What counts as rarely?

Is, like, all of Oregon enough (https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/standards/socialsciences/Documents/Ethnic%20Studies%20Webpage%20Communication.pdf)? I don't really understand how they think a third-grader can understand the impact of systems of power including white supremacy, institutional racism, racial hierarchy, and oppression, but the intent seems enough to prove the point, no?

Also, CRT is mostly irrelevant to the teaching of history. To the extent that it's relevant, actual CRT is a challenge to the liberal approach to justice, and as such actually a weak challenge to the embrace of an objective view of history, so under CRT getting accurate history is of reduced importance as compared to the traditional goal for history. Most of the bans on CRT actually do target CRT, which means history is safe from the bans (in most places).

For instance, the student in your photo has a sign that is almost entirely unrelated to the content of the Temecula Valley Unified School District decision.

The only part that bears on history at all is that this now cannot be taught: "The advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States, or the preservation of slavery was a material motive for independence from England." (Source: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=36030186&AID=396042&MID=16350)

This isn't great--wouldn't you think that such matters ought to be up for discussion rather than just flat-out forbidding them? Especially since the school board is probably not comprised entirely of historians with specialty in pre-Revolutionary North America? There isn't a good argument I've ever seen in favor of "slavery = founding of U.S.". But there is a pretty good argument that the south was more pro-revolution because of slavery than they would have been otherwise. So...yeah, school boards shouldn't be messing with the details of history curricula quite like that.

But other than that, you can talk about whatever you want. You can talk about slavery, you can talk about Jim Crow, you can talk about the real reasons behind the Civil War, you can talk about lynchings, you can talk about how the FBI went after MLK Jr., you can talk about the Tuskegee Experiment, etc.. It's all fine. Uncomfortable history galore. Hey, maybe throw in actions of U.S. companies in Nazi Germany while we're at it. Internment of Japanese Americans, anyone?

However, you can't tell your white students that they bear responsibility for all that (in Temecula, now).

The idea that CRT bans ought to impact the teaching of more than a very tiny bit of history in almost any location is just wrong. However, I suppose if the left absolutely insists that this is what it means, they might manage to establish such a culture of fear that teachers won't teach history, the right will get used to them not, and then actually try prosecuting (or at least firing) them if they do. But on any plain reading, it does not mean this at all.

So I think the no-CRT = bad-history claim is not supportable.

However, activist Republican legislatures are under no obligation to content themselves with targeting CRT. They absolutely can target history, too, in a variety of ways (see targeting of evolution--basic biology!--for prior art), and that's dangerous.