San Francisco Schools Superintendent Maria Su has successfully withstood the national scrutiny of an election-year Congressional hearing about school districts breaking trust with parents on the education of their children. By defending San Francisco values without offending skeptical Republican members of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Su takes on the role of a returning hero from the culture wars in Washington. Meanwhile, a Trump administration Justice Department compliance review of San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) policies still looms in July.
This week’s hearing entitled, “Breaking Trust: Attacks on Parental Rights, Inappropriate Content, and Legal Abuses in America’s Schools,” placed Superintendent Su in the limelight with Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Macquline King and Loudoun County, Va., Superintendent Aaron Spence, who were also called to testify. The adage that “all politics are local” worked to Su’s advantage, as Chicago and Loudoun County were easier targets for committee members, who were largely from the Midwest and Southern states. They focused tough questioning on the other two educators.
The two California Democrats on the committee, Mark Takano of Riverside and Mark DeSaulnier of Walnut Creek, praised Su and questioned the committee’s failure to hold hearings on other parental concerns, such as school violence, immigration enforcement, and student mental health. Representative Adelita Grijalva of Tucson, a former school board member, apologized for what she termed “harassment” of the superintendents by committee Republicans. One Democratic member noted that school districts had been forced to spend $3.2 billion to defend themselves against attacks on diversity and equity programs.
Superintendent Su fared best in response to questioning by Sacramento-area Representative Kevin Kiley. While Representative Kiley has a history of criticizing San Francisco schools’ “wokeness,” ethnic studies courses, and politicization of public school students, he made a 180-degree reversal at the hearing and praised Su and San Francisco as a whole for “very good changes on all these fronts.” Kiley, elected as a Republican but now registered as an independent, enumerated course corrections over the past four years of what he regarded as San Francisco’s past flaws: recalling three school board members; giving up on changing school names that represented the ills of past eras; restoring algebra for students in the eighth grade; terminating its “homegrown” ethnic studies curriculum; and balancing the school budget. Su emphasized the changes under her watch and proudly defended San Francisco as a pioneer in LGBTQ rights that today welcomes students and families of all backgrounds and graduates them prepared for college, careers, and life.
Representative Kiley’s reversal could fairly be attributed to Proposition 50, the statewide redistricting reform ballot measure that forced him into a new congressional district that favors Democratic voters by 8 percent compared to his previous 4 percent Republican advantage. He has a strong Democratic challenger in Dr. Richard Pan, a former state senator. For this hearing, Kiley emphasized his agreement with positive changes so much so that, at the end of the hearing, committee chairman Dan Walberg took a more conciliatory approach and singled out San Francisco as an example for other school districts.
The hearing was not without its challenges for Superintendent Su. She was asked at least three times at what age it was appropriate for students to attend Drag Queen Story Hour and provided no number to the exasperation of the questioning representative. While her superintendent colleagues vowed that “we follow the law” as it relates to sex-segregated school restroom facilities, Su prefaced the same response with “To the best of my knowledge. …” One Republican committee member, Representative Robert Onder of Missouri, came armed with an enlarged screen board describing a training at a San Francisco high school on “adultism,” the apparent misuse of power and authority by adults over young people. In the middle of his question, Onder inexplicably pivoted to a different topic — whether SFUSD was following a U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing a parent’s right to be informed about a change in a child’s gender identity.
Rope-a-dope was a strategy used by boxing great Muhammad Ali in the 1970s to duck away from punches and wear out his opponent. Su’s successful deflection of tough questions enabled her to articulate her affirmative message to Congress and the White House to fully fund special education as envisioned a half-century ago in the original Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act. She asked for them to fund 40 percent of special education costs instead of the current 10 percent so that SFUSD could provide essential wraparound supportive services as well as to increase funding for low-income and English language learners.
The committee chairman noted common ground with Su and pointed out that the Trump administration is proposing to increase special education funding. After more than three hours, he gaveled the hearing to a close and was scheduled to hold a press conference with “parents and families who have been victims of harmful school board policies.” In Washington, the politics continue but Superintendent Su, at least for this day, kept San Francisco from being the epicenter of the fights.
