اینترنت

برچسب: studies

  • Judge rejects lawsuit over ‘liberated’ ethnic studies classes in LAUSD

    Judge rejects lawsuit over ‘liberated’ ethnic studies classes in LAUSD


    Theresa Montaño, a professor in Chicano/a Studies at CSU Northridge and a member of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee, is a defendant in the lawsuit.

    Credit: Luis Garcia / California State University, Northridge

    A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the United Teachers Los Angeles and the organization that created a controversial ethnic studies curriculum adopted by at least two dozen school districts in California. 

    U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin’s scathing ruling on Nov. 30 criticized what he concluded was a lack of evidence and unpersuasive arguments made on behalf of the two Jewish teachers and parents in Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles, the group that brought the litigation.

    The plaintiffs’ complaint “is difficult to understand and contains a morass of largely irrelevant — and sometimes contradictory — allegations, few of which state with any degree of clarity precisely what plaintiffs believe defendants have done or, more importantly, how plaintiffs have been harmed,” wrote Olguin of the Central District of federal court in California. His 49-page pretrial ruling dismissing the lawsuit “with prejudice” precludes the plaintiffs from refiling another similar lawsuit in federal court.  The lawsuit was filed in 2022.

    The lawsuit alleged that the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, the teachers union, its president Cecily Myart-Cruz, and two members of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee encouraged the adoption of instructional materials used in several LAUSD classrooms, that they also “covertly” trained teachers in the “liberated” ethnic studies curriculum, which condemns capitalism, white privilege, and Zionism, and characterizes Israel’s existence as “based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide,”  according to Olguin’s summary of the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit also alleged that teachers who identified as Jewish or Zionist were not welcome in classrooms where ethnic studies was taught and “personally experienced the official hostility” of UTLA to Israel and to the concept of Zionism.”

    Denying they are antisemitic, educators affiliated with the consortium — mainly instructors and professors in ethnic studies departments at California State University and University of California — have made anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel a focus of their curriculum. They characterize Israel as a settler, colonialist nation, similar to European nations’ oppressive occupations of Africa and Asia in the 19th and 2oth centuries.

    The “liberated” approach to ethnic studies has drawn scrutiny since its leaders formed the consortium in protest after the State Board of Education rejected as ideological and one-sided a draft curriculum that some of them had authored. In passing Assembly Bill 101, creating a mandate requiring high school students to take ethnic studies to graduate, the Legislature, at the encouragement of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, specified that school districts should not use unadopted portions of earlier drafts of the model curriculum. 

    Advocates of liberated ethnic studies charged the clause and other “guardrails” in the law were intended to squelch their free speech. The largely unfunded graduation mandate is set to take effect in 2029-30.

    In an online celebration Monday, Theresa Montaño, a defendant in the lawsuit who is also a member of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee and secretary of the consortium, said, “The end of this two-and-a-half year lawsuit means vindication, affirmation, and victory.”

    “This is a win for liberatory critical ethnic studies and academic freedom. It’s a testament to the power of solidarity and liberation, whether that be in South Los Angeles or in Gaza,” said Montaño, a professor of Chicano/a Studies at CSU Northridge. “And so it’s a signal to us that we will not stop, that we will persist until authentic ethnic studies is guaranteed to every student in this state.”

    The attorney representing the defendants, Mark Kleiman, told teachers on the press call, “The moral of this story for people in the other school districts is, you don’t have to be afraid of these kinds of attacks. Given half a chance in a fair courtroom, you will be vindicated.” 

    Meanwhile, the legal director for the Deborah Project — the law firm that filed the lawsuit — said, “We absolutely will be appealing the decision and are confident that the decision will be reversed on appeal.” The appeal must be filed by Dec. 30.

    The ruling, said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “is deeply flawed, as it ignores crucial allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, fails to address arguments plaintiffs made in their briefs, and even ignores binding precedent from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”  

    “We are in the midst of soaring antisemitism in education throughout the U.S., and this is no time for anyone — much less a federal court — to allow publicly funded public schools to be used to indoctrinate children to hate the Jewish commitment to Israel,” she said. “Contrary to the ruling, that’s not ‘education’ about a ‘controversial’ issue. It’s prejudice, pure and simple.”

    Uncertain implications

    It’s unclear what impact, if any, the ruling might have on other litigation in California involving ethnic studies and allegations of antisemitism and indoctrination which include a potentially stronger lawsuit that the Deborah Project filed last month against the Sequoia Union High School District in Menlo Park, its superintendent, and administrators at two high schools. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents of Jewish students who claim that the district ignored parents’ repeated complaints of antisemitic taunts and bullying by students and biased lessons on the Israeli-Gaza conflict, taught by two history teachers.

    On Friday, an Orange County Superior Court judge will consider a motion to invalidate four ethnic studies courses in Santa Ana Unified. In their lawsuit, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law claims that district staff wrote the courses, with the participation of school board members, in violation of the California open meetings law. They did so in order to hide the content from Jewish community members who had repeatedly offered to participate in the process and offer their perspectives. Documents reveal that staff members referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist Zionists” and made other bigoted remarks about Jews. 

    The lawsuit against UTLA and the consortium did not include LAUSD as a direct defendant, which may have weakened the case because the district has not adopted the Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum, and there is no indication if and when it would. That made the plaintiffs’ concerns speculative and, therefore, their proposed remedies invalid, Olguin wrote, noting that the participation of Montaño and Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, an LAUSD teacher and a member of the consortium’s leadership team, in an advisory committee is not evidence of the district’s endorsement of the curriculum.

    Olguin further ruled that the plaintiffs could not substantiate that teachers and other plaintiffs had yet faced any actual harm, nor did they demonstrate that the eventual adoption of the curriculum would violate civil rights. The judge continued that although plaintiffs claimed the curriculum was “infected from top to bottom with racism,” they didn’t show any evidence to support their assertion.

    “It is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury,” Olguin wrote.

    The plaintiffs had asked Olguin to issue injunctions prohibiting LAUSD from including language critical of Israel or Zionism in teaching materials; preventing the district from paying teachers who used the liberated curriculum; and prohibiting the district from using materials from liberated curriculum in classrooms and teacher training paid for by public funds.

    Olguin ruled that the plaintiffs had not substantiated claims that their First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and their right to equal protection under the U.S. and California constitutions were impeded. However, their request for an injunction would have raised an unconstitutional prior restraint on the defendants’ First Amendment speech rights, he concluded.

    While a district can “reasonably” curtail teachers’ speech rights in a classroom, “those limitations are fundamentally different from speech restrictions imposed by a court at the behest of a group of private citizens,” he wrote.

    In language certain to alarm Jewish organizations worried that antisemitic and anti-Israel bias is gaining a foothold in California schools, Olguin wrote, “It would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.”





    Source link

  • The clock is ticking, ethnic studies remains an unfunded mandate; what will Newsom do?

    The clock is ticking, ethnic studies remains an unfunded mandate; what will Newsom do?


    A high school student listens to a presentation by her classmate.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / American Education

    The article was updated on Dec., 12 to clarify that the anti-bias protections in AB 101’s “guardrails” were copied from existing state statutes.

    Three years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation mandating that high schools offer ethnic studies “upon appropriation,” starting in 2025-26.

    Now, those two words — upon appropriation — loom large. The deadline to offer a semester of ethnic studies in 2025-26 is only seven months away, and requiring the course for graduation is due to begin with the graduating class of 2029-30. 

    Since 2022, the California Department of Finance has taken the position that there has been no appropriation to implement the course, and some other legislators agree — no money, no requirement to develop or offer classes. As a result, school districts might conclude that the law’s “guardrails” intended to prevent bias, bigotry, and discrimination from seeping into instruction could be ignored. However, the guardrails language was copied from existing state education statutes (Education Code 220), which would still prevail.  

    That lack of funding is creating uncertainty about the future of ethnic studies and suspense about whether Newsom will deliver the money next month when he proposes his 2025-26 budget — and, as importantly, whether he will condition funding on amendments to the law (Assembly Bill 101), including those championed by the Jewish Legislative Caucus.

    “I come at this with a fresh set of eyes. It’s pretty clear that the law only really takes effect if there is funding for this during the budgetary process. There has been no budget allocated for that,” said Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, who was elected to the Legislature in 2022 and chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance while serving on the Assembly Budget and Education committees.

    “But that doesn’t mean that that won’t happen in the budget that’s to be released in January, which then funds the 2025-26 school year, which is when this would take effect,” he said. “I would expect it would” be funded.

    Options ‘upon appropriation’

    There is no statutory definition of “upon appropriation,” which is sometimes inserted in bills requiring significant funding. That leaves the governor and Legislature several options, according to legislative staff. One would be a significant one-time investment with dedicated funding in subsequent years. Another would be to eliminate “upon appropriation” by amending the bill — although that wouldn’t eliminate the state’s obligation to fund the mandate. The Legislature could then leave it to the Commission on State Mandates to decide how much should be reimbursed annually. Districts have complained that the commission tends to lowball reimbursements.

    Advisers to and spokespeople for Newsom refused to discuss the unfunded mandate or what to expect in January, and leaders of one of the strongest advocates of ethnic studies, the controversial Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, aren’t answering requests for comment. An administrator of the San Diego County Office of Education, which is coordinating state grants to develop ethnic studies course curriculums, also declined to comment.

    Finance Dept. states its position

    A spokesperson for Newsom referred EdSource to the Department of Finance, which, in turn, pointed to a link to a Feb. 22, 2022, webcast of Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance hearing (watch between 2:57 to 3:07).

    At the hearing, then-Assemblymember Kevin McCarthy, D-Sacramento, a strong proponent of ethnic studies, noted that the 2021-22 state budget included $50 million that would be disbursed to school districts to “launch this work.”

