On Monday, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools Maria Su unveiled plans for a pilot ethnic studies curriculum for all ninth graders starting next month. The announcement comes barely one month after Superintendent Su proposed a Grading for Equity initiative, which was withdrawn within 24 hours after widespread opposition from Mayor Daniel Lurie, parents, and stakeholders from across the left, center, and right of the political spectrum. Su’s latest action has prompted questions about what will be taught, whether an unapproved curriculum will remain, and when the public and the school board will have a say.
Superintendent Su’s ethnic studies plan is an attempt to pull the school district out of a contentious quagmire involving ethnic studies teachers and some high school principals and students who support the existing curriculum or some modifications and parents, students, and community members who have opposed classroom sessions that veer far beyond the histories of ethnic groups in California and the nation. Lessons causing controversy include holding up the Chinese Red Guard as an example of “social movements that have pushed for change and justice” without examining any negative attributes. Material for one class unit stated, “We might not be staging a boycott, forming a revolutionary organization, or even doing a neighborhood clean-up by the end of this school year, but we can lay the foundation for these projects.”
The state legislature and school districts across California have debated whether and how to teach ethnic studies. The state Department of Education declines to enforce a state law making enrollment in one semester of ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement until the legislature provides funding for the courses. For its own part, in March 2021, while schools were closed because of Covid, the San Francisco school board adopted its own year-long ethnic studies graduation requirement.
Fearing that Superintendent Su would suspend the local requirement while she reviewed the existing ethnic studies course offerings, various principals and ethnic studies teachers spoke out at the most recent school board meeting against her doing so. They argued it would be disruptive to place students into world history or other replacement courses, and too late for teachers to prepare new material.
While the curriculum that raised serious concerns is now gone, few people outside the school district administration have seen the planned replacement. Former school board president Lainie Motamedi called the plan “a backdoor maneuver that erodes public trust.” As for its content, some parents describe it as “built around themes of oppression, resistance, and activism” — the same objection they had to the curriculum it is set to replace. According to parent Allene Jue, “It’s ideology, not history. Instead of a rich, historically grounded look at the lives and contributions of Black, Latino, AAPI, and Indigenous communities in California, this curriculum collapses entire cultures into an oppressor-oppressed binary.”
Instead of a rich, historically grounded look at the lives and contributions of Black, Latino, AAPI, and Indigenous communities in California, this curriculum collapses entire cultures into an oppressor-oppressed binary.
— Allene Jue, parent
Superintendent Su states that her curriculum choice has been adopted in other school districts in California and around the country. Those ethnic studies decisions, however, were the products of extended parental involvement, community consultation, and school board hearings and votes. The Visalia School District approved its curriculum in March after convening teacher committees and receiving parent and community feedback. The San Dieguito Union High School District conducted school board study sessions, shared course instruction materials, and received cycles of community feedback before adopting the curriculum on a pilot basis for the coming school year during which it will continue to refine the curriculum with stakeholders. No vote is currently contemplated by the school board.
Parents are now calling on the school board to take action on ethnic studies. Under California Education Code Section 60002, “Each district board shall provide for substantial teacher involvement in the selection of instructional materials and shall promote the involvement of parents and other members of the community in the selection of instructional materials.” One way to start promoting parent and community involvement is to share it on the school district website.
While it may be late for Superintendent Su and the school board to begin a public evaluation of the curriculum and gain needed parent, educator, and community feedback, the school board could convene a study session prior to its next board meeting. There, Superintendent Su and her staff could present the curriculum, explain the administrative regulation by which she will approve supplementary materials, and describe what safeguards she will establish to ensure teachers refrain from going back to the curriculum she has ruled out.
Since its inception in the 1960s, ethnic studies has focused on asking hard questions to dig deep into the nation’s troubled history on racial and ethnic matters. Hard questions are now being presented to Superintendent Su and the school board so they can get ethnic studies curriculum right for students and all the diverse communities of San Francisco.
