- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 1,479
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Source material
Findings:
32% of school districts were found to have “whiteness” on their sites, promoting the CRT concept that whiteness is indicative of privilege and/or oppression.
Minority enrollment district average: 64.77%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness positive”: 63.84%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness negative”: 65.93%
Minority enrollment had no statistical effect on whether the district promoted CRT.
Vector of CRT transmission:
Superintendent communication: a letter addressing staff, parents or students
Classroom: Class discussion or reading assignments
Equity Statement / Strategic Plan: self explanatory
Promoted material: Elsewhere on the district site, usually under “Resources”, perhaps orphaned.

Districts varied in vehemence and depth of how far they took “whiteness”, and I gave each a score of 1-4. The average was 2.8, which suggests that I had a measured interpretation of CRT severity.
Here are a few terms that I came across, either directly on K-12 sites or from material promoted on a K-12 site:
abolitionist teaching
affirmative action for whites
critical whiteness studies
decolonizing
dying of whiteness
freedom from the shackles
how whiteness operates
Interrogating Whiteness
intersectionality (CRT term)
legacy work
racial autobiography
racial consciousness
social field of whiteness
systemic whiteness
teachers are maintaining white supremacy
tools of whiteness
traditionally non-dominate
unrelenting abolitionists
weaponized whiteness
white exceptionalism
white programs (in education)
white ways
whiteness = expectation of assimilation
whiteness = white supremacy
whiteness ideology
whiteness of teacher education
witnessing whiteness
While I’m gaining insight into the “socio-emotional” reasons why the above is tolerated, the point of the research was to bolster my claim that CRT blames whites, holds all whites accountable as a race, and it’s promoted by public schools.
I may do state departments of education next.
Findings:
32% of school districts were found to have “whiteness” on their sites, promoting the CRT concept that whiteness is indicative of privilege and/or oppression.
Minority enrollment district average: 64.77%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness positive”: 63.84%
Minority enrollment “Whiteness negative”: 65.93%
Minority enrollment had no statistical effect on whether the district promoted CRT.
Vector of CRT transmission:
Superintendent communication: a letter addressing staff, parents or students
Classroom: Class discussion or reading assignments
Equity Statement / Strategic Plan: self explanatory
Promoted material: Elsewhere on the district site, usually under “Resources”, perhaps orphaned.

Districts varied in vehemence and depth of how far they took “whiteness”, and I gave each a score of 1-4. The average was 2.8, which suggests that I had a measured interpretation of CRT severity.
Here are a few terms that I came across, either directly on K-12 sites or from material promoted on a K-12 site:
abolitionist teaching
affirmative action for whites
critical whiteness studies
decolonizing
dying of whiteness
freedom from the shackles
how whiteness operates
Interrogating Whiteness
intersectionality (CRT term)
legacy work
racial autobiography
racial consciousness
social field of whiteness
systemic whiteness
teachers are maintaining white supremacy
tools of whiteness
traditionally non-dominate
unrelenting abolitionists
weaponized whiteness
white exceptionalism
white programs (in education)
white ways
whiteness = expectation of assimilation
whiteness = white supremacy
whiteness ideology
whiteness of teacher education
witnessing whiteness
While I’m gaining insight into the “socio-emotional” reasons why the above is tolerated, the point of the research was to bolster my claim that CRT blames whites, holds all whites accountable as a race, and it’s promoted by public schools.
I may do state departments of education next.