    “Do we think that’s the adequate amount we need to make sure we have a successful ethnic studies requirement for high schools throughout California?” he asked state officials.

    Amber Alexander, representing the Department of Finance, clarified that the $50 million was one-time funding for districts to create, not implement, the graduation mandate. “Nor,” she added, “does the Finance Department believe the $50 million would be sufficient, should the mandate progress.”

    “I know that we have some debate about that, and I’m not sure why you need an appropriation because you’re going to have that class taught in a high school anyway, and you’ll have a teacher teaching that class as opposed to another class,” McCarthy responded. “Just simple mathematics; I don’t get it yet.”

    Turning to Mike Torres, director of the curriculum frameworks division of the California Department of Education, McCarthy asked, “Do we think that we need, uh, any other resources? Um, on the lead-up to, uh, ethnic studies throughout California?”

    Torres answered, “Gearing up for this requirement is likely to be a multi-year process with costs exceeding $50 million statewide (for districts) to make that happen.”

    In an analysis of the financial impact of AB 101, the Finance Department estimated the implementation cost of ethnic studies at $272 million. Alvares said that the 2021 ballpark estimate would need to be recalculated, and he wouldn’t hazard a guess of the cost other than to say it would be well over $100 million annually to reimburse districts.

    Jewish caucus finds an ally in Newsom

    Despite uncertainty over funding, intense work continues on developing ethnic studies curricula and piloting courses throughout the state. This week, the California Department of Education launched a website dedicated to Southeast Asian ethnic studies, including separate K-12 lesson plans exploring Vietnamese, Cambodian and Hmong histories and experiences. Chapters on Native American studies are planned for next fall. 

    The site was developed by the county education offices in Orange, Humboldt and San Diego counties, with $14 million in state funding from the 2021-22 budget. San Diego County has also hosted multiple series of ethnic studies webinars for teachers.  

    Meanwhile, the spread of the liberated ethnic studies curriculum developed as an alternative to the state’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Framework has escalated tensions between its creator and promoter, the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and the Jewish Legislative Caucus. The “liberated” version has been a focus of several lawsuits (see here, here and here) brought by Jewish families and supportive law firms charging that its one-sided, ideological opposition to the state of Israel and its ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza has fostered antisemitism in schools.

    Critics say that “liberated” ethnic studies view race relations in America as a continuing struggle against white supremacy and its oppression of people of color. It stresses the importance for students to challenge capitalism and the forces of imperialism, including Israel, which the curriculum calls a modern outpost of “settler colonialism.”

    At the urging of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, the Legislature wrote into AB 101 that school districts should not use unadopted portions of earlier drafts of the model curriculum — an oblique reference to the elements of the liberated curriculum that were excised from the first draft. Advocates of liberated ethnic studies charged that the clause and other “guardrails” seek to squelch their free speech.

    But the Jewish caucus has found an ally in Newsom. In August 2023, Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and a Newsom adviser, wrote in a memo to school districts, “We have been advised, however, that some vendors are offering materials that may not meet the requirements of AB 101, particularly the second requirement (not reflecting or promoting any bias, bigotry, or discrimination), an important guardrail highlighted when the bill was signed. Accordingly, before any curriculum or instructional materials for ethnic studies courses are selected, we strongly encourage you to closely scrutinize them to ensure that they meet the above requirements.”

    Newsom cites the need to include lessons about Jewish Americans in the ethnic studies curriculum in his 17-page Golden State Plan to Combat Antisemitism, issued in April 2024. It also includes, “The Governor will work with the Jewish Caucus and Legislature to pursue legislation strengthening the guardrails established by AB 101 to ensure all ethnic studies courses are free from bias, bigotry, and discriminatory content.”

    Second attempt at tighter guardrails

    That is the intent of Assembly Bill 2918, authored by Assemblymembers Rick Zbur, D-Los Angeles, and Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay. Introduced late in the last legislative session, it ran aground amid opposition from the liberated consortium and the California Teachers Association as well as criticism that it short-circuited the full legislative process. Addis and Zbur promised to start from scratch and confer with opponents and Latino, Black, and Asian legislative caucuses.

    The bill called for strengthening vague wording of the guardrails as well as requirements that more opportunities for the public to weigh in on the development of local ethnic studies courses be created before a final vote for adoption by school boards. This has not been the case in some districts and is central to a lawsuit against Santa Ana Unified.

    Newsom has not given any sign of whether he would treat funding and amending AB 101 separately or use funding as leverage for added protections. Zbur, a member of the Jewish caucus, said he’s not calling for that approach.

    “I want ethnic studies to move forward. The entire Jewish caucus supported ethnic studies when it came up (for a vote). We (he and Addis) don’t view this in a context of leverage,” he said. “We actually have faith that the education unions and our colleagues want to ensure that we meet the goals of ethnic studies in a manner that’s appropriate for all students, including Jewish students.”

    But Alvarez, who said he is “fully supportive of ensuring that the guardrails exist from the Jewish caucus perspective,” added that it’s appropriate to revise AB 101 while discussing how to fund it.  

    “We have an opportunity to ensure we get this right,” he said. “And so as we go forward and implement, we need to make sure that we do so in the best way possible. It’s germane to the requirement that it needs to be funded.” 





    Source link

  • Anatomy of a divided California school board’s vote on ethnic studies

    Anatomy of a divided California school board’s vote on ethnic studies


    Ariane Tuomy, a social studies teacher at Palo Alto Unified’s Gunn High School, responds to school board members’ questions at a special board meeting on Jan. 23.

    Credit: Palo Alto Unified / YouTube

    In hour two of a meeting that stretched to nearly five, Josh Salcman, barely two months on the Palo Alto Unified School Board, said aloud what other school board members no doubt realize at some point in their first term: “I’m acutely aware that no matter how I vote, I’m going to deeply disappoint a large part of our community, including people whose friendship is important to me and whose opinions I hold in the highest regard.”

    He was undoubtedly right. Whether to require ninth graders to take an ethnic studies course starting next fall was and likely will remain contentious this year, not only in Palo Alto but throughout California. 

    Palo Alto had become the latest skirmish in California’s ethnic studies war. Salcman, who founded two education-related tech startups, was in the middle, ultimately facing the awkward decision of choosing between the views of enthusiastic students and teachers and apprehensive parents. 

    Two decisions in 2021 all but guaranteed that. First, a battle-weary State Board of Education, after multiple rewrites, approved an ambiguously worded curriculum framework that challenged districts to determine what should be included in an ethnic studies course. Then, the Legislature mandated that schools offer an ethnic studies course in high school starting in 2025-26. 

    Or maybe not. This month, Gov. Gavin Newsom decided not to fund the implementation of ethnic studies in next year’s state budget without explaining why. This not only calls the mandate into question, at least for next year, but also gives an out to districts that are dreading arguing over the course. 

    But not Palo Alto. Last week, board President Shana Segal, a Palo Alto native and former high school teacher, called for a special board meeting to approve the course that Palo Alto high school teachers had developed. The district would offer it in the fall and mandate it for graduation, starting in 2028-29. Regardless of state funding, that would be one year ahead of the state mandate. She set the hearing for later in the week, Jan. 23. 

    To pause or not to pause?

    For two years, at the board’s direction, a half-dozen veteran Palo Alto teachers persevered to create a first-year ethnic studies course. Last fall, they offered a pilot version to 20 students in each of the district’s two high schools in Palo Alto. The students’ survey results, all positive, were in.

    But at the same time, members of the Palo Alto Parent Alliance have been watching conflicts and lawsuits over ethnic studies and complaints of antisemitism since the slaughter of Israelis by Hamas in October 2023 followed by Israel’s mass destruction in Gaza. 

    At the center of the conflict is Liberated Ethnic Studies, a strain of ethnic studies that made the liberation of Palestine a prominent element of instruction. Critics characterize it as a left-wing ideology focused on the ongoing domination and oppression of white supremacy, capitalism, and colonialism.

    Ethnic studies faculty at California State University and University of California and activists created Liberated Ethnic Studies after the state board rejected the first draft of the curriculum that they had primarily authored in 2019. They have made spreading Liberated Ethnic Studies a lucrative side hustle and have contracted with at least several dozen districts to train teachers and guide instruction. 

    In a May 2024 FAQ it published, the Palo Alto parent group cited language tying Liberated Ethnic Studies to the proposed course.

    Superintendent Don Austin has reiterated that Palo Alto’s course is not Liberated Ethnic Studies and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won’t be part of a course on California racial and ethnic groups. 

    But in October, Linor Levav, an attorney and co-founder of the parent group, filed a Public Records Act request for curriculum materials that the district had largely ignored. Eventually, the district provided a PDF that contained links that couldn’t be opened.

    The rejection has fueled suspicions. “And so the question is, why are they teaching materials that they’re not willing to even tell us about?” she told EdSource. 

    The parent group called for a “pause” from proceeding with a mandated course.  

    While running campaigns for their first term on the five-member board, Salcman, Rowena Chiu and Alison Kamhi supported a delay. Now, the new majority’s campaign position would be put to a test.

    The audience in the boardroom was not particularly friendly to the three dissenters. The room seated about 80, with some standing room. By board rules, students get to speak first, and they filled most of the room. The adults lined up outside to address the board for one minute via Zoom or enter to do so individually. Forty-five were set aside for one-minute comments. Students, all supporting ethnic studies now, clapped enthusiastically at comments they liked.

    During the hearing, the three board skeptics said they shared some of the public’s concerns about the course’s content. They questioned its timing and sharply criticized the district for not being forthright about what would be taught in the course.

