Great! Lots of people want that.

Here's an example of what can quite reasonably be called a critical-race-theory inspired curriculum (ethnic studies, not history):

1: Describe the use of stereotypes and expectations in marketing products for consumption.

2: Examine and analyze the effects of dehumanization through the capture, trade, and enslavement of Africans, and the capture and genocide of Native Americans with the Americas.

3: Understand the impact and legacy of colonialism on marginalized communities and describe the decisions made to shape the human characteristics of regions in the state (tribal, cultural, agricultural, and industrial, etc.) with consideration to how bias has manifested into the various social groups and systems.

4: Understand and analyze the impact of systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression.

5: Describe how individuals, groups (including socioeconomic differences, ethnic groups, and social groups) events and developments have shaped the local community and region.

6: Describe how the identity of the local community shaped its history and compare to other communities in the region.

That's the entire curriculum. For the whole year. (Care to guess which grade?)

The historical perspective is overwhelmingly about power, oppression, dehumanization, etc. etc.--would you defend this as being "well-balanced"? If yes, please explain why. If no, and this is officially recommended curriculum, wouldn't it make sense if some people objected? If the impulse to craft this curriculum is appearing in other places, wouldn't it make sense to at least have a robust discussion about it?

The right wing is absolutely engaging in all sorts of scaremongering--it's their modus operandi these days--but that doesn't mean that there isn't some degree of truth to the stated concerns. They might still be wrong--maybe this is the right way to teach ethnic studies.

But this is what's actually coming out, and it doesn't match your characterization.