Should states determine how race, gender identity, and U.S. history are taught in public schools or should the federal government?

Background

The question of who should control what public school students learn about race, gender identity, and U.S. history sits at the intersection of constitutional law, federalism, and culture. Under the Tenth Amendment, the U.S. Constitution is silent on education, and courts have long recognized that curriculum decisions belong primarily to states and local school boards. The Every Student Succeeds Act explicitly prohibits the federal government from mandating or controlling a state or district's instructional content or curriculum. Still, the federal government exerts influence through funding conditions tied to laws like Title IX and the Civil Rights Act. In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling," directing agencies to identify and potentially rescind federal funds from schools that teach what the order calls "gender ideology" or "discriminatory equity ideology." Legal experts, including scholars at the University of Wisconsin and EducationCounsel, have noted that this order may conflict with federal statutes that protect state control over curriculum. Meanwhile, according to Chalkbeat, at least 36 states have adopted or introduced their own laws or policies restricting teaching about race and racism, and according to the Movement Advancement Project, 12 states have enacted laws that explicitly censor discussions of LGBTQ people across school curricula.

Supporters of state-level control argue that locally elected officials and school boards are best positioned to reflect community values, that parents deserve a direct voice in what their children learn, and that states have a constitutional prerogative over education. Many proponents of curriculum restrictions contend that certain lessons on race or gender identity can be age-inappropriate or ideologically one-sided. On the other side, opponents warn that a patchwork of state laws creates stark inequalities in what students across the country learn about American history and the experiences of marginalized groups. Organizations like the National Council for the Social Studies have opposed efforts to restrict teaching about racism, arguing they limit students' access to a complete and truthful history. Some civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argue these restrictions effectively silence important discussions about systemic inequality. Those who oppose federal intervention, meanwhile, note that using funding threats to shape curriculum contradicts the principle of local control that both parties have historically championed.

The stakes extend to roughly 50 million public school students nationwide. How these topics are taught shapes young people's understanding of American democracy, identity, and civic responsibility. According to the Williams Institute at UCLA, an estimated 300,100 youth ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender, and curriculum policies directly affect whether they see themselves reflected in school. For educators, the tension creates uncertainty about what they can teach without risking professional consequences. For families, the outcome determines whether their children receive a consistent education regardless of which state they live in or whether local communities retain the flexibility to set their own priorities. As legal challenges to both state laws and federal executive orders continue to move through the courts, the balance of power over America's classrooms remains actively contested.