Following passionate public testimony and heated debate among commissioners at its Tuesday meeting, it appears that the San Francisco Board of Education failed to authorize the purchase of a new ethnic studies pilot curriculum, Voices: An Ethnic Studies Survey, which is planned for implementation in August.
The superintendent’s recommendation to buy the curriculum was first made by Commissioners Alida Fisher and Matt Alexander, but the board did not vote on their motion. Instead, action on the plan ended unexpectedly after the board voted, 5–2, in favor of President Phil Kim’s motion to end debate and to bring it to a vote.
In response to The Voice of San Francisco’s inquiry, school district spokeswoman Laura Dudnick maintains that “The Board of Education approved the staff recommendation to purchase the Voices curriculum by a vote of 5–2.” The question of whether the board actually voted to authorize the purchase of the curriculum is significant. Before the meeting, in response to a question from a board commissioner, district staff wrote, “Without approval, [the district] would not be able to pilot Voices in the 2025–26 school year. Ethnic studies teachers would continue to use the current SFUSD ethnic studies curriculum.”
Critics in the community have charged that the new proposed curriculum was not shared in advance, nor has critically important teacher training on it been possible.
In 2021, the school board made passing a one-year course in ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement for students graduating in or after 2028, a group that includes last year’s and this year’s ninth-grade students. Last year’s curriculum has drawn criticism from school district parents, students, teachers, and community members, 20 of whom testified at the meeting about the hostile and discriminatory climate and statements from the classes directed toward them and others. In late May, Superintendent Su ended use of the existing curriculum and assured parents she would pause the ethnic studies course requirement for one year while the school district worked with educators and families on a new curriculum. In June, Superintendent Su reconsidered and identified a new curriculum the district could buy for the fall. Although describing it as a pilot, the course would be required of ninth graders at all high schools.
To comply with state law, other school districts such as San Dieguito Union and Visalia Unified have engaged in extensive rounds of school, community, and educator consultation and shared the curriculum before approving pilot ethnic studies classes to which students opt in. The San Francisco public schools have gone in a different direction. Critics within school district families and communities have charged that the new proposed curriculum was not shared in advance nor has critically important teacher training on it been possible.
Board of Education President Kim’s motion to end debate cut off commissioners’ rights to ask further questions about the expenses and the program.
The controversies around the school board vote compound the existing irregularities in selecting the curriculum. During the meeting’s period for commissioners to ask questions to the staff about ethnic studies, President Phil Kim sought to end the questions despite Commissioner Supryia Ray having earlier stated she had additional ones. After President Kim said, “I’m going to motion to bring this to a vote,” Commissioner Ray objected that she had further questions and wanted to move to table the curriculum purchase. President Kim responded that she could ask the superintendent her questions after the vote and that she could make her motion to table consideration of the purchase if his motion failed. Vice President Huling added that she had already seconded President Kim’s motion, which the general counsel described as a “motion to move the question.” Commissioner Fisher asked if a motion to amend was in order and was told no.
President Kim’s motion to end debate is not the same as one to approve the curriculum. The Kim motion cut off Commissioner Ray’s and other commissioners’ rights to ask further questions about the expenses and the program. Because Commissioners Fisher and Alexander had earlier made the underlying motion, a second approval motion by President Kim was unnecessary. And if that’s what it was, then Commissioner Ray had the right to table it. That right was denied her by President Kim and the general counsel. Although President Kim offered her the opportunity to make her motion later if his motion was voted down, if his motion was meant to be dispositive as to approving the curriculum, then the issue would have been decided with nothing left to table.
Board of Education President Kim cut off the parliamentary rights of one of the elected board members at least twice.
Here is why all this matters. The school district has already been criticized for its lack of transparency and failure to comply with Education Code requirements by not vetting or adopting the old curriculum or the new proposed curriculum. It has not completed the process to approve buying the new books, but it appears to be going ahead with the new curriculum anyway. In the process, the board president cut off the parliamentary rights of one of the elected board members at least twice.
Whatever the intentions, the board did not vote to approve the curriculum or authorize the purchase of the curriculum. It has not seen or reviewed the curriculum nor have parents. Teachers have not received training on the curriculum. The school district is now operating on questionable, but fixable, legal grounds. Time is short before students return for the fall semester on August 18.