Making Sense of Classroom Limitations on Race and Gender: A Review of the 2022 American Instructional Resources Survey

This blog post is part of a series unpacking findings from the American Instructional Resources Survey, a project of the RAND Corporation.

In the past two years, there’s been a sharp uptick in state and district legislation aimed at reshaping how educators are allowed to address “divisive concepts.” Divisive concepts, a phrase coined by an executive order filed by the Trump administration in September 2020, refers to classroom topics that assert that “(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; or that (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Today’s political and social climates have caused a power struggle in schools over what topics are allowed, how teachers should engage on topics that are approved, and what materials students should have access to.

As of spring 2022, 17 states have enacted policies restricting how teachers can address race, gender, and other controversial topics in the classroom. For example, the 2022 Florida state legislature passed three laws that took effect July 1. Parental Rights in Education (HB 1557) prohibits classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity for kindergarten through third grade; Individual Freedom (HB 7) restricts how workplaces and classrooms can discuss race and gender; and K–12 Education (HB 1467) aims to get parents more involved in how districts select and approve instructional materials.

There is finally data coming in about how those pieces of legislation have shifted classroom practices.

On January 25, 2023, the RAND Corporation published the first in a series of reports analyzing the findings from its annual American Instructional Resources Survey (AIRS). Its report, “Walking on Eggshells”—How Teachers Are Making Sense of and Responding to Classroom Limitations on Race- and Gender-related Topics, analyzes how educators are responding to state-level limitations and restrictions that impact classroom instruction and teaching practices.

The survey was administered in April and May 2022 to a nationally representative sample of 8,063 teachers of English language arts (ELA), math, and science, including the 17 states that have passed restrictions. About two thirds of elementary teachers in the sample taught multiple subjects including social sciences, with a small number of teachers who identified social sciences as their main subject (like social studies, geography, history, government, or civics). Survey findings uncovered teachers' awareness of enacted legislation, whether teachers changed their instructional practices and materials as a result of enacted legislation, if they perceived the consequences of violations to enacted legislation, and more.

One clear take away from the survey is that it takes time for teachers to become aware of when restrictions or limitations have been enacted. About a third (34 percent) of surveyed teachers lived in one of the 17 states that have enacted restrictions, but only 12 percent of responding teachers said restrictions that had been put in place at the state level, 5 percent understood restrictions that had been put in place by districts, and 1 percent reported that their state and district had enacted restrictions. The survey shows that more teachers were aware in states that passed laws in 2021 (like Texas and Florida), while fewer teachers were aware of laws passed in spring 2022 (like Kentucky and Mississippi).

Almost a quarter of teachers (24 percent), regardless of state, reported that limitations on what topics they can address influenced their choices in curricular materials and instructional practice. Survey data showed that teachers of color, secondary teachers, and teachers likely to encounter race- or gender-related topics in their subject areas were more likely to be aware of and impacted by restrictions when they worked in the 17 states that have enacted restrictions. In particular, Black ELA and social studies high school teachers were more likely than their counterparts to indicate that limitations on topics influenced their choices of materials and instructional practices. Even teachers who were not in states or districts with restrictions reported that the presence of restrictions in other states influenced their decisions about discussions of gender and race-related topics.

Some teachers (roughly 1500 respondents) answered open-ended questions about the impact of these restrictions on their choice of what to teach. In their writings, some teachers named race- and gender-related restrictions and included terms like critical race theory (CRT), gender identity, and gender identity when they described what influenced their choices of what to teach. About 70 teachers, out of the almost 1,500 who chose to respond, mentioned limitations regarding CRT, but a few noted frustrations and concerns about being falsely accused of teaching CRT due to misconceptions and misunderstandings of what CRT actually is. One middle school ELA teacher said, “we were told not to teach critical race theory—no one was. The past two years have made me nervous about teaching Frederick Douglass because I don't think the people in my community know the difference between teaching Black history and teaching critical race theory.”

In addition, about 70 teachers in the open-ended sample reported encountering restrictions regarding LGBTQ-related issues. These teachers received complaints and were hesitant about exposing students to same-sex marriages, different types of family structures, or instructional materials that featured characters who identify as LGBTQ or who displayed affirming symbols like the pride flag. (Read more from New America about the importance of representation in educational materials here and view an explainer video that highlights a school implementing some aspects of culturally responsive education here).

The survey asked about sources of limitation and restrictions, and in the open-ended portion approximately six in ten named formal policy-making bodies, with nearly 100 of these teachers specifying state policies and leadership, and 70 identifying district policies and leadership as the source. In addition, a small number of teachers in the survey found a lack of clarity about how to implement and comply with restrictions, saying that “laws or guidelines restricting classroom instruction were vague and unclear, leaving them uncertain and uncomfortable with addressing contentious topics…when they do arise in the moment.”