    “I believe we have to be very transparent about what we are teaching, provide an opportunity for meaningful feedback, and not push through classes that make people and communities, including communities of color, feel unsafe, targeted, or disrespected,” said Kamhi, who is the legal program director for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwyKHvVA9E

    Watch Palo Alto Unified board member Josh Salcman discuss his concerns regarding ethnic studies.

    Two hours into the hearing, when he was still advocating a delay, Salcman explained his dilemma, mixing high praise for the teachers’ work with well articulated reservations about some of the content.

    He congratulated the teachers who developed the pilot course and the initial students who took it. Their presentation “underscored what I’ve heard from many community members who have emphatically urged me to vote yes.”

    “I find myself agreeing with most of what they say,” he said. “About how one-sided our current history classes are, about how little our students are currently learning about the experiences of historically underrepresented communities. How our students from those communities can feel so marginalized as they question why their family histories are nowhere to be found in our classrooms.”

    And “how they wish we could have more challenging conversations about topics like power and privilege and structural inequity.” 

    Then he switched and laid out his concerns and those he had heard in the community: 

    • “insufficient communication, which I share”
    • “ideologies that could increase a sense of division among students, which could lead to fixed mindsets or scapegoating”
    • “a lack of guardrails”
    • “widespread confusion about why, if there’s nothing to worry about, almost no details were shared about the course until yesterday.”

    One thing he knows for certain, he said, is: “We do not have a shared understanding of what the phrase ‘ethnic studies course’ means.”

    “Is an ethnic studies course primarily about the histories, cultures, and contributions” of the main ethnic and racial groups in California?” he asked, or “Is it primarily about concepts like ethnicity, identity, intersectionality, power, privilege, oppression and resistance? Is it a mix of both?”

    Striking a balance 

    At least on paper and in student testimonies, Palo Alto’s course would appear to strike a balance. The teachers’ eight-page course description — the form that board members have used to approve all previous courses — states that the course “examines social systems, social movements, and civic participation and responsibility through a local lens. …  By fostering empathy and belonging, the course prepares students to engage meaningfully in our communities.” 

    The four units in the course would be Identity; Power, Privilege and Systems of Oppression; Resilience and Resistance; and Action and Civic Engagement, in which students would create their own projects aligned to the course. 

    Each of the four units in the course would contain sample essential questions, learning objectives, and examples of assignments and assessments. Students would keep a journal of reflection throughout. Each unit calls for reading, analyzing and evaluating multiple and diverse sources.

    Palo Alto High history teacher Ben Bolanos acknowledged that privilege and systems of oppression “are triggering for certain people” but said it “is important to look at the shadow side of the human experience in order to understand what needs to be changed and how to look at and change the world for a better place.”

    The word “oppression” appeared more than 100 times in the state framework, observed Ander Lucia, a Teacher on Special Assignment. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtRsvAM-vFc

    Watch student testimonies regarding ethnic studies at Palo Alto Unified.

    All the student evaluations of the course — 27 of the 40 who completed one — were positive. A half-dozen ninth graders elaborated at the hearing.

    “I’ll admit I had some reservations going into this course,” said Gunn High student Quinn Boughton. “I wasn’t sure how much it would apply to me as a white student or whether the topics might make people feel divided or uncomfortable, but those fears turned out to be completely unfounded. This course didn’t just teach history; it built empathy.”

    Gunn student Gabriel Lopez’s takeaway from the course was: “When one group of people takes power from another, I think it is the responsibility of school to teach us about the injustices people face. So, in the future and in our lives, we can strive for more equality.”

    For his final project, Palo Alto High student Amaan Ali organized Palo Alto students to volunteer at tutoring programs for less well-off students in East Palo Alto. “These projects go beyond academic exercises. They empower us to turn knowledge into action,” he said.

    Boughton examined homelessness in the Bay Area “in a new light” to dissect the problem and “discuss the causes and impacts of the unhoused with my peers.”

    The presentation impressed board President Segal, a Palo Alto native who taught high school for more than a decade. “So teachers, I just, I want to say these words,” she said. “You did it right. I just want to make sure you know it. You did it right.”

    Transparency questioned

    Chiu and Kamhi repeatedly stressed that they strongly support ethnic studies. 

    “Ethnic studies is critical to me personally, but it is also something that I very much believe we need as a society,” said new board member Chiu, a consultant to the World Bank and an ethnic studies instructor who, she said, is scheduled to lecture on “Asian American Women and Difficult Conversations” at UC Berkeley.

    But they remained unpersuaded, not because of what the teachers presented, but because of what the district had not provided. The district waited until two days before the meeting to send out an agenda with information, and it didn’t contain detailed information about the curriculum and the materials that teachers had used in the pilot.

    “I also have very specific questions about the curriculum that was sent to us,” said Chiu. “I’m sorry to say, while I’m sure you have an excellent course and the students all say so, I did find your materials difficult to navigate around. I couldn’t open some of the links.”

    As it turned out, Austin had included an outdated, detailed curriculum outline called a “scope and sequence” that included the broken links and sites requiring permission to open. Austin blamed the Public Records Act request that required providing outdated material. But Chiu found that explanation wanting. She had spent 48 hours poring over a document under the assumption it would be taught in the pilot. That, she said, “causes more confusion and more calls for lack of transparency.”

    Neither Austen nor other district officials explained why the document did not include more information than the presentation.

    “I will say it’s quite possible that your course is not going to incite any of these incidents that we’ve seen in other school districts,” Chiu said. “However, it’s connected to the issue of transparency. So if the community has not had, in their view, sufficiently transparent instructional materials, that fear is only going to grow.”

    Kamhi put it differently. “What I feel really uncomfortable doing is saying every single student should take a course that we know is controversial, that based on the materials we’ve seen, some of which are problematic. Maybe they’re being taught in the classroom; maybe they’re not — without more information about what the course actually is.”

    Dissenters’ dilemma

    The three board members found themselves in a Catch-22. Pressed to say what in the course needed to be changed, they couldn’t provide answers without more information.

    After hours debating unsuccessful amendments to Segal’s motion, and amendments to those amendments, the original motion was back on the table.

    To the teachers, Segal and the fifth member, Shounap Dharap, the issue came down to trust. The founding teachers had held listening sessions for the public when the course was being developed, and had made changes in response. 

    “I want to reiterate my thanks, gratitude and trust in our teachers. These teachers are choosing to do extra work in addition to their daily teaching, lesson planning and grading. I know from firsthand experience the amount of time and dedication it takes to create curriculum,” Segal said.

    “When we are sitting here hearing that there are concerns about the course and the way the course is being presented to students, I, we can’t help but take that personally, right?” said Jeff Patrick, social science instructional leader at Gunn, “because that, that is our job and that’s the job we thought we had the trust of the board to do, right? We think we’ve done our job, and we don’t know what a pause is going to do.”

    Dharap, a personal injury attorney and law professor, encouraged board members to base their decision on what they heard from teachers and students, not the unsubstantiated fears of the public. “We really need to sit down and consider whether a decision that we’re going to make now is valuing adult inputs over student outcomes.”

    The final vote

    Salcman sought a solution in the minutes before the vote. He pointed to San Dieguito Union High School District as a model for involving the public. It posted each ethnic studies unit on a website as it was developed with a form inviting comments.  

    “I’m not saying now that we need to go back and do that. We are where we are” but is there a way to move the course forward and involve people in the process? he asked.

    Dharap said the board already has liaisons with schools to convey concerns and frustrations and serve as a “conduit” for community feedback. He said the board can set course goals, measurements and expectations for public input.

    “How do I  know that I have a commitment from folks in this room to try to address the concerns that I raised?” were Salcman’s last words before the vote.

    Segal and Dharap said yes quickly. Chiu and Kamhi hesitated before voting no.

    The silence surrounding Salcman was unsettling. Twice during that time, Segal said, “There’s time; we can all take a breath.  We have time.”

    Three and a half minutes seemed like hours passed before Salcman said his next word, “Yes.”

    Segal immediately announced the motion passed 3-to-2 and ended the meeting and the webcast.

    One can only speculate what went through his mind during the long pause that followed — wondering perhaps which friend or close adviser he would please or disappoint or whether he made the right vote? Salcman didn’t respond to EdSource’s repeated invitations to share his thinking.





    Source link

  • UC faculty to consider its own high school ethnic studies mandate

    UC faculty to consider its own high school ethnic studies mandate


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    KEY TAKEAWAYS
    • The UC course criteria would promote the Liberated Ethnic Studies perspective.
    • It would likely become the default ethnic studies course in K-12 districts.
    • It would contradict the state’s own voluntary, open-ended model curriculum.

    School districts are looking to the May revision of the state budget to learn if Gov. Gavin Newsom will press ahead with a mandate to offer a high school ethnic studies course whose implementation is contingent on state funding. That will be unlikely.

    Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and a Newsom adviser, confirmed Tuesday that, given current revenue forecasts, Newsom will not be funding the mandate. He conveyed that message to a representative of the UC Academic Senate, he said.

    On Wednesday, however, representatives of the University of California faculty will decide whether to recommend that U.C. regents not wait for state funding and instead independently mandate a course. They’ll vote on a proposal (see pages 39 to 57) to require an ethnic studies course, incorporating criteria and content that Newsom and the State Board of Education have already rejected as politically extreme, for admissions to UC campuses. 

    Opponents said that adopting the proposal, which had been nearly five years in the making, would be unwise and probably illegal. 

    “Requiring such a course would entangle the university in the sorts of political and ideological disputes over ethnic studies course content that are currently roiling school districts across the state and the nation,” wrote Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, and Matt Malkan, an astronomy professor at UCLA, in a letter to the UC Faculty Assembly of the Senate, the body that will take up the issue on Wednesday. An earlier version was signed by 440 members of the UC faculty.

