Well, this is technically true. Likewise, no elementary or middle schooler is being taught Langrangians, or quantum chromodynamics, or ancestry mapping via haplotype analysis, or any other concept than in its full glory is well beyond anything else that they're expected to tackle.

However, that the content isn't in or being slated for presentation to students is completely wrong. Maybe even that isn't happening, but it's not through lack of trying; it's through the impossibility of even the simplified version being taught.

Look at what Oregon has planned for Grade 3 (see https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/socialsciences/Documents/Ethnic%20Studies%20Webpage%20Communication.pdf): 3.4: Understand and analyze the impact of systems of power, including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression. (Historical thinking)

How do you teach that to a 3rd grader? Beats me.

But to say that this "isn't CRT" is simply dodging the issue. This isn't just "true American history" as you put it. This is a particular, CRT-inspired lens through which to view things. And the lens might have some essential truth to it, but a lot of other lenses might also, and anyone who is concerned about it deserves to have their concerns addressed, not told "go away, it's not CRT".

Well, fine, it's not. But it's a particular flavor of anti-racism that is particularly in the Critical Race Theory line of thought, so what DO we call it? (Rufo I think has craftily won that battle: it's called "Critical Race Theory" now; wouldn't have been my first choice, but can we honestly pretend that we have no idea what is being talked about?)

It's quite plausible that much of the reaction to the label is mere hysteria, but it's also quite plausible that a lot of the center falls for the hysterical aspects only because it sure looks like they're being misled when one side denies that what's happening is even happening. So in that, I agree with you that the Guildford example is a pretty good one: if you think this is important, tackle it head on.

Unfortunately, your call to action here is still suggesting that Democrats double down on the fundamentally dishonest strategy (admittedly, in response to a fundamentally dishonest Republican strategy of scaremongering) of having their primary reaction to, "What about that leopard!" be, "There's no leopard here!" instead of "This is Jana, a jaguar, not a leopard, and she's friendly. Let me tell you about her!"