our historical narrative? How should we discuss the dark sides of the American story? How should we engage across differences in a democratic society?
This paper offers a case study on contestation over K–12 civics curriculum in Texas. The key takeaways are as follows. First, on-the-ground exchanges are complex and substantive between two camps, an “American greatness” camp and a “systemic transformation” camp. Second, there are many and various spaces of contestation requiring attention, including legislatures, school board elections, and classroom libraries. Third, the debates represent competing interpretations of civic values as articulated by both camps.
Commentary
Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation Fellow Dr. Shlomit Wagman lays out a framework to address the threats artificial intelligence poses to global security and democratic institutions.
Additional Resource
In a recent piece for Tech Policy Press, Allen Lab Senior Fellow Alex Pascal and Nathan Sanders outline how US states are well-positioned to lead the development of Public AI. State governments can act as “laboratories of twenty-first century democracy” to experiment with AI applications that directly benefit citizens.
Additional Resource
Over the past several weeks, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) within the Trump Administration has been embedding staff in a range of United States federal agencies. These staff have gained access to data maintained by the federal government. This guide explains what is in the data, what DOGE is doing with it, and why it matters to all Americans.
Policy Brief
Tova Wang and Melina Geser-Stark argue that while grassroots advocacy has been pivotal in advancing voting rights, it remains overshadowed by the perception that voter reform is the domain of political elites — a view this paper challenges by examining how grassroots efforts mirror modern social movements and drive the push for a more inclusive democracy.
Commentary
Occasional Paper
The study examines the influence of family history on U.S. lawmakers’ views on immigration policy, finding that legislators with immigrant ancestry tend to support more permissive immigration laws and speak more positively about immigration. It examines personal background, including family history and identity, and how that plays a significant role in shaping policymaking.