    Sander and Malkan also said that the proposal “would effectively force hundreds of schools to invest large sums in creating the mandated curriculum and finding or hiring teachers to teach it”  – a step that “would probably ultimately be found to be illegal” if UC acted unilaterally.

    If the Assembly passes the proposal, it would be forwarded to UC President Michael Drake and then to the UC Regents this summer for final approval. 

    Ethnic studies faculty at UC campuses pushed for including ethnic studies among the 15 courses required for admissions, known as “A-G.” It would be satisfied through an English, history or an elective course taught through an ethnic studies lens, as UC defines it.  Ethnic studies would become “H”, a new area of concentration.  

    When adopting legislation in 2016 authorizing the creation of a voluntary, model ethnic studies curriculum, the Legislature was vague about what it intended for an ethnic studies course. It said the objective was to prepare pupils to be “global citizens with an appreciation for the contributions of multiple cultures”; school districts could “adapt courses to reflect the pupil demographics in their communities.”

    UC’s proposed criteria for high schools would take a more directive and controversial approach, reflecting the content of many college-level courses. 

    “Ethnic studies is aimed at producing critical knowledge about power, inequality, and inequity as well as the efforts of marginalized and oppressed racialized peoples to challenge systemic violence and the institutional structures that perpetuate racial injustice,” wrote the co-lead writers, UC Riverside teaching professor Wallace Cleaves and UC Santa Cruz critical race and ethnic studies and literature professor Christine Hong, in a preface explaining the intent of the criteria.

    Hong and Cleaves say it is appropriate to set rigorous course criteria for students entering UC because ethnic studies faculty created the foundational theories and instructional strategies for the academic discipline, and the State Board and local district teachers lack their expertise. 

    But the effect of adopting their course for entry into UC would be an end-run around the state board’s open-ended guidance. It would also deviate from many legislators’ vision of ethnic studies as the study of the cultures and achievements of minority groups, as well as their past and ongoing struggles with racism and discrimination. 

    The UC criteria would become the standard version that high schools would offer. In turn, UC and CSU  ethnic studies faculty would become the go-to private consultants for creating districts’ curricula and training teachers. 

    Emergence of Liberated Ethnic Studies

    UC and CSU ethnic studies faculty were primary writers of the first draft of the state’s model curriculum in 2019, but President Linda Darling-Hammond and other members of the State Board rejected it as biased, and the board hired new writers. The California Legislative Jewish Caucus objected to its characterization of Israel as an oppressive white colonial state and the call for a boycott of companies doing business with Israel.  

    “A model curriculum should be accurate, free of bias, appropriate for all learners in our diverse state and align with Governor Newsom’s vision of a California for all,” Darling-Hammond’s statement said. 

    The writers of the initial draft disavowed the final, revised model curriculum that the State Board passed in 2021. They then formed the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium and have encouraged school districts to adopt the original draft as the true alternative. More than two dozen districts have. Both Hong and Cleaves are affiliated with the consortium.

    Having gone through five revisions, the final proposal before the Assembly (pages 10 to 18)  is a toned-down version, but its purpose and guidelines for developing skills are clear. For example, toward the goal of “Applying critical analysis,” it reads, “Study histories of imperialism, dehumanization, and genocide to expose their continuity to present-day laws, ideologies, knowledge systems, dominant cultures, institutions, and structures that perpetuate racial violence, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression.”

    Sander said,  “It’s still very clearly a liberated course by which I mean it’s very ideological. It has a particular point of view on various controversial issues.”

    Under Assembly Bill 1010, the 2021 state law, high schools would have to offer a one-semester ethnic studies course starting in fall 2025 and students would have to take it for a high school diploma starting in 2029-30. Legislators explicitly referenced the rejected first draft in the law. “It is the intent of the Legislature that (districts) not use the portions of the draft model curriculum that were not adopted … due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination,” it reads.

    Since then, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Newsom administration have reminded school districts to follow the law’s requirements for “inclusivity, sensitivity, and accuracy.”

    “We have been advised, however, that some vendors are offering materials that may not meet the requirements of AB 101,” Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and an education adviser to Newsom, wrote in a memo to districts in 2023. 

    The “liberated” version has prompted several lawsuits (see here, here and here) by Jewish families and supportive law firms charging that its one-sided perspective fosters discrimination.  

    A “target” for President Trump?

    The vote Wednesday coincides with fraught relations with the Trump administration. The president has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding from school districts and California universities that fail to curb antisemitism and teach undefined “woke” ideology on race, including critical race theory.

    “Passing the course criteria now would be like putting a target on our back,” Sander said in an interview, and undermine the university’s best defense against Trump’s effort to dictate who to hire and what ideas can be taught.

    “It is fundamentally wrong, and inconsistent with the very spirit of a university, to mandate courses that are framed by an ideology – whether that ideology comes from the left or from the right,” he said.





    Source link

  • California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies

    California leaders must keep their promise by funding ethnic studies


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Decades of institutionalized racism and inadequate funding have left California with a racial achievement gap in its schools. All of our students deserve the chance to learn and succeed, but all too often, students of color have been failed by an education system that still bears the marks of a long history of racism and inequality.

    To address this persistent structural problem, Gov. Gavin Newsom has allocated funding that will be directed toward the poorest schools, to be used specifically to help all student groups improve academic achievement in this year’s proposed budget.

    The governor did not, however, explicitly allocate funding to support Assembly Bill 101, the mandate that all public high schools offer an ethnic studies course in the 2025-26 school year and require all students to complete a one-semester ethnic studies course for graduation, beginning with the school year 2029-30. The lack of explicit funding has emboldened opponents of ethnic studies education, who now argue that the ethnic studies requirement must be delayed or withdrawn.

    Delaying or abandoning the state’s commitment to ethnic studies would not only break the promise that the governor and the Legislature made to the people of California at a time when this kind of education is more important than ever, but also threaten efforts to close the racial achievement gap. Although ethnic studies isn’t designed with the specific goal of reducing or closing racial achievement gaps, it has a track record of doing exactly that.

    For example, Stanford researchers Thomas S. Dee, Emily K. Penner and Sade Bonilla found San Francisco’s ninth-grade ethnic studies course to improve students’ GPA, school attendance, and graduation rate. University of Arizona researchers Nolan L. Cabrera, Jeffrey F. Milam, Ozan Jaquette and Ronald W. Marx found that participation in Tucson’s Mexican American studies program raised students’ achievement on the state’s reading, writing and math achievement tests and virtually closed racial achievement gaps.

    San Francisco State University researchers found that students who major in ethnic studies graduate within six years at a much higher rate (92%) than students in other majors and students in other majors who take at least one ethnic studies course boost their graduation rates compared with students who do not. At the University of Louisville, researcher Tomarra A. Adams found that Black students who major in Pan-African studies have a higher graduation rate than Black students who major in something else.

    Ethnic studies has consistently positive impacts on the academic achievement of students from racially marginalized backgrounds. By offering a relevant curriculum that speaks to issues of concern to their lives and communities, ethnic studies taps into and engages the knowledge students bring to the classroom, allowing them to draw from and recognize their own expertise.

    Ethnic studies classes offer an environment where important and relevant issues related to race and ethnicity can be addressed openly rather than be belittled or ignored. Further, as students come to see education as relevant to addressing problems and needs in their communities, and themselves as academically capable, they gain confidence to thrive in school more generally.

    Ethnic studies benefits all California students while helping to close the racial achievement gap and preparing the workforce of tomorrow for the multicultural reality of our state. It was in recognition of these benefits that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 101, declaring as part of the signing statement that “these courses boost student achievement over the long run — especially among students of color.”

    Recently, Assembly Bill 1468 was introduced to authorize the development of content standards for high school ethnic studies. This bill is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Ethnic studies is a highly contextual approach to curriculum and teaching because it connects with the local cultures and issues of specific communities in which it is being taught.

    For that reason, there can be no standardized ethnic studies curriculum. Within the current Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, we already have a set of six guiding values and principles that are broad enough to allow for diverse contextualized approaches to ethnic studies, while they are also sufficiently direct as standards.

    I worry that further specification of what should be in an ethnic studies curriculum will authorize one version of ethnic studies to the exclusion of others. This has been my experience with content standards for decades. In addition, ethnic studies is interdisciplinary, which means that the standards for that subject (such as history or English) should be used along with the seven ethnic studies guiding principles. AB 1468 unnecessarily adds layers to the standards we already have.

    Ethnic studies needs to be a part of the curriculum offered to California’s students, and it is incumbent on the governor and the Legislature to make good on that promise by resolving any ambiguities about the funding of AB 101.

    •••

    Christine Sleeter is professor emerita in the College of Education at California State University Monterey Bay, known for pioneering research into multicultural education and anti-racism.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

    A version of this commentary originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee.





    Source link

  • Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate

    Ethnic studies standards can’t save California’s deeply flawed mandate


    Alison Yin / EdSource

    Members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus recently introduced a new bill (AB 1468) to address concerns that the state’s new ethnic studies mandate has been and will continue to be used as a vehicle for sneaking dangerous antisemitism and anti-Israel content into our classrooms. Unfortunately, AB 1468 will only serve to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, these concerns.

    In 2021, California became the first state to require an ethnic studies course for high school graduation with the passage of AB 101. Despite good intentions, this mandate has been plagued by fundamental and unresolved problems. Chief among them is that it allows school districts to choose their own curriculum, leading many to adopt materials and training from consulting groups such as the Liberated Ethnic Studies Consortium, which promote a highly politicized approach to ethnic studies, exacerbating concerns about classroom bias and antisemitism.

