The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) is once again in the legal spotlight, this time over the allegedly hasty implementation of its mandatory “Voices: An Ethnic Studies Survey” curriculum for ninth graders. The Friends of Lowell Foundation (FOLF) filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court on Friday, July 10, 2026, alleging repeated violations of California’s Brown Act and a troubling lack of transparency that has left parents in the dark about a course now required for all incoming high school students. This latest challenge echoes the group’s successful 2021 Brown Act victory, which forced the district to reinstate merit-based admissions at Lowell High School. FOLF argues that history is repeating itself, with procedural shortcuts undermining public trust and parental rights. Frank Cheung of FOLF asks, “What would it take for SFUSD to follow the law? They are supposed to serve ALL San Franciscans, not just a preferred group of people.”
According to their press release, FOLF intends to take on SFUSD on many levels, including civil rights violations in federal court, where Power Wheel exercises force students to reveal sexual orientation, race, family circumstances, and more.
Laurance Lee, who provides education bond oversight and is running for the Board of Education in the fall commented, “This is a legit lawsuit from smart folks who have won against the School District on their prior Brown Act failings. I am so sad and frustrated that we are here again. As we see in the World Cup, own goals are not good. District staff and leaders can put more money in classrooms by listening to concerned community and School Board Commissioners and resolve this concern and do things with true transparency going forward”.
City Hall urged shift from homegrown curriculum, yet full review remained elusive
Mayor Daniel Lurie and some members of the Board of Supervisors had urged the district to move away from its earlier homegrown ethnic studies program amid widespread criticism of its ideological content, including lessons that praised Mao’s Red Guards and referred to America as the “so-called United States,” while asking students to consider redrawing Southern states as a separate nation.
Superintendent Maria Su and the Board of Education received a barrage of public comment criticizing the homegrown curriculum at several district meetings, including 2,100 petitions against the adoption of the Voices curriculum, but under pressure from the teachers’ union, expanded “Voices,” a Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum, instead to two mandated semesters.
According to Carol Kocivar, past president of the California State PTA, and other community member attendees at the review sessions for Voices in March 2026, SFUSD made it clear that Voices was “liberated” ethnic studies and would be the only curriculum being evaluated for ninth graders. Theresa Montaño, a primary cofounder of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Consortium model, is unapologetic that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is foundational to teaching liberated and non-liberated ethnic studies to mobilize students to activism and dismantle systemic racism. (The evolution of liberated ethnic studies will be covered in more detail in Part 2 of this series.)
We assert that CRT belongs in schools as a tool to identify and dismantle structures, policies, and practices that harm students of color and Indigenous students, their families, their communities, and their futures…The struggle for K–12 ethnic studies is evidenced in the current struggle to secure a liberatory ethnic studies graduation requirement in California. For these reasons without explicitly naming CRT, ethnic studies educators apply the tenets of CRT as they write lesson plans, develop curricula and instruct their students. The development of CRT as a structure of K–12 ethnic studies curricula opens the door to liberation from racism for our students. Therefore, it is central that CRT in education argues that a students’ every day experience is informed by their encounters with racism.
SFUSD and the BOE approved funding for Voices Liberated Ethnic Studies after midnight in irregular meeting procedures, while closing public comment early.
According to the legal complaint, SFUSD folded the high-stakes ethnic studies decision into a broader April 2026 Board of Education agenda item on history and social science materials, failing to list clearly that ethnic studies was on the agenda. One Board of Education member even warned in the public meeting that this lack of procedural notice and the irregular bundling may invite legal challenges subsequently, but the warning was ignored in a 6-to-1 curriculum adoption vote by the Board of Education, where Supryia Ray was the single dissenting vote.
The full curriculum is still not readily available to the public in any reasonable digital form. Parents were limited to in-person viewing during work hours, effectively shielding the content from widespread scrutiny.
The lawsuit further claims the district diverted resources from the Public Education Enrichment Fund, intended for arts, music, and enrichment programs, to support a roughly $7 million overhaul that included the new curriculum. This comes as SFUSD grapples with structural deficits at $100–$200 million in the coming years.
A pattern of procedural shortcuts
The suit arrives amid heightened scrutiny of SFUSD’s governance. The district has faced repeated challenges over transparency, from Lowell admissions to other policy shifts, including the adoption of Administration Regulation 1225 in February 2026, which shifted the independence of the Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) over to the Board and Superintendent. (SFUSD and CBOC will be covered more in detail in Part 3 of this series.)
Friends of Lowell, which has a track record of holding the board accountable through successful litigation, is once again demanding that SFUSD follow the law designed to protect open government and public participation.
The Voice of San Francisco reached out to SFUSD and Board of Education leadership for comment. SFUSD replied:
“We do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation. We remain focused on student outcomes and do not have additional information to share on this matter at this time. Warmly, SFUSD Communications.”
Board of Education President Phil Kim has had the following auto-reply in place since May:
“Thank you for your message. Your experience and input are invaluable in helping us reach our goals. Due to the high volume of emails, I may not be able to respond to each one. However, I make every effort to read all messages and respond when possible.”
His auto-response email directs inquiries to various SFUSD resource lines and the board office. Phil Kim is up for reelection in November 2026.
As San Francisco parents and taxpayers await the court’s response, this case highlights ongoing tensions in the district.
