关于在学校教授种族批判理论的政策意见

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Policy Futures in Education Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.1177/14782103241232721
Nevbahar Ertas, Andrew N McKnight
{"title":"关于在学校教授种族批判理论的政策意见","authors":"Nevbahar Ertas, Andrew N McKnight","doi":"10.1177/14782103241232721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critical Race Theory (CRT) has recently been positioned as a serious problem requiring urgent policy response among partisan media outlets. Making a case for pressing policy demands, several policy makers have proposed federal, state, and local level legislation and other measures to restrict how race, racism, or American history in general can be taught in K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and state agencies. Anti-CRT rhetoric in media and policy proposals have also propagated the notion of CRT as being divisive as well as ubiquitous in public education. Given this, it is critical to examine whether policy opinions regarding reactionary legislation is based on a real understanding of CRT. We conduct a conceptual and theoretical inquiry into anti-CRT rhetoric relying on the sociological concepts of moral panics and folk devils. Then, we examine familiarity, knowledge, ideology, policy beliefs, and policy opinions regarding CRT in education using nationally representative survey data. The analysis showed that most parents are not familiar with CRT, and the average parent neither opposes nor supports teaching of CRT. The opposition to teaching of CRT is largely driven by political affiliation and related ideological beliefs and positions.","PeriodicalId":46984,"journal":{"name":"Policy Futures in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policy opinions regarding the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools\",\"authors\":\"Nevbahar Ertas, Andrew N McKnight\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14782103241232721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Critical Race Theory (CRT) has recently been positioned as a serious problem requiring urgent policy response among partisan media outlets. Making a case for pressing policy demands, several policy makers have proposed federal, state, and local level legislation and other measures to restrict how race, racism, or American history in general can be taught in K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and state agencies. Anti-CRT rhetoric in media and policy proposals have also propagated the notion of CRT as being divisive as well as ubiquitous in public education. Given this, it is critical to examine whether policy opinions regarding reactionary legislation is based on a real understanding of CRT. We conduct a conceptual and theoretical inquiry into anti-CRT rhetoric relying on the sociological concepts of moral panics and folk devils. Then, we examine familiarity, knowledge, ideology, policy beliefs, and policy opinions regarding CRT in education using nationally representative survey data. The analysis showed that most parents are not familiar with CRT, and the average parent neither opposes nor supports teaching of CRT. The opposition to teaching of CRT is largely driven by political affiliation and related ideological beliefs and positions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46984,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Futures in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Futures in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241232721\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Futures in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241232721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

批判种族理论(CRT)最近在党派媒体中被定位为一个需要紧急政策应对的严重问题。为了满足迫切的政策需求,一些政策制定者提出了联邦、州和地方层面的立法和其他措施,以限制 K-12 学校、高等教育机构和州政府机构如何教授种族、种族主义或美国历史。媒体和政策提案中的反 CRT 言论也宣扬了 CRT 在公共教育中是分裂和无处不在的概念。有鉴于此,研究有关反动立法的政策意见是否基于对 CRT 的真正理解至关重要。我们根据道德恐慌和民间魔鬼的社会学概念,对反 CRT 言论进行了概念和理论研究。然后,我们利用具有全国代表性的调查数据,考察了人们对教育领域 CRT 的熟悉程度、知识、意识形态、政策信念和政策意见。分析表明,大多数家长对 CRT 不熟悉,普通家长既不反对也不支持 CRT 教学。反对 CRT 教学的主要原因是政治派别以及相关的意识形态信仰和立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Policy opinions regarding the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has recently been positioned as a serious problem requiring urgent policy response among partisan media outlets. Making a case for pressing policy demands, several policy makers have proposed federal, state, and local level legislation and other measures to restrict how race, racism, or American history in general can be taught in K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and state agencies. Anti-CRT rhetoric in media and policy proposals have also propagated the notion of CRT as being divisive as well as ubiquitous in public education. Given this, it is critical to examine whether policy opinions regarding reactionary legislation is based on a real understanding of CRT. We conduct a conceptual and theoretical inquiry into anti-CRT rhetoric relying on the sociological concepts of moral panics and folk devils. Then, we examine familiarity, knowledge, ideology, policy beliefs, and policy opinions regarding CRT in education using nationally representative survey data. The analysis showed that most parents are not familiar with CRT, and the average parent neither opposes nor supports teaching of CRT. The opposition to teaching of CRT is largely driven by political affiliation and related ideological beliefs and positions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Futures in Education
Policy Futures in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
76
期刊最新文献
An analysis of Australian teacher workforce policy: Challenges and opportunities for teacher recruitment and retention Guest editorial: Considering the global-local relationships in education Perpetual emergency education: Urban refugee education in Thailand is disrupted during the COVID-19 Governance dynamics and local autonomy in large-scale governmental funding: The case of Sweden’s campaign to improve equity Tracing neoliberal discourse in school documentation. The analysis of educational projects in Barcelona state schools
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1