About 125 teachers named parents as a source of limitations or restrictions. Notably, this is more than the number of teachers who saw either state or local policies as the issue. Teachers described increased scrutiny from parents and complaints about lessons and materials, which influenced how they responded. “Teachers’ responses about families,” the authors wrote, “also demonstrate the power of community and parental influence over the decisions of school or district leaders and school board members—even when, as teachers described, such influence stems from a vocal minority of parents.”

When asked about how restrictions or limitations impacted their classroom behaviors, roughly one-fifth of teachers described restrictions impacting their choice of curricular materials. They noted changes in textbooks, texts, videos, and even math and science data sets, either by their own choice or by directive to avoid materials that were potentially controversial or offensive. Directives noted in the survey responses included the removal of books and the need to be more cautious about texts in classroom libraries, in addition to the need to rework school- or district- required recommended materials. These changes are important to note, especially considering the previous finding regarding parents as a source of restrictions.

Elementary and ELA teachers found it difficult to navigate restrictions and noted that in some cases the restrictions made it difficult to do their jobs. Finding acceptable materials and engaging with historical events was “stressful, fear-inducing, and difficult.” Teachers who identified themselves as instructing diverse groups of students had a hard time approaching topics from a “neutral” or unbiased perspective, given their students’ backgrounds. In addition, teachers are finding it more difficult to relate on an interpersonal level with other staff members, with some noting that heterosexual couples can talk about their spouses in the workplace, while LGBTQ teachers are finding it much harder to fully share details about their lives.

Some survey respondents expressed concerns about how state and district enacted restrictions could have detrimental consequences for student learning and for the positive development of student identities. By not engaging on certain race- and gender-related topics, teachers said that it would be more difficult to help students develop critical thinking skills and expand their views and understanding of the world. It would also restrict their ability to engage in deep, thoughtful discourse. Both the academic and social and emotional implications were raised, as well as concern about building students’ capacity for empathy and acceptance of others.

Source: 2022 American Instructional Resources Survey

About one-third of respondents shared strategies they engaged in, including ways they attempted to protect themselves from scrutiny or tried to address race- and gender-related topics in a way that was in compliance with the restrictions. Many teachers described approaching issues of race and gender much more cautiously, from careful choices in language to classroom materials. Some described leaning more heavily on school board and district vetted materials or running materials by others for “approval” before use. Middle and high school teachers noted a shift toward student-centered approaches and student-led discourse. Some teachers described shifting toward more global topics, like “being a kind, respectful person to everyone,” rather than discussing contentious topics directly. By focusing on approaches that emphasize acceptance, inclusivity, respect, and empathy, teachers felt they could provide safe and welcoming environments without violating the policies.

Approximately 300 teachers who answered the open-ended questions described that they avoided or were less willing to engage on topics of race and gender. Teachers reported feeling “anxiety, worry, or fear of repercussions, such as loss of employment” as a consequence of violating state or district restrictions. About one in five teachers said that they’ve continued to teach and discuss topics related to race and gender, because or in spite of the enacted restrictions. The majority of these teachers describe bringing diverse perspectives into the classroom by uplifting people of color, women and girls, people who identify as LGBTQ+. They said that even though they were nervous, it was important to consider and affirm all of the identities in their classroom in order to create safe spaces at school. One elementary teacher said, “the limitations in other states have strengthened my resolve to teach race- and gender-related topics to my students. My license and professionalism empower me to make educationally sound decisions to grow compassionate human beings.”

The RAND report offers four recommendations for the creation of safe and productive working and learning environments for both teachers and students. State and district leaders should:

1. collaborate with teachers when designing and drafting local policies and guidance;
2. play a major role in protecting and supporting educators’ instructional choices;
3. engage families in productive conversations on race and gender; and
4. tie potentially divisive topics to concrete learning objectives and emphasize their educational benefits.

The AIRS survey and report offer insight and recommendations for thinking about how limitations on certain topics impact curricular choices, instructional practice, professional development, and classroom dynamics. Teachers who responded to the survey have made it very clear that the restrictions put in place have forced them to not only shift practices and behaviors, to be in compliance, but are also forcing teachers to reevaluate how they view their jobs, how they engage with materials, and even how to speak to students about the issues that are prevalent. Recent legislation, even with uneven understanding of what’s been enacted, has deeply impacted teachers and as a result, will continue to impact students and their experiences. Policymakers, practitioners, and parents all want what is best for students and to create better and more opportunities for learning. Today’s political and social climates, however, have created massive disconnects between parties and ideologies, to the detriment of students. This report is a reminder that students' educational opportunities and well-being must be at the center of all decision-making. Otherwise, we’ve relegated ourselves to petty political power struggles.

Enjoy what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on what’s new in Education Policy!