One of the questions posed by The Voice of San Francisco following the Board of Education’s confusing July 29 meeting now has an answer: At its next meeting, the board will attempt to vote again to approve the new ethnic studies curriculum it thought it had passed in July but did not.
Meanwhile, two new questions have emerged:
– Unable to obtain board approval, did the school district have the authority to implement the new curriculum and spend $100,000 to purchase it?
– Will Superintendent Maria Su’s administrative regulation to keep unapproved curriculum materials out of the classroom be successful?
Hanging in the balance is whether the new curriculum, with just limited parent and community input, adequately safeguards the civil rights, and well-being of all students and complies with state law.
Irregularities surrounding San Francisco’s ethnic studies curriculum have multiplied since 2021, when while schools were closed, the Board of Education required students to pass two semesters of ethnic studies to graduate, starting with the class of 2028. Subsequently, the state mandated a one-semester requirement and then quit enforcing the mandate because it provided no funding to local schools for the course.
In response to numerous community complaints, Superintendent Su agreed in May to terminate the local curriculum. Many understood she would pause the graduation requirement for a year to evaluate the curriculum and develop better alternatives. In June, she decided, without board action, that the ethnic studies course would continue in the fall with a new curriculum.
By contrast, other California school districts, to comply with state law, held extended board, educator, and community meetings to discuss their ethnic studies materials and ascertain whether they met educational standards and community needs. The board’s attempted July 29 vote lacked that public input as well. The board adjourned after it ended debate over purchasing the curriculum but before actually voting on the purchase itself.
At the Aug. 12 meeting, Board President Phil Kim attempted, but withdrew, an effort to declare that the board had approved the ethnic studies curriculum at the July 29 meeting. These missteps and the board’s apparent failure to fulfill its Education Code 60002 duty to “promote the involvement of parents and other members of the community in the selection of instructional materials” leave the ethnic studies program in legal jeopardy should a student, parent or taxpayer choose to challenge it in court.
One of the most significant community concerns about the prior curriculum was teachers using self-created material to supplement it. To address this concern, Superintendent Su issued an administrative regulation on Aug. 14 that walks a fine line between encouraging teachers to bring new materials to their students and requiring them to gain higher-level approval to ensure the materials are consistent with educational standards.
The new administrative regulation implements a board policy adopted in 2020 that allows a teacher to determine whether the supplemental materials they want to use in the classroom comply with school standards and to consult with the superintendent or an unnamed designee if the teacher needs help in making that determination. Whether the 2020 policy was followed or disregarded, teachers used materials on the Middle East and the Red Guard in ethnic studies classes last year.
The superintendent developed the new administrative regulation in conjunction with the teachers union and falls far short of administrative oversight. First, compliance determinations need not be made by the superintendent, deputy superintendent, or other high-level administrator. They can be made by an assistant principal or a teacher who serves as the department chair. Having the same people who previously approved questionable material decide what complies with the new policy may make sense, but it provides little hope that outcomes will change. Second, the review is conducted only “as necessary.” If the teacher can decide independently that the curriculum meets the law, no review is required. If the teacher is “unsure,” then that person “should” seek advance review but is not required to.
Once the supplemental material is used in the classroom, an objecting student or parent is directed to the teacher or principal to resolve the complaint. If the complaint is not resolved, the principal provides the student or parent a complaint form to be submitted to the superintendent or designee. In contrast to the teacher’s supplemental curriculum approval process that is conducted behind closed doors, the parent complaint form, including the parent’s name, becomes public record, which may discourage complaints. Parents may use a separate Uniform Complaint Process that allows for anonymity so it is unclear why the administrative regulation subjects a parent’s complaint to public disclosure. Finally, there is no appeal of the designee’s determination about the materials and, in some cases, there may be no review at all.
As the debate continues over the ethnic studies curriculum that the board will vote on Aug. 29, whether Superintendent Su’s new administrative regulation closes the door to unreviewed and unapproved curriculum remains to be seen. The final decision may be up to the court of public opinion or a court of law.