    Recognizing this looming threat and knowing that content standards are required for all other California courses required for high school graduation, the Jewish legislators have introduced a bill to establish state-approved standards to prevent antisemitic content and ensure ethnic studies is taught in a way that respects all communities.

    The lack of content standards, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more troubling is the absence of any consensus on what kind of subject ethnic studies even is. Some proponents view it as an inclusive, objective examination of the history, culture and contributions of various ethnic groups in the state. This understanding appears to have guided California legislators in passing the ethnic studies mandate with AB 101, whose author stated, “California is one of the most diverse states in the country, and we should celebrate that diversity by teaching a curriculum that is inclusive of all of our cultures and backgrounds.”

    Others, however, hold a radically different view. They believe high school ethnic studies should replicate the university-level discipline, which focuses primarily on four racial groups and is rooted in ideologically driven frameworks that emphasize systemic oppression and promote political activism, often incorporating antisemitic content. This approach, championed by state university ethnic studies faculty, teachers unions and Liberated consulting groups, has infiltrated many school districts.

    The lack of consensus about the very nature of ethnic studies has led to fierce battles over curricula, which have played out in contentious school board meetings and costly legal challenges, underscoring the folly of implementing a mandatory ethnic studies course without any common understanding of the subject.

    The folly becomes even graver when considering that the primary justification for an ethnic studies mandate — its supposed improvement of student outcomes — is wholly unfounded. The single empirical study claiming to demonstrate the academic benefits of ethnic studies was thoroughly debunked by scholars at the University of California and the University of Pennsylvania, who warned that “no conclusion” could be drawn from its data. Worse, an ethnic studies mandate forces students to take a controversial course with no demonstrable academic benefits in place of one with clear value, such as world history.

    The mandate’s serious flaws were well-known before the passage of AB 101, which raises the question: How could state legislators establish a law requiring all students to take a course with no agreed-upon subject matter, content standards or proven academic benefits and, under the Liberated approach to ethnic studies, that was likely to sow divisiveness and incite antisemitism?

    Unfortunately, the Jewish Caucus’ idea of adding standards to a deeply flawed mandate, though well-intentioned, will not fix the problem. Given the entrenched influence of teachers unions, university ethnic studies faculty and Liberated consultants over who teaches high school ethnic studies and how it’s taught, any attempt to add standards will inevitably be co-opted by these groups, further entrenching an ideological version of ethnic studies that is divisive, controversial and harmful to Jewish students. Moreover, AB 1468 risks giving a false sense of security to concerned parents and community members while failing to address deeper issues.

    Now is the time to reconsider — not reinforce — the ethnic studies mandate.

    Thankfully, a critical provision in AB 101 has been largely overlooked: The mandate is only operative when the Legislature provides funding for it, which has not yet occurred. And given California’s current financial crisis and the fact that the mandate is estimated to cost the state a whopping $275 million annually, it’s unlikely to become operational anytime soon. This presents an opportunity for legislators to do what is best for all California students: Instead of trying to salvage a foolhardy mandate that is beyond repair, legislators must work to repeal it.

    Without a state-funded graduation requirement, school districts could still offer ethnic studies as an elective or even a local graduation requirement, allowing communities to decide whether the course serves their students’ needs. However, given the cost, controversy and administrative burden involved with implementing an ethnic studies requirement without state support, it is doubtful many districts will proceed with it on their own. As a result, the ethnic studies industry — especially consulting groups like Liberated and university-based teacher training programs —will lose their primary source of demand and begin to wither, removing a major driver of politicized and antisemitic content in California classrooms.

    Legislators now face a clear choice: double down on a mandate that divides communities, burdens schools, and fails students, or take this opportunity to end it before it does further harm. Repealing AB 101 isn’t just prudent policy — it’s a necessary course correction.

    •••

    Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating antisemitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Fresno Unified teachers say district is slow-walking ethnic studies launch

    Fresno Unified teachers say district is slow-walking ethnic studies launch


    Last school year, Duncan High School students in Gabriel Perez’s ethnic studies class discussed how hip hop and rap music originated from young African American artists highlighting their lived experiences, which were often characterized by social issues such as poverty, gang violence and racism.

    Credit: Lasherica Thornton / EdSource

    In October 2017, Fresno Unified teacher Lauren Beal proposed an ethnic studies class at Edison High because she saw “a need for students to learn the historical truth about Black Americans,” an effort supported by the school, which serves higher percentages of Black students than the district, county or state. An ethnic studies class about Latino Americans was also proposed and adopted at the school. 

    Other teachers across the state’s third-largest district spearheaded such action in their schools. 

    By 2020, ethnic studies teachers envisioned thousands of Fresno Unified students — not just a few hundred in some schools — having the space to learn the untold stories of diverse communities. They formed the Fresno Ethnic Studies Coalition in hopes of establishing and implementing the course districtwide and increasing the district’s investment. 

    Following their efforts, in August 2020, the Fresno Unified school board passed a resolution to make ethnic studies a graduation requirement, the Fresno Bee reported at the time. Last school year, 2023-24, ahead of the state’s 2025-26 mandate for an ethnic studies course, Fresno Unified students were required to complete a two-semester course to graduate, according to the Bee. 

    Despite the enthusiasm that led to the creation of ethnic studies courses and the graduation requirement in Fresno, the development of the program is reportedly at a standstill, leaving some teachers to question whether it’s related to dissension in other parts of the state.  

    “In a few years, we have come a long way,” said Beal, who is teaching AP African American studies this year. 

    District leaders consider their decision to create the requirement a bold move because only a few California school systems have mandated ethnic studies classes so far. For instance, some districts have implemented ethnic studies gradually, starting with introductory classes or incorporating concepts of ethnic studies into other courses. Without state funding for implementation, other districts may opt out of the requirement altogether.

    In addition to the classes, Fresno Unified has offered its teachers professional development in ethnic studies, providing them opportunities to visit other educators across the state and to obtain graduate certifications in the subject.

    Even so, Beal and others accuse the district of being ambivalent in their decision-making, causing the program to stall. 

    “It’s not that they’ve completely dropped funding and completely dropped support,” Marisa Rodriguez, a Roosevelt High ethnic studies and Chicano studies teacher, said. “There’s no clear rationale and accountability for the decisions being made.”

    As a result, although led by educators, the implementation of ethnic studies has not been done with teachers, Fresno Teachers Association President Manuel Bonilla said. 

    Being supported 

    Ethnic studies in Fresno Unified

    Courses, some of which are offered under dual enrollment, now include comprehensive ethnic studies, Chicano studies, African American studies, Asian American studies, women and gender in ethnic studies and Advanced Placement offerings. 

    The high school ethnic studies courses meet the A-G graduation requirement to gain admission to the University of California and California State University systems. Middle school courses are an introduction to ethnic studies but do not count toward the A-G or Fresno Unified graduation requirement.

    Nine Fresno Unified high schools have at least one ethnic studies course. Ten of the district’s middle schools and Phoenix Secondary, a 7-12 grade community day school, also offer ethnic studies courses. 

    The success of ethnic studies implementation has depended, in part, on Fresno Unified’s ability to recruit, train and continually support its teachers. Over the years, the number of staff supporting the program has remained the same as the number of teachers and classes has increased.

    To this day, nearly five years after the district’s initial action to require the course, ethnic studies has one vice principal on special assignment, Kimberly Lewis, leading and a teacher on special assignment supporting the program of 28 instructors and 1,600 students currently enrolled in courses.

    To help support educators, many of whom don’t have a background in ethnic studies, Fresno Unified has developed and offered teachers a chance to learn from each other, but the educators say they desire and need more robust training and “meaningful support.” 

    Educators with teaching credentials in subjects like history aren’t necessarily experts in ethnic studies, let alone the specific topics that must be covered, said Edison High teacher Heather Miller. For newly offered classes, such as Miller’s Women and Gender in ethnic studies, teachers must gain foundational knowledge of the course and be trained on how to teach ethnic studies and create a curriculum that is relevant, engaging and accessible to high school students, even though much of the existing ethnic studies content has been developed for college. 

    So, along with district-level support, the district needs experts in the ethnic studies discipline to help in the continual professional development of current and future educators, teachers say. And they want to have input on that. 

    Having a voice

    The termination of professional development without staff or community input continues to cause angst over a year later.

    In June 2023, the school board approved an $88,000 contract with San Francisco State professor Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales and her organization, Community Responsive Education, to provide monthly professional development and learning for Fresno Unified instructors. In November 2023, Fresno Unified did not renew the agreement as planned — and still hasn’t, despite it being proposed again last October. 

    Based on Nov. 1, 2023, board documents, Community Responsive Education would have continued to provide instructional coaching for Fresno Unified middle and high schools offering ethnic studies as part of a three-year partnership. The amended contract to increase services by up to $100,000 was removed by staff from the November 2023 agenda and was not added back in the 2023-24 school year.

    According to Rodriguez, teachers learned in November 2023 that the district did not renew its contract with Community Responsive Education, without seeking input on how it would impact teachers or their curriculum development.

    Between 2015 and 2017: High school ethnic studies courses in California began gaining momentum as more school districts started offering the class, Education Week reported.

    Between 2017 and 2020: Fresno Unified teachers spearheaded the creation of ethnic studies classes, and schools across the district adopted the courses.

    May 2020: Ethnic studies instructors, along with students and families, formed the Fresno Ethnic Studies Coalition to advocate for Fresno Unified to establish, fund and staff a districtwide ethnic studies program and implement a graduation requirement.

    August 2020: As a result of the teacher-driven efforts, the Fresno Unified school board passed a resolution to make ethnic studies a graduation requirement.

