Board approves purchase of 'Voices' pilot as district plans audit and review of ethnic studies

The San Francisco Board of Education voted 5–2 on July 29 to authorize the district to purchase print classroom sets and digital licenses for a one‑year pilot of the Voices ethnic studies curriculum for the 2025–26 school year, part of a broader audit and possible adoption process.

Superintendent Dr. Su told the board the district had searched statewide for a standards‑aligned, publisher‑released curriculum and found Voices met the “nonnegotiable” criteria of publisher availability and state‑standards alignment. She said the district would post materials online where possible, hold public office hours and conduct an independent audit and external pilot evaluation during the school year. “We are committed to providing a safe and welcoming learning environment for every student,” she said.

Devin Krugman, the district’s executive responsible for content and curriculum, described the timeline and data collection planned for the pilot: pre‑service professional development, classroom observations, external surveying and focus groups, and an independent audit of the district’s existing written curriculum. Krugman said the district had identified the Voices program as a published curriculum used in other districts and that digital licenses for the pilot would be provided at no cost; the physical print purchase for the pilot was approximately $100,000.

Public comment on the topic dominated the meeting. Hundreds of speakers addressed the board in rotating panels: sizable groups urged immediate adoption and a continuation of ethnic studies as a graduation requirement, including the NAACP, APAC family leaders, United Educators of San Francisco and many students who said ethnic studies improved belonging and academic engagement. Other public speakers—including students, parents and community organizations—urged the board to pause implementation, objecting to what they described as an unvetted curriculum rollout, insufficient transparency and insufficient opt‑out or alternative options for students.

Board members asked for clarifications on cost, the definition and scope of the pilot, professional development and the process for students to change courses if families opt out. Deputy staff outlined the district’s plan to support counselors and administrators in making course change requests in the first weeks of school and to expand upper‑division ethnic studies and dual‑enrollment options for older students.

At roll call the board recorded the vote as: Commissioner Alexander, yes; Commissioner Fisher, yes; Commissioner Gupta, no; Vice President Healy, yes; Commissioner Ray, no; Commissioner Wiseman Ward, yes; President Kim, yes. The motion passed 5–2.

Superintendent Dr. Su and staff said the purchase is for a pilot: staff will collect data, commission an external audit of currently used curriculum materials, convene an evaluation committee, and only later (target spring 2026) bring a formal adoption recommendation to the board if the materials pass review. Staff emphasized the pilot was limited to instructional materials purchase and initial professional development, not final adoption. An administrative regulation to govern supplemental materials and a community audit of curriculum content will be implemented during the year, staff said.