Public commenters and board debate differing views on ethnic studies during informational briefing

At a lengthy informational session on Aug. 14, the Washington State Board of Education heard sharply divergent public comment on proposed ethnic‑studies guidance and received a two‑part staff and board presentation underscoring statutory background, research and pedagogical definitions.

During the public‑comment segment six speakers addressed ethnic studies and related issues. Susie Hanson, executive director of the Washington Federation of Independent Schools, urged the board to recognize accreditation in place of redundant state licensing for private boarding schools and to limit duplicative inspections, saying, “This duplication of efforts is ineffective and wasteful of both the schools and the taxpayers' resources.”

Multiple commenters focused on the proposal’s framing as "liberated ethnic studies" or an explicitly anti‑racist lens. Sonia Brown said requiring a liberated ethnic‑studies curriculum "would actually be harmful to our students" and argued it risks promoting a narrow worldview. Professor Ione Fine of the University of Washington said the approach is "clearly a political perspective" and urged an "explicitly apolitical" presentation of history and theory. Joe Sharkey, a literature instructor, warned about language borrowed from writers such as Ibram X. Kendi and quoted him in contesting anti‑racist policy implications.

Board staff framed the issue as part of an ongoing multi‑agency effort to align standards and resources. Alyssa Muller, director of policy, summarized the statutory context and recent legislation, citing RCW 28A.655.300 as placing ethnic studies within the state's learning standards and noting that OSPI and advisory committees have been charged with resource development. Muller also reported survey findings from the board’s basic‑education collection: "68.7% of school districts self‑report that they have incorporated ethnic studies materials and resources in grades K through 6, and 44.2% of school districts offer an ethnic studies course in grades 7 through 12." She cautioned that the survey question asks whether districts plan to offer courses in the next school year, and board members requested more detail on what "incorporation" means in practice.

Board member Brooke Brown — who presented with staff and described her own experience as an ethnic‑studies student — urged a student‑centered pedagogy that is "academically rigorous" and humanizing. Brooke played a short student spoken‑word video in which Jaleesha Johnson described a classroom as "a garden" where teachers "tend" students' growth. Brooke said, "When I took my first ethnic studies