    Between the 2020-21 and 2022-23 school years: The district recruited and trained educators interested in teaching ethnic studies and expanded course offerings. The initial plan to require the course for incoming freshmen starting in 2022-23 was delayed in order to recruit teachers.

    June 2023: The school board approved an $88,000 contract with the organization Community Responsive Education to provide teacher and curriculum development from July 1, 2023, to June 28, 2024.

    Summer 2023: Ethnic studies teachers started meeting with Community Responsive Education consultants to create a framework to guide the teaching method for ethnic studies. The co-developed VALLEY framework — meaning voices, ancestors, liberation, love, empathy and yearning — ensures lessons are relevant for Fresno students. The consulting contract included at least 10 two-hour sessions with teachers and community members.

    August 2023: After being delayed by one school year, Fresno Unified started requiring incoming freshmen to take a yearlong ethnic studies course to graduate. The district’s graduation requirement is ahead of the state’s mandate.

    Teachers incorporated the VALLEY framework into their classes.

    September 2023: Pajaro Valley refused to renew its 2023 contract for the ethnic studies program curriculum of Community Responsive Educaton. Pajaro Valley’s three high schools had been using the curriculum since 2021.

    Pajaro Valley Unified had accused San Francisco State University professor Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, the program’s creator, with “unfounded allegations” of being antisemitic, according to The Pajaronian news organization. Tintiangco-Cubales was a part of a 2019 committee selected by the State Board of Education to draft a model curriculum for California. The curriculum was initially rejected amid accusations of political bias and rewritten. Many deemed the curriculum as antisemitic because it did not include the contributions of Jewish Americans as it did for Arab Americans, among other concerns. (Historically, ethnic studies has focused on African, Native, Latino and Asian Americans with the ability to include other racial-ethnic groups or marginalized communities.)

    November 2023: The services being offered through Community Responsive Education, which had been underway for nearly five months in Fresno Unified and were being utilized by teachers, needed to be increased. An amended contract to increase those services by up to $100,000, bringing the contract total to $188,000, was presented for board approval.

    Former Superintendent Bob Nelson recommended the amended contract for approval at the time.

    District staff removed the contract renewal from the school board agenda, essentially terminating the contract and ending services.

    In addition to helping create the VALLEY framework that guides the program, the organization was supposed to help develop and align the ethnic studies curriculum to the framework.

    November 2023 to September 2024: District leaders, including Instructional Superintendent Marie Williams, said Fresno Unified pulled the contract “out of an abundance of community concern.” She maintained that the district would not say what the specific concerns were.

    “We are not in a position to answer that question,” she told EdSource. “Here’s what we are in a position to do: We are in a position to get professional learning (for) the teachers; we’re in a position to contract with other vendors.”

    Over time, teachers used professional development they’d received — Community Responsive Education’s monthly 2023 sessions previously offered, other consultant training or district-provided opportunities, such as conferences — to guide their course and curriculum development. Ethnic studies teachers report that they are again “working in silos,” one reason they pushed the district to establish a districtwide program in the first place.

    October 2024: On Oct. 9 and Oct. 23, a $100,000 Community Reponsive Education contract was reintroduced for board approval. Again, as in 2023, district staff removed the contract from the agenda before it could be presented or discussed by the board.

    Interim Superintendent Misty Her recommended the contract for approval both times.

    Up until that point, Fresno Unified’s ethnic studies educators had been meeting with curriculum consultants of Community Responsive Education, including during the summer of 2023, to create the VALLEY framework – voices, ancestors, liberation, love, empathy and yearning – that intentionally centers “local, community, familial and personal experiences,” to guide ethnic studies in the district. 

    “Out of an abundance of community concern, a decision was made to not move forward with that contract,” said Marie Williams, instructional superintendent for curriculum and professional learning.  

    The district wouldn’t — and still hasn’t — named the specifics or the source of that concern, despite inquiries by ethnic studies teachers and by EdSource. As part of curriculum development, Community Responsive Education and the district would have garnered feedback from Fresno Unified’s students and community members, according to the scope of the work defined in the contract. 

    “We asked if it was due to anything in our curriculum,” Beal told EdSource. “How do we know — if you’re not naming the reason the contract was pulled — that we’re fair to teach what we’re teaching and how we’re teaching, and that you’re going to have our backs in the classroom? What is the line that we can’t cross as teachers?”

    It left them to speculate why. 

    Rodriguez said it was because of Community Responsive Education’s association with Liberated Ethnic Studies, an approach to teaching ethnic studies that centers around the liberation of marginalized and oppressed communities by dismantling racism and systems of power. 

    Ethnic studies educators and activists from across California created Liberated Ethnic Studies and formed the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium after the State Board of Education rejected the 2019 draft curriculum that they had recommended. According to the consortium, the model curriculum that the state board eventually adopted in 2021 removed or redefined critical terms such as capitalism, “fails to depict the true causes of police brutality” and lacks the history of Palestine, among other critiques.

    Advocates describe Liberated Ethnic Studies as criticizing and challenging systems of power and oppression, such as white supremacy, imperialism and “settler colonialism,” a system of oppression caused by a settling nation displacing another nation. Critics characterize it as a left-wing ideology focused solely on the oppression of those systems.

    There have been conflicts and lawsuits in districts that have worked with the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. For example, in December, a federal judge rejected a lawsuit against the consortium, a Los Angeles teachers union and educators who created a “liberated” curriculum adopted by at least two dozen school districts. The judge cited a lack of evidence. 

    Even when curriculums aren’t developed through the organization, a connection to members of the committee that drafted the initial model curriculum and are leaders in the consortium, such as Tintiangco-Cubales, has seemingly led to backlash. 

    “Where does that leave us if we want to teach anything that is, in any way, connected to Liberated Ethnic Studies?” Rodriguez said.

    Lewis, the vice principal on special assignment for ethnic studies, said that the district assured teachers the curriculum was not the concern. 

    In fact, the district still uses the VALLEY framework that was formed with Community Responsive Education as it was built and co-designed by Fresno Unified educators to be the “foundation” of ethnic studies, Lewis said. 

    “It is the voices of our teachers,” she said. 

    Using that VALLEY framework, classes, such as Gabriel Perez’s at Duncan High, discuss the establishment of Fresno’s Chinatown near slaughterhouses and the tens of thousands of people from across California who attended a Ku Klux Klan Fiesta at the Fresno Fairgrounds in the 1920s. 

    “These were doctors. These were lawyers,” he said. “These were political leaders, a part of this community, who had this racist ideology.” 

    Rodriguez also incorporates the VALLEY framework into her classes at Roosevelt High. Student reflections on a comic novel about redlining in Fresno revealed their understanding of how race and class can be used to separate people. 

    The VALLEY framework is an approach to teaching the ethnic studies content, which is currently based on the state’s model curriculum meant to guide districts. In the absence of a consultant to further guide that curriculum and program development, the district has provided opportunities for teachers to attend conferences and learn from other local college professors. 

    “That doesn’t change our lack of faith or trust in them,” Rodriguez said.

    This past semester, the district reintroduced a Community Responsive Education contract, fostering hope among teachers that they’d regain ongoing support through professional learning, curriculum development and coaching from Community Responsive Education.  

    On Oct. 9 and 23, a $100,000 Community Responsive Education contract was on the agenda for board approval but was removed without discussion — just as it was in 2023. Each time it’s been pulled by staff, it’s been with the understanding, according to some board members, that district leaders will address any concerns. 

    Eliminating professional development without input or discussion — now three times — impacts educators’ confidence in teaching the course in a thoughtful, authentic way, said Bonilla, the teachers union president. 

    And it creates a culture of fear among teachers, Beal said. 

    Feeling protected

    Ethnic studies courses and curriculum are not submitted for school board approval. As long as the course and curriculum meet state guidelines, teachers have the autonomy to choose their teaching materials. 

    But teachers fear that what they teach will be brought under scrutiny. That fear, they say, could impact the district’s ability to recruit or retain ethnic studies teachers.

    “Too many times in this district, teachers have been thrown under the bus for teaching material,” Bonilla said. 

    With ethnic studies content, oftentimes, teachers are tasked with connecting material to something that’s happening in real time, he said. 

    “We don’t have safety or guidance on how they want us, as teachers, to discuss current events or real-world connections,” Beal said. “It’s a lot of autonomy, but it’s also a lot of fear.”

    The district has worked to mitigate such concerns, instructional superintendent Williams said, by building and strengthening administrators’ knowledge and understanding of ethnic studies so that administrators have confidence in the materials teachers present. 

    “If somebody has a problem with my curriculum, the only way that you can protect me is if you know what it is I’m doing,” said Amy Sepulveda, who has taught Intro to Ethnic Studies at Fort Miller Middle School for four years. “A lot of our leadership don’t know what ethnic studies is.”

    When principals and district leaders have a clear understanding of ethnic studies and the curriculum that teachers develop, they can defend and support teachers and their work. 

    The district has organized monthly meetings “to continue developing curriculum knowledge” among teachers and administrators and arranged for board members to visit ethnic studies classes. 

    Worry remains.

    Lewis, the vice principal on special assignment, attributes some worry to the idea of ethnic studies. A key concept of ethnic studies is to teach the counter narrative, stories and perspectives never documented or left untold in other classes, many advocates and educators say. 

     “I think everyone is struggling with how we work and shift mental models in a system that has been boxed in K-12 education.” Lewis said. “How do we unlearn and shift mental models on teaching the counter narrative?”

    Lewis realizes that teachers want protection of the materials that they use, including those presenting counter narratives. 

    But there is none, she said. There’s not a policy or practice.

    Without that protection, can ethnic studies thrive? 

    “We keep on moving forward without assuring the safe and sacred protection of the teachers, students and community that ethnic studies is supposed to uplift,” Sepulveda has said about ethnic studies implementation thus far. 

