This is much better, now that you're engaging with the critique!
But you're still wrong.
You only tackled half the issue, which is what is in bounds. You didn't tackle the half which is what is supposed to be, or actually is, being taught in K-12 (and whether or not that is legitimately described as a simplified version of the full material, or whether it is something else for which the name does not apply because the key aspects are missing).
With that in mind, let's refer to Oregon's adopted curriculum since it is all nicely written down and you can verify the contents, and unlike the draft is undeniably intended for teaching (though the draft I linked last time is available on their materials for educators). Here's the link for combined social studies and ethnic studies: https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/socialsciences/Documents/2021%20Social%20Science%20Standards%20Integrated%20with%20Ethnic%20Studies%20(3-2-2021).pdf
Firstly, since you teach from CRT: An Introduction, I take it that you accept that the five tenets of CRT that Delgado and Stefancic are reasonable characterizations of what CRT holds (and differ from the previous liberal consensus), and also accept that, as they claim, a narrative approach to jurisprudence has been pioneered by CRT and thus could reasonably be called "CRT".
Secondly, I note that you are aware that CRT in your words "has spread beyond the discipline of law". So all of that is in bounds.
Thirdly, since we are talking about CRT being taught, not just CRT influencing curricula and such, we won't examine things like Gloria Ladson-Billings' ideas about how to change the practice of education, but only about whether CRT-derived ideas themselves are directly taught, or intended to be taught, as part of K-12 curricula.
Now let us begin.
"What do critical race theorists believe? [...] First, racism is ordinary, not aberrational--'normal science,' the usual way society does business [...] most would agree that our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 8.)
In the draft Oregon Ethnic studies curriculum, we find the following (emphasis mine):
"4.13 Identify and explain how discrimination based on race, gender, economic, and social group identity created and continues to affect the history, growth, and current experience of residents of Oregon."
It's a decent match. This is for fourth-graders, by the way.
Not just for fourth-graders: "6.21 Identify the motivations, tools, and implications of power, authority, and governance as it relates to systems and tools of oppression (e.g., bias, injustice, discrimination, racism, antisemitism, and stereotypes) and its impact on ethnic and religious groups and other historically marginalized groups of the Western Hemisphere."
Eight grade also: "8.17 Define and analyze the concept of “fair lending practices” and the history of discrimination and systemic inequalities in the US financial system."
High school: "HS.3 Identify, discuss, and explain the exclusionary language and intent of the Oregon and U.S. Constitution and the provisions and process for the expansion and protection of civil rights.
"The second feature, sometimes called 'interest convergence' or material determinism [suggests that civil rights advances] may have resulted more from the self-interest of elite whites than from a desire to help blacks." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 9)
Oregon's draft curriculum doesn't to my eye seem to directly embrace this tenet, though there are plenty of topics under which one could bring it up.
For example: "3.18 * Identify how systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression affect the perspectives of different individuals and groups when examining an event, issue, or problem with an emphasis on multiple perspectives."
Not a great match, though.
"A third theme of critical race theory, the 'social construction' thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 9)
Oregon's draft suggested that they teach it to first-graders: "1.1 Examine social construction as it relates to race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation."
They didn't incorporate that one verbatim, but they were obviously thinking it. Plenty of room for it to be introduced, though, including here: "2.13 Identify the cultural characteristics of my group identity, (including race, culture, and gender) and of the local community"
(They only, as far as I can see, ask people to identify social aspects of identity.)
"Another, somewhat more recent, development concerns differential racialization and its consequences. Critical writers in law, as well as in social science, have drawn attention to the ways the dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times...." (Delgado & Stefancic, pp. 9-10)
Oregon: "HS.22 * Describe the potential intended and unintended benefits and negative consequences of government economic programs and policies on the welfare and well-being of individuals and groups
including traditionally marginalized groups."
Not a stellar fit. Then again, high school physics doesn't typically teach about spin glasses.
"Closely related to differrential racialization [...] is the notion of intersectionality and antiessentialism. No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 10)
Oregon: "8.25 Evaluate the impact of the intersectionality of what constitutes identity including, including but not limited to, gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, physical and mental disability, and class on the living histories and experiences of peoples, groups, and events."
Can't get much clearer than that.
Gotta get kindergartners thinking along these lines too: "K.3 Develop an understanding of one's own identity groups including, but not limited to, race,
gender, family, ethnicity, culture, religion, and ability"
"A final element concerns the notion of a unique voice of color. [...] The voice-of-color thesis holds that because of their different histories and experiences with oppression, [minority] writers and thinkers may be able to communicate to their white counterparts matters that the whites are unlikely to know." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 11)
Oregon doesn't explicitly teach the voice-of-color thesis, but it sets the stage:
"5.25 Develop an understanding of why individuals and groups from various ethnic and religious and traditionally marginalized groups during the same historical period, differed in their perspectives of events, laws/policies, or movements in the United States."
"HS.61 Analyze and explain the multiple experiences and perspectives of ethnic and traditionally marginalized groups to investigate conflicting interpretations of past and present events of national and/or global interest."
Beyond the tenets, there are numerous places where the perspectives indicated as being CRT-like by Delgado and Stefancic are echoed in the ethnic studies text. For instance,
"Another area of critical investigation is the study of the white race. [...] If [...] race is not objective or biologically significant but constructed by social sentiment and power struggle, how did it come to define itself? [...] Addressing this question includes [...] the phenomenon of white power and white supremacy, and the array of privileges that come with membership in the dominant race." (Delgado & Stefancic, p. 85)
"3.18 * Identify how systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression affect the perspectives of different individuals and groups when examining an event, issue, or problem with an emphasis on multiple perspectives."
"6.21 Identify the motivations, tools, and implications of power, authority, and governance as it relates to systems and tools of oppression (e.g., bias, injustice, discrimination, racism, antisemitism, and stereotypes) and its impact on ethnic and religious groups and other historically marginalized groups of the Western Hemisphere."
"HS.66 Identify and analyze the nature of structural and systemic oppression on LGBTQ, people experiencing disability, ethnic and religious groups, as well as other traditionally marginalized groups, and their role in the pursuit of justice and equality in Oregon, the United States, and the world."
---------------------
There's more, but I think this will suffice to make the point.
The Critical Theory fascination with power is clearly evident in multiple places.
The idea of intersectionality, which is as CRT as anything is, features prominently.
From the number of places it's mentioned, it's quite apparent that the ordinaryness of racism is embraced, contrary to the previous status quo approach.
The narrative and voice-of-color ideas are embraced with repeated admonition to consider multiple perspectives not in general but specifically across disadvantaged groups.
Because of the emphasis on social factors, the social construction is taught implicitly.
Differential racialization does not seem to find much purchase.
Overall, if you think this isn't Critical Race Theory, to the extent that it plausibly can be attempted to be taught in K-12, please explain why. What is absolutely essential to count at all, but is missing? Where else do these ideas come from? Or, alternatively, can you lay out a definition of what it means to "teach topic X" that clearly excludes this as teaching CRT, but also clearly rules in high school physics as actual physics?