In a 3-2 vote at its Jan. 23 meeting, the Palo Alto Board of Education approved California Ethnic Studies as a graduation requirement for the class of 2029.
The Campanile thinks the board made the wrong decision and should have instead followed the amendment proposed by board member Alison Kamhi to delay the implementation of the course by a year.
We support the values of an ethnic studies course in fostering discourse and educating students on the history of minority groups within California, which is minimally covered in current freshman and sophomore social studies courses. However, because of concerns over the curriculum draft and the lack of transparency about what is being taught, we think further consideration and community involvement are necessary before the course is implemented.
A slippery slope
In a Jan. 16 letter to the community, Superintendent Don Austin said the original September 2023 mandate to require the course for the class of 2030 was contingent on funding from the state legislature, which has been paused indefinitely.
Austin said the state’s initial attempt at creating a model ethnic studies curriculum “proved so problematic that it had to be largely discarded and rewritten, resulting in a broad, ambiguous document that has led to local divisiveness across California” and the extreme politicization of the course “(undermines) the true goal of the course: to foster insightful, well-guided discussions.”
And it is not just the state that has struggled with developing a curriculum. Before the board meeting, Austin released, along with the California Ethnic Studies course description, a PDF titled “Curriculum and Sample Lessons,” which many assumed was a finalized version of what would be taught in the course.
But during the meeting, Paly social studies Instructional Leader Mary Sano said the file was a brainstorming draft compiled a year ago. Board member Rowena Chiu then asked if there was an updated curriculum created within the past year, to which there was no response.
This implies either a concrete curriculum has not been developed or the district is unwilling to release it. Both options are equally worrisome. In addition to community distrust, other districts have already faced financial consequences due to failure or refusal to release ethnic studies curriculums. Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District, for example, agreed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees in January for not releasing its ethnic studies curriculum under a public records request.
This uncertainty was heightened when, during the board meeting, board member Shounak Dharap asked “What is ethnic studies?” to the teachers who piloted California Ethnic Studies during the 2024-2025 school year.
Gunn social studies teacher Ariane Tuomy said the course intends to include “co-constructed” discussions but did not provide what the conversations were actually about other than that they “are centered in the disciplines of African-American, Asian, Pacific Islander, Latina and Native Americans” and will “look at the history.”
In addition to uncertainty over the topics covered, the claim the course prioritizes discussions during lessons is debatable. Survey data from the pilot classes conducted this year shows some students said the “debates stood out as particularly impactful because classmates got a chance to converse about their ideas” and prepared them “to engage in meaningful conversations much more because of all the very important class discussions.”
But other students said there was “very minimal discourse throughout (the) discussions” and “the course did not have debate or conversation as a big part, so the class never got a chance to practice.” These comments highlight inconsistencies that can be addressed through the release of a formalized curriculum for the community to review.
However, Gunn social studies Instructional Leader Jeff Patrick said the release of the curriculum would threaten his teaching agency by restricting him to a curriculum outlined by the community, eroding trust in his teaching capability. Paly social studies teacher Benjamin Bolanos called the requests the “definition of micromanaging” during the board meeting.
But instructional agency should not come at the cost of transparency, and adjusting to students’ needs should not conflict with the educational standards of a course. We trust teachers to discuss controversial topics responsibly, but that does not equate to blindly following every decision made. AP courses require teachers to follow syllabi to prepare their students for exams, yet classes can still maintain flexibility. The purpose of a curriculum is to provide information about the content, not the schedule, of a class.
Board member Shana Segal said curriculum requests could be a “slippery slope” because most courses only require a course description for board approval. Ethnic studies, though, especially being a required course, requires special attention because of the sensitivity of the topics. Even then, we do not think increased transparency through disclosing course materials should create fear.
During the approval of a PAUSD sex education curriculum in 2017, for example, community members requested the curriculum be released to the public. Max McGee, superintendent at the time, said parents should have time to review course materials and make informed decisions on whether their children should opt out of the lessons, and some board members at the time said parental input should have been incorporated.
We should not repeat the same mistakes of limiting openness and collaboration. If the district and teachers leading this course are afraid of these conversations, we are worried about the freedom of discussion within the classrooms as well.
Content misinformation
Increased transparency is especially necessary as we think parts of the current curriculum are problematic.
Linked in the “Curriculum and Sample Lessons” document, a 7-year-old video titled “Sex & Sexuality: Crash Course Sociology #31” describes how “among the Sambia of the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea, young boys perform oral sex on, and ingest the semen of, older men, as part of a rite of passage to adulthood” and that “it’s not clear that this should be thought of as sexual.”
Multiple sample documents pose the question “Is AGENCY gained when oppression is resisted?” to which the notes say, “That depends on whether or not the oppression was resisted violently or nonviolently.” We think it is misleading and dangerous to teach students that violent resistance is inevitable and necessary.
In response to our request for comment on the video, Bolanos said it was “not taught” and part of “a list of options to discuss intersectionality.” Given that these samples were present in the brainstorming document, we acknowledge these materials may not be in the final curriculum. However, their presence still poses serious questions. The topic of sexuality is not mentioned in the course description, yet it is one of the first topics considered by the teachers during their brainstorming, creating confusion about the goals of the course.
Furthermore, if specific course content has been developed, it is reasonable for community members to assume the resources presented at the board meeting are the ones used in classes. It is unacceptable for the district to ignore concerns and expect parents and students to support a course that may include content condoning sexually explicit behavior between minors and adults or violence. If this is “misinformation,” then the district can easily alleviate those concerns by releasing the entire curriculum.
The course description also includes questions like “How much power do I have in my society?” and learning objectives like “I can reflect on my own positions of privilege and power.”
With these questions and objectives framed as having definite answers, the course risks generalizing ethnic identities and reinforcing the fixed mindset that power and privilege are innate and cannot be changed. Combined with an oppressor-oppressed approach, which categorizes students into binaries based on their race, these topics can lead to potential alienation or division among students regardless of educational professionalism.
Ignored complaints
Despite these concerns, defense of the course was largely influenced by student input, especially during the board meetings. But it is crucial to examine which voices are being amplified.
Students who participated in this year’s pilot course either volunteered or were selected to participate by their middle school teachers. While not all pilot students may be biased toward the class, since they were not a random selection of students, their perspectives may not reflect that of the broader student body.
In fact, a Schoology survey sent in January, which was later taken down, indicated students were split on approving the course. Similarly, an Instagram poll sent out by the Associated Student Body in January resulted in a 50-50 vote on whether or not the course should be implemented. It was, however, not clear in either survey that the course would replace a semester of World History and not be an extra required elective, which may have influenced results.
Regardless, the district appears unaware of students who have concerns. During the board meeting, Austin said “not a single complaint that came forward through any of our channels” based on the pilot survey’s results despite some criticism. This suggests the district either disregarded or has not put effort into understanding the varied opinions of our community outside of a small cohort of students.
By pausing California Ethnic Studies approval for a year, the district would have more time to collect community input to ensure the curriculum fosters productive discussions for students of all backgrounds. Ideally, this would allow for a randomly selected pilot to minimize bias and collect data to further improve the course.
At the bare minimum, we ask the district to release all California Ethnic Studies instructional materials and initiate community input sessions that are transparent and collaborative as opposed to the presentation-style meetings, which many of the past ones have been.
For a course meant to teach students mutual understanding, it is contradictory to withhold information that would allow open discussions and educate the community on crucial topics.
If the purpose of ethnic studies is to have difficult, uncomfortable conversations, this is one we should be having.