This is a more recent response by Social Justice proponents when questioned about CRT appearing in public K-12 education. While it is true that some law schools do study the legal arguments and impacts of CRT, this is incredibly misleading.
It's like saying we don't teach Special Education in our K-12 schools, it's only taught in college for Education degrees. Educators "use" the knowledge & concepts of Special Education, as needed, in their jobs at school. Similarly, CRT itself isn't taught to our children but there's a push to use this approach to change what & how we teach them.
We've heard this and similar arguments used by school administrators, board members, legislators, and even former President Barack Obama. They will often try to deflect challenges by saying things like, "We need to teach about our history, like the Tulsa massacre, so we don't make those same mistakes. Are you against teaching the darker side of our nation's history?"
Woah, hold on there! No one is arguing that we should avoid teaching about our past, both good and bad. However, what we object to is teaching history leveraging a CRT approach. One of the core principals of CRT is that knowledge is a social construct. In other words, there isn't just one "correct" history as that would be racist (since the oppressors would basically control what is acceptable as history).
So applying CRT allows people to re-write history based on their narratives or what they perceived to be the narratives of various marginalized groups of the past, such as the 1619 Project. And as another core principal of CRT is that there is no objective truth, you can use science or other evidence to disprove these narratives. This opens a dangerous door to activists changing history to support their causes.