Case Study 2: State-Level Curriculum Legislation, 2021-2025

The Wave

Beginning in early 2021, state legislatures across approximately 18 states enacted laws restricting how race, racism, gender identity, sexual orientation, American history, and related topics could be taught in K-12 schools (and in some cases, in higher education). The pace of legislation accelerated through 2022 and 2023, with somewhat reduced volume in 2024 and 2025 as multiple statutes were challenged in court and as some restrictions were modified or repealed.

This case study walks through the actual content of selected laws, the legitimate concerns motivating them on each side, and the litigation results — in order to develop an empirically grounded understanding of a politically contested set of policies.

Florida HB 7 ("Stop WOKE Act"), 2022

The Individual Freedom Act (commonly called the "Stop WOKE Act"), signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April 2022, prohibited K-12 schools, public colleges and universities, and private employers from compelling instruction or training that promoted any of eight specified concepts. The eight prohibited concepts included claims that:

• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another;
• An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive (whether consciously or unconsciously);
• An individual's moral character or status is determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin;
• Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin should be discriminated against to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion;
• Meritocracy is racist or was created by members of a particular race;
• An individual should feel discomfort or guilt because of historical actions committed by members of his or her race.

The statute permitted instruction about these concepts in "an objective manner without endorsement"; it prohibited promotion of these concepts as truthful claims that students or employees were required to accept.

Litigation: The higher-education provisions of HB 7 were challenged in Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors (N.D. Fla. 2022) and Novoa v. Diaz (N.D. Fla. 2022). District Judge Mark Walker entered a preliminary injunction in November 2022, calling the law "positively dystopian" and finding it likely violated the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint discrimination on faculty speech. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the injunction in March 2024 in Pernell v. Lamb, holding that the higher-education provisions were unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The K-12 provisions were not directly addressed in the Pernell litigation; their status remained more contested.

The substantive question: The eight prohibited concepts, in the abstract, are propositions that most reasonable people across the political spectrum would not endorse — as compelled instruction. The disagreement was over whether the concepts as stated in the law mapped accurately onto what was actually being taught (which was disputed), whether the law's vagueness produced excessive chilling effects on legitimate instruction (the courts' principal concern), and whether the law was an appropriate response to genuine concerns or an overreach.

Texas HB 3979 (2021) and SB 3 (2021)

Texas enacted two related curriculum laws in 2021. HB 3979 restricted the teaching of specific concepts in K-12 social-studies and civics courses, prohibiting requirements that students "advocate" for particular positions in the legislative process and prohibiting compelled assent to specified propositions about race. The law also included a "balance" requirement — that current events and controversial issues be taught from "diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."

SB 3 further restricted the use of The 1619 Project and similar materials in social-studies instruction and prohibited requiring teacher training in concepts the law identified as ideologically charged.

Litigation: Texas's restrictions have been litigated more narrowly than Florida's, with mixed outcomes in lower courts. The "balance" requirement has produced confusion about how it applies to topics where one "side" is empirically unfounded — the most-cited example involving a school administrator's reported guidance to a teacher to provide "opposing perspectives" on the Holocaust, which produced national controversy and clarification from the district.

Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho

Multiple states passed legislation broadly similar to Florida's and Texas's during 2021-2023. Specific provisions varied:

• Tennessee SB 0623 (2021) prohibited teaching that one race or sex is "inherently superior" to another and prohibited teaching that an individual is "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive" because of race or sex.
• Iowa HF 802 (2021) prohibited mandatory training in specified concepts and applied to K-12 schools, state universities, and state employees.
• Oklahoma HB 1775 (2021) banned similar concepts from K-12 instruction. A federal court partially struck down portions of the law in 2024.
• North Dakota HB 1508 (2021) restricted the teaching of "critical race theory" specifically — though, as noted in the chapter, the conflation of "CRT" with various distinct things made the statute's actual application unclear.
• Arkansas SB 71 (2021) banned specified concepts from K-12 schools and state government training.
• Idaho HB 377 (2021) restricted similar concepts in K-12 and higher education.

Florida HB 1557 ("Parental Rights in Education")

In March 2022, Florida enacted HB 1557, commonly called the "Parental Rights in Education" law (and called the "Don't Say Gay" law by opponents). The original 2022 statute prohibited "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3" or "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

The law generated substantial controversy. Defenders argued it addressed genuine concerns about age-appropriate content for early elementary students. Critics argued the law's vague language ("classroom instruction... on sexual orientation or gender identity") would chill any acknowledgment of LGBTQ families or identity, even in passing. The Walt Disney Company's public opposition produced a high-profile dispute with the DeSantis administration.

Subsequent expansion and modification: In 2023, the Florida legislature expanded the restriction to cover grades K-8 (later K-12 with modifications). In 2024, a settlement of litigation by LGBTQ advocacy organizations and the Florida Department of Education clarified that the law did not prohibit incidental references to LGBTQ family structures or LGBTQ historical figures, and that anti-bullying policies could continue to address LGBTQ-related bullying. The settlement was framed by both sides as a victory.

What Critics Got Right and What They Got Wrong

A careful look at this body of legislation supports the following empirical claims, which cut against the simplest version of either side's narrative:

The legislation was, in part, a response to real concerns. In some specific districts, specific instructional materials drew on academic frameworks (often loosely associated with "anti-racism" pedagogy or social-emotional-learning approaches incorporating racial-identity work) that were genuinely contested. Some materials incorporated propositions about race, identity, and structural inequality that some parents found objectionable. Some districts had implemented mandatory teacher trainings that included specific propositions parents and some teachers viewed as ideological rather than educational. These were not invented controversies.

The legislation also responded to inflated fears. The actual incidence of "critical race theory" — in its 1980s-90s legal-academic sense — in K-12 classrooms was nearly zero. The conflation of distinct things (academic CRT, anti-bias curricula, DEI training, Black history instruction, social-emotional learning) under the single label produced a political target much larger than any actual classroom phenomenon. Many of the most-publicized examples cited as evidence for the legislation were either misrepresented, isolated incidents, or third-party advocacy materials that schools had not actually adopted.

Some statutes were narrow and defensible. Prohibiting compelled assent to specific propositions about race or sex — the core of several statutes — addresses a legitimate concern about coerced ideology. Most reasonable people across the political spectrum would not want the state to require students or employees to affirm propositions they disagree with.

Some statutes were broad and produced significant chilling effects. Vague language ("instruction... on sexual orientation or gender identity," "concepts that may cause discomfort," "equity") combined with substantial penalties (loss of state funding, teacher certificate revocation, parental private rights of action) produced uncertainty among teachers about what was permissible. Multiple surveys of teachers in restricted states showed substantial self-censorship, including avoidance of topics covered in their professional training and curricula.

The application of the laws has been uneven. Some districts in restricted states have provided detailed guidance to teachers about what is and is not permissible. Others have provided little. Some teachers have continued teaching as before with no consequence. Others have been targeted with complaints, formal investigations, or termination. The variability is itself a problem for both proponents and opponents — it makes the actual reach of the legislation unpredictable and produces inconsistent application.

Court Rulings as of 2026

The litigation has produced several patterns:

• Higher-education provisions that purport to restrict faculty speech have generally been struck down or substantially limited. The First Amendment protections for university faculty, even at public institutions, are robust, and viewpoint-discrimination restrictions on faculty speech have not survived strict-scrutiny review.
• K-12 provisions have been treated more deferentially by courts. Public-school teachers' speech-rights jurisprudence is more constrained (under Garcetti v. Ceballos and related cases, public employees' speech in their official capacity can be regulated by their employer). K-12 curriculum is recognized as a matter of significant state and local authority.
• Vague language has been the most successful basis for challenge. Where statutes were drafted with sufficient specificity, they have generally survived legal challenge. Where statutes used broad terms whose application could not be clearly predicted, courts have been more willing to strike them down or narrow their application.

What This Case Study Teaches

The state-level curriculum legislation of 2021-2025 illustrates several themes from the chapter:

Education is a federalism battleground because federal influence is limited. The political conflict over what is taught in American classrooms could not be resolved at the federal level (and would have been illegitimate to resolve at the federal level, given the constitutional and statutory restrictions on federal curricular authority). It was channeled instead into 50 state legislatures and thousands of local school boards. The intensity of the conflict reflects, in part, the inability to settle it at any single level.

Both sides' rhetoric has run ahead of the empirical evidence. Many specific claims about what was being taught in K-12 classrooms (in either direction) were exaggerated. A reader trying to understand this domain should rely on specific district curricula, specific instructional materials, and specific court rulings rather than on national media coverage of any partisan stripe.

The legitimate concerns on each side are real. Parents have a legitimate interest in knowing and shaping what their children are taught, particularly on contested values questions. Teachers have a legitimate interest in academic freedom and in covering topics their professional preparation has equipped them to address. Students have a legitimate interest in receiving education that is honest about American history and that respects their dignity. These interests can conflict; reasonable people will weigh them differently.

Legislation is one tool among several. The state-level curriculum laws are not the only mechanism affecting what is taught. School-board elections, parent organizing, teacher professional associations, textbook adoption committees, and accreditation requirements all shape curriculum. The legislative wave of 2021-2025 will not be the last battle in this ongoing conflict; the question is which arena the next round of conflict will occupy.

Federal influence remains structurally limited. Whatever the next administration does on education policy, the reality of 13,000 school districts, 50 state legislatures, and locally elected school boards will continue. Education will remain federalist — and contested — for the foreseeable future.