At the heart of the controversy are two issues that divide supporters of ethnic studies.
- Should SFUSD require one semester of ethnic studies, as suggested by the state and adopted by most other school districts, or one year, as required by SFUSD?
- Should ethnic studies be based on a theory of “oppressed versus oppressor” or should it be taught to encourage more divergent perspectives?
Background
Ethnic studies grew out of a 1960s movement based on the premise that public schools were not teaching about the cultures of marginalized students. Black, Asian, Native American, and Latino students were left out. It was Eurocentric.
All of this was true. But it isn’t true anymore.
California has stepped up to remedy these past education inequities. In fact, California schools now have strict marching orders to ensure all students feel included.
Unlike other states that have reduced access to diverse instruction under political pressure, California has doubled down to ensure that the history and social science curriculum accurately portrays the cultural and racial diversity of our society.
California’s Education Code requires that instruction in social sciences in public schools must reflect the diversity of the state. Not only does state education law require this, but the California content standards, which specify what must be taught at each grade level, explicitly include multiethnic learning in history-social science, English, and the arts.
In 2021, California developed an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum to “[e]ncourage cultural understanding of how different groups have struggled and worked together, highlighting core ethnic studies concepts such as equality and equity, justice, race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, etc.” However, there is no state mandate requiring high school students to take an ethnic studies course.
The San Francisco Unified School District was an early adopter of ethnic studies, starting way before other districts. A controversial homegrown curriculum was discarded due to parent complaints and replaced this past year with an off-the-shelf curriculum.
What’s the big deal?
Below are contrasting views summarized by ED100.org of how ethnic studies should be taught:
Both sides of the ethnic studies controversy are in full mobilization mode, getting ready for the April 28 meeting.
One semester or one year?
– The United Educators of San Francisco supports a year-long course, which includes examples and discussions of ideas embedded in liberated ethnic studies. Here is a link to their mobilization toolkit.
– The Neighbors for a Better San Francisco takes an opposite view in a petition: “Prioritize Core Academics and Fiscal Responsibility in SFUSD. San Francisco students deserve a rigorous, well-rounded education. SFUSD’s two-semester ethnic studies graduation requirement restricts student choice, diverts millions in local funds during a budget crisis, and prioritizes a local mandate over core instruction.”
Voices curriculum and the ethnic studies theory of oppression
There are divergent views on the ideology in the Voices curriculum. Voices is an improvement over the original SFUSD homegrown curriculum. The SFUSD Ethnic Studies Curriculum Committee report reflects the important disagreement over the extent of the oppressed-versus-oppressor ideology in Voices.
School board vote on ethnic studies?
On the San Francisco school board’s Tuesday, April 28 agenda is a simple question. But … it’s not so simple.
The school board agenda calls for the approval of a new history/social studies curriculum. But its formal recommended action lacks any reference to ethnic studies. Period.
My bet: This will be challenged.