    To Williams, the way to assure staff of that safety and support is a consistent and continued commitment to move forward. 

    “We recognize that we are in this moment where there is concern and consternation,” she said. “To keep leaning in and to keep listening, to keep being responsive — I think that’s how you reassure them. I think it’s your actions.”





    Source link

  • Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit

    Santa Ana to drop contested ethnic studies courses to settle closely watched lawsuit


    Diane Diederich for iStock

    To avoid further embarrassing and expensive litigation, Santa Ana Unified has agreed to terminate three staff-created high school ethnic studies courses starting next fall and to start again from scratch. Next time, according to a settlement released Thursday, the district will comply with the state’s open meeting law it sought to evade and to seek public input, including Jewish advocacy organizations that brought the lawsuit and signed the settlement with the district.

    The 13-page agreement ends a lawsuit that the American Jewish Committee and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed in September 2023. The lawsuit asked the board to reject ethnic studies courses that it had approved in violation of the Brown Act, the open-meetings law. The lawsuit also claimed that the courses included sections on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that were biased against Jews and Israel.

    The deal followed a hearing in Orange County Superior Court in December and two months of negotiations.

    “We hope this is a cautionary tale to all the districts in California and anyone else who’s hoping to infuse ethnic studies with antisemitism, especially if they’re doing it in secret,” said Marci Miller, director of legal investigations for the Brandeis Center, Thursday. Miller said that the terms of the settlement should act as a deterrent for other districts.

    The agreement also could help other districts avoid similar conflicts. It spells out the procedure for “meaningful, substantive input from members of the public.”  There will be at least one public meeting no sooner than seven days before a school board considers an ethnic studies course;  representatives of community groups will be invited to offer their comments. The district will prominently publish drafts of course outlines on its website at least a week before the meeting.

    The Brandeis Center has also filed related state or federal discrimination complaints against Berkeley Unified, Fremont High School and Santa Clara Unified. A separate nonprofit law firm, the Deborah Project, has filed antisemitism lawsuits against a San Jose charter school and another Bay Area district, Sequoia Union High School District.

    In a statement that Santa Ana Unified provided Friday, district Superintendent Jerry Almendarez cleared up “some misperceptions” that led to the filing of the lawsuit.

    “At no time has the district supported the teaching of instructional content to students that reflects adversely on any group on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin as alleged in the lawsuit,” Almendarez’s statement said. “The settlement of this lawsuit affirms that principle and resolves any misunderstanding that may have occurred.”

    Board President Hector Bustos signed the agreement for the district.

    The lawsuit focused on the work of the school board’s ethnic studies steering committee, which was led by two board members, Carolyn Torres, a seventh-grade teacher and longtime ethnic studies advocate; and Rigo Rodriguez, an associate professor in the Department of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies at CSU Long Beach. He lost his re-election bid in November.

    The lawsuit said the committee members “consisted of a narrow and insular group of individuals who were ‘handpicked’ to promote a ‘very pro-ethnic studies’ vision, without any ‘naysayers.’”  

    Damaging court documents

    The district adopted three ethnic studies courses grounded in Liberated Ethnic Studies, a doctrine that stresses that the forces of white supremacy and capitalism are continuing to oppress minorities. It has made the conflict in Israel, which it characterizes as an oppressor state and a modern example of  “white settler colonialism,”  a central element in its curriculum.

    Promoted by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium as an alternative to the mainstream state-adopted ethnic studies curriculum framework, the liberated approach has been adopted by more than two dozen school districts in California.

    Emails, documents, text messages, and chats obtained by attorneys during the discovery process revealed Santa Ana steering committee members’ biases. In a summary of the remarks submitted to the court, one unnamed member referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist [Z]ionists” to whom the district should not “cave.” Additionally, in a chat, the same employee referred to the lone Jewish member of the steering committee as a “colonized Jewish mind,” as well as a “pretender,” a “f—— baby,” and as “stupid” because of the person’s reservations about some of the committee’s work.

    In an online chat, the Jewish member summarized what he heard as members were preparing to meet with the Jewish Federation: “Jews greatly benefit from White privilege and so have it better,” and “We don’t need to give both sides. We only support the oppressed, and the Jews are the oppressors.”

    According to the lawsuit, the federation had asked to contribute its perspective to the committee. Instead, the committee worked “under the radar” to avoid public scrutiny. When deciding when to present two proposed ethnic studies courses to the board, two senior district officials in text messages suggested scheduling it on a Jewish holiday so that Jews would not attend.

    “We may need to use Passover to get all new courses approved,” one suggested.  The other official responded, “That’s actually a good strategy.” 

    In March 2023, the steering committee submitted the proposed World Geography and World Histories ethnic studies courses to the school board. There was no discussion, public comment or presentation by the select committee. The plaintiffs’ memorandum said the agenda item consisted of “merely reading the titles of the courses. The entire ‘presentation’ was over in less than 30 seconds.”

    The school board approved the courses at a subsequent meeting, again without discussion. Jewish residents learned about the courses’ content only after their adoption, the lawsuit claimed.

    “There is reason to require that meetings have to be open to the public,” Miller said. “When nobody is watching, people will be left to their own prejudices.”’

    Details of the settlement

    Other points in the agreement include:

    Santa Ana’s previous steering committee and subcommittee that created the ethnic studies courses will be abolished.

    The superintendent, not the school board, will appoint members to future committees considering an ethnic studies course; board members will not be involved in that work until the final approval process.

    The district will recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a controversial issue; as such, any classroom instruction or curriculum will comply with the district’s own policy on dealing with controversial issues. Many districts have adopted a similar document consistent with state law. Among the provisions:

    • The issue provides opportunities for critical thinking, for developing tolerance, and for understanding conflicting points of view
    • All sides of the issue are given a proper hearing using established facts and primary evidence.
    • Teachers do not use their positions to press their own bias
    • The discussion does not reflect adversely on anyone because of their race, sex, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, handicap or occupation.

    To create the ethnic studies courses, Santa Ana hired the Xicanx Institute for Teaching and Organizing (XITO); its leader, Sean Arce, is a team member of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium. According to records, the district contracted $300,663 for its services, plus $79,200 for another Liberated ethnic studies contractor. Under the agreement, the district will stop using XITO’s services and any individuals associated with it.

    Arce did not respond to a request for comment.

    Under the agreement, Ethnic Studies World Geography; Ethnic Studies World Histories; and Ethnic Studies Honors: Perspectives, Identities and Social Justice courses can continue for the rest of 2024-25 under the condition that materials and instruction with claims like “the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” will not be taught — unless done so in a way that complies with the controversial issues policy. A glossary by the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition will be stripped from the courses.

    The district may have time to create new courses. A 2021 state law would require that school districts offer a semesterlong ethnic studies course starting in fall 2025 and that students must take it to graduate as of 2030-31. However, Assembly Bill 101 requires funding to become a mandate, and the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have not provided money so far. Last month, Newsom did not include ethnic studies funding in his proposed 2025-25 state budget.

    The district will also reimburse $43,091 in plaintiff lawyers’ direct costs, like filing expenses. But the agreement did not cover attorney fees, which would easily have been so much more than the direct costs, at a time when the district faces laying off up to 300 employees.  The law firm Covington and Burling, doing pro bono work, and the Anti-Defamation League were co-counsels on the case,

    Miller said that was a deliberate choice in the negotiations. “Money was not the main goal of the lawyers,” she said. “Making systemic change was.” 





    Source link

  • Why you shouldn’t let the controversy around AP African American Studies deter you from teaching it

    Why you shouldn’t let the controversy around AP African American Studies deter you from teaching it


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    I was hesitant when first approached to help develop a course for AP African American Studies. Not because of the content, but rather the broader societal debates and media attention surrounding the curriculum. The noise around it felt overwhelming.

    However, as I began to review the materials, I realized how groundbreaking this course could be for students. It became clear that it was a worthwhile challenge.

    Now, nearly six months into teaching this course online to high school students around the state, I’m further convinced of its value. My students applauded the use of music to bridge the past and present and immersed themselves in research to complete their final projects. One student said the final project “felt culturally enriching,” while another said it gave them “a profound understanding of history as a whole.” The course also challenges us as educators and sparks vital conversations among students.

    It’s understandable that the debate around AP African American Studies has made teachers reluctant to offer to teach the course. But California is at the forefront of introducing more inclusive coursework into its high schools, including the 2021 mandate that all students complete an ethnic studies course as a part of graduation requirements, a requirement that AP African American Studies would satisfy. This curriculum is essential, but it also raises the question: How do we prepare teachers — especially those who aren’t history specialists — to deliver it effectively?

    Teaching any new course comes with its own learning curve, but this one presents unique demands. Unlike established courses where lesson plans are well-worn, this one is brand new.

    The interdisciplinary nature of the curriculum invites teachers across subject areas to lean into their own expertise while exploring new subject areas. It also allows for a diversity of perspectives, enriching the learning experience for both teachers and students. As an English teacher, I found the course’s focus on argumentation, critical reading and writing skills familiar, even as I navigated less familiar topics like African empires and diaspora.

    When I developed the course with UC Scout, a University of California program hosted at UC Santa Cruz that provides free online A-G and AP curriculum to California public school teachers, we had the advantage of a methodical course development process that included collaboration with subject-matter experts, instructional designers and visual media experts. Together, we crafted video lessons and learning materials that brought this interdisciplinary course to life. But many brick-and-mortar teachers are navigating this course in real time without the support I had.

    Fortunately, the College Board has provided a robust set of materials, and there’s also a vibrant community of educators online sharing resources and strategies as well as offering additional support for one another on social media and on the AP Community forum. These spaces are invaluable for exchanging ideas and troubleshooting.

    Still, this course demands more than typical preparation. Its sensitive and complex material — including slavery, segregation, war and migration, among others — requires a level of intentionality that goes beyond the basics. For example, we knew some images included in the course, especially from the Reconstruction era, should be handled with greater sensitivity. We included content warnings, alternatives (transcriptions) and image blurring to ensure our students felt as much comfort as possible while learning history that can be uncomfortable and upsetting. For considerations like this, and others that may arise while teaching this course, teachers need not only resources, but also ongoing professional development and support from their schools to succeed.

    For teachers diving into this course — or those considering it for next year — here are a few lessons I’ve learned:

    • Leverage existing resources: There are free resources, like the course offered by UC Scout, that can assist program development and provide a strong foundation that can save teachers time as they build out lesson plans.
    • Collaborate and connect: Engaging with other teachers, whether through formal AP communities such as AP Summer Institutes or Pre-AP Community or informal networks, like the AP African American Studies Facebook group, is critical. Becoming an AP reader is also a great opportunity to engage with other teachers of the course. These conversations often yield insights that can make teaching this course more effective.
    • Seek administrative support: School leaders play a key role in supporting teachers by providing training, allocating resources and fostering a culture that embraces new courses like this one.

    Much like my first semester students found, the course content can be life-changing in its potential to recast and dispel cultural and racial misconceptions. It strengthens their sense of identity. What an amazing privilege to lead students in this endeavor.

    Teaching AP African American Studies has reminded me of an essential truth about education: It requires continuous reflection and growth. While this is my first time teaching this course, I already see areas to strengthen for next year. That’s the nature of teaching — constant evolution to better meet the needs of our students.

    •••

    Karsten Barnes is a high school English teacher at UC Scout. He teaches AP African American Studies, a course he helped develop, online to California students whose schools don’t currently offer the class.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Renewed push to reshape ethnic studies with oversight and new standards

    Renewed push to reshape ethnic studies with oversight and new standards


    A student shares her research results during a class presentation.

    Credit: Photo by Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    TOP TAKEAWAYS
    • A new Assembly bill aims to swap a voluntary curriculum with academic standards that would direct what should be taught.
    • The focus would remain teaching the triumphs, struggles and perspectives of Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Black Americans.
    • The bill would restrict an alternative Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum, which focuses on the power of white supremacy and condemns Israel as an oppressive colonial state.

    Thirty-one legislators, led by the Legislative Jewish Caucus, are calling for a do-over on teaching ethnic studies after a half-dozen years of strife.

    The authors are convinced that flaws in a voluntary model curriculum have led to complaints and lawsuits alleging that some districts are using biased and antisemitic course content and instruction. Therefore, they propose starting again by creating academic standards that would direct what is taught in the course and how.

    Assembly Bill 1468 would require the State Board of Education to restart a curriculum process that was highly contested six years ago. It resulted in multiple drafts and an uneasy compromise of language and goals reflected in a nearly 700-page California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. Since its adoption in 2021, school districts have had the responsibility to create their own curriculum based largely on interpretations of ambiguities of what constitutes an ethnic studies course.

    “When California believes in something, we write standards for it,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, a former teacher. “Whether it’s English language arts, English language development, history, social science — there are different sets of standards. It creates a common understanding of what kids are supposed to be able to learn and do, and what teachers are supposed to teach.”

    “What’s happened in our schools is, one, antisemitism. But two, it’s tearing a lot of communities apart over something that is supposed to be really beneficial to children when done right.”

    In addition to creating academic standards, the bill would create new disclosure and oversight measures that don’t apply to the current model framework or academic standards for other subjects. They would require:

    • school districts to submit ethnic studies curricula to the California Department of Education for review
    • the Instructional Quality Commission, which advises the State Board of Education, to recommend a framework and instructional materials aligned to the new standards;
    • the California Department of Education to report annually on compliance with state laws;
    • providers of content and standards trainers to submit their materials to the state to ensure compliance with the standards.

    Opposition will likely be intense.

    “The bill’s push for increased oversight and censorship is deeply concerning, restricting students’ ability to engage in critical discussions on human rights, globalism, and social justice,” said Tricia Gallagher-Geursten, a lecturer in ethnic studies at the University of California, San Diego. “Furthermore, it diminishes the intellectual integrity of ethnic studies by dismissing the foundational theories and pedagogies that define all academic disciplines, violating the principle of academic freedom.”

    “AB 1468 is driven by those seeking to regulate educational content by silencing perspectives they oppose,” she said. “At this crucial moment, the UC Ethnic Studies Faculty Council stands with California students and our diverse communities in urging legislators to oppose AB 1468 and protect the integrity of ethnic studies.”

    Last year, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) ethnic studies faculty and the California Teachers Association led the opposition to a less sweeping bill that would have required more disclosure of a proposed ethnic studies course and a review by a committee of teachers and parents. The California Teachers Association and UC and CSU ethnic studies faculty members criticized it as unwarranted and unprecedented interference with instruction.

    Addis and Assemblymember Rick Zbur, D-Los Angeles, introduced the bill late in the session and withdrew it because of a lack of support. This year’s 32 co-authors include legislators outside the 18-member Jewish Legislative Caucus, including Assemblymembers David Alvarez, D-San Diego, and Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton.

    “Jewish students are facing a very difficult environment in the community at large, certainly on college campuses,” said Alvarez. “It’s important that we acknowledge that and that we have curriculum that’s standards-based, as we do with other curriculums, reflects California’s values and steers away from antisemitism.”

    Targeting Liberated Ethnic Studies

    The legislation would curtail districts that have adopted Liberated Ethnic Studies, although it doesn’t name the curriculum or the consortium identified with promoting it. UC and CSU ethnic studies professors and instructors developed the Liberated version as an alternative after the State Board largely rejected the first draft of the model curriculum, which they had written, as ideological and biased against Jews.

    The state’s final version of the model curriculum presents a multiperspective exploration of the culture, achievements and struggles, past and ongoing, of the four primary racial and ethnic groups in California. They are Native Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans.

    The Liberated version takes a perspective that stresses the ongoing oppression of people of color through white supremacy and capitalism. It directs students to examine their own self-identities as to how their race, ethnicity, sexuality, and wealth and privilege intersect with others. Ethnic studies teachers say students find the courses uplifting, not pessimistic.

    To date, the state has kept no records on curricula that districts have adopted, but more than two dozen districts have contracted with groups affiliated with Liberated trainers and leaders.

    Charges of antisemitism

    Legislators made an explicit reference to that first draft when they passed Assembly Bill 101, which established the as-yet unfunded mandate for districts to offer a one-semester ethnic studies course in high school starting in fall 2025 and to require taking it for a high school diploma starting in 2029-30.

    They wrote, “it is the intent of the Legislature that (districts) not use the portions of the draft model curriculum that were not adopted by the Instructional Quality Commission due to concerns related to bias, bigotry, and discrimination.”

    Both Attorney General Rob Bonta and Brooks Allen, executive director of the State Board of Education and an adviser to Gov. Gavin Newsom, have sent separate memos reminding districts to follow that prohibition. Nonetheless, proponents of the Liberated curriculum point to references to oppression and “intersectionality” included in the final framework to argue that their approach is consistent with the state framework.

    The Liberated curriculum also emphasizes solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle against domination by Israel, a modern “settler colonial state” oppressing people of color.

    The slaughter of 1,200 Israelis by Hamas fighters in communities bordering Gaza in October 2023, followed by more than a year of fighting and bombings that have displaced hundreds of thousands of Gazans and caused the deaths of an estimated 40,000,  have heightened tensions in the classroom. Jewish organizations and parents have complained that one-sided lessons against Zionism and the Israeli government have blended into overt antisemitism.

    The federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is investigating discrimination allegations against Berkeley Unified. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has filed complaints against Fremont High School, Santa Clara Unified, and, in its latest filing, against Etiwanda School District in Rancho Cucamonga.  It alleges that a seventh grade girl’s middle school failed to intervene to stop physical abuse and repeated antisemitic slurs, including a Hitler “joke,” by other students. Last month, Santa Ana Unified agreed to discontinue three Liberated-affiliated ethnic studies courses after a lawsuit over public meetings violations revealed antisemitic bias and slurs by staff members.

    The proposed bill does not prohibit discussions of the Israel-Palestine issue, avoiding a trespass on free speech. However, it calls for ethnic studies to “focus on the domestic experience and stories of historically marginalized peoples in American society.”

    Like Assembly Bill 101 before it, the bill would ensure that ethnic studies “remains true to its original intent — promoting inclusivity, respect, and historical accuracy for all communities with a domestic focus,” said Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park.

    The 2016 law that authorized the creation of a model curriculum framework called for a committee consisting of faculty members of university ethnic studies departments, K-12 teachers, and administrators experienced in teaching the subject. The committee members whom the State Board appointed ended up writing the disputed first draft. AB 1468 also calls for a similar advisory committee, the majority of whom would be experts in ethnic studies.

    Wouldn’t that possibly lead to standards similar to those in the model curriculum’s first draft — and a repeat of the animosities of the first process?

    Bill author Zbur disagrees. The governor, not the State Board of Education, would name the members, and the language of the bill’s intent would make clear that the experts would be more “traditional” and not proponents of the Liberated curriculum. The advisory committee would also include representatives of communities most frequently targeted by hate crimes, thus assuring a voice from the Jewish community.

    Newsom would appear sympathetic to the effort. In April 2024, he pledged in his Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism that he “will work with the Jewish Caucus and Legislature to pursue legislation strengthening the guardrails established by AB 101.”

    His administration has not commented on the new bill.





    Source link