Texas AG sues Coppell ISD after conservative activist video claims district teaches critical race theory
Why it matters: The state's top conservative leaders want to eliminate teachings about race and personal identity in general.
The anti-CRT push is part of the broader goal to give parents more control over what their children learn in school.
Driving the news: Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit Wednesday, saying Texas students deserve to "not have woke ideology forced upon them."
The lawsuit stems from a heavily edited video posted by conservative media group Accuracy in Media that shows a Coppell school administrator saying the district doesn't always follow state standards on certain topics.
State of play: The lawsuit says the Coppell school district's curriculum is violating a 2021 state law that bans kindergarten through 12th grade students from being taught critical race theory, a college-level topic that says racism is baked into U.S. history.
Zoom out: President Trump issued an executive order in January to stop "indoctrination in K-12 education."
The order says teaching white privilege or unconscious bias "actually promotes racial discrimination."
Zoom in: The video shows an interviewer saying he's concerned students will "learn a MAGA version of history instead of an accurate version of real-world events."
The school administrator responds, "One thing that I love about this district, despite what our state standards say and despite what, you know, is going on, we do what's right for kids."
Reality check: The video was posted Feb. 25, but it's unclear when it was recorded. The administrator wears a protective face mask during the conversation, and the interviewer refers to orders signed by the governor "a few months ago."
The interviewer doesn't mention critical race theory, but the video's text says the discussion was about the topic. Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill banning CRT in June 2021.
Coppell ISD is closed this week for spring break, and a district spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
The intrigue: The video ends with text that says, "Enacting universal school choice is the only way to reform education in Texas."
The Texas Legislature is again considering school choice vouchers enabling families to use state money to pay for private school tuition or homeschooling.
The big picture: Passing a statewide voucher program is a top priority for the governor.
The measure failed during the last legislative session. During last year's primaries, Abbott targeted fellow Republicans who opposed vouchers.
Context: The Senate has approved Senate Bill 2, giving families $10,000 a year per student to fund tuition at an accredited private school.
The program is estimated to cost Texas $1 billion in fiscal year 2027.
House Bill 3 would put $1 billion toward education savings accounts.
Threat level: Critics of school vouchers say the programs pull money from the public education system and fund wealthy people's private school tuition.
The other side: Proponents say vouchers help lower-income students attend better schools rather than their underperforming local campuses. They also say the funding enables parents to make the best choice for their kids.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Chicago Schools' Bond Penalty Widens as $734 Million Gap Looms To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children. 'I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've had bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical,' Trump said. 'And, you know, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.' Trump told attendees at a fundraiser in New Jersey earlier this month that he was considering the change, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government currently classifies marijuana under Schedule I, which is for drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Reclassifying the drug could make it easier to buy and sell cannabis. Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Game Starts at 8. The Robbery Starts at 8:01 Klarna Cashed In on 'Buy Now, Pay Later.' Now It Wants to Be a Bank The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie It's Only a Matter of Time Until Americans Pay for Trump's Tariffs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
UPI
27 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The Territory at the Heart of Russia's War in Ukraine
Russia's war in Ukraine is well into its fourth year, despite US President Donald Trump's promise to end the conflict within 24 hours of his return to office. As his efforts to secure a peace deal continue, Trump will have to bridge the stark differences between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy arising from the Russian president's claims on Ukrainian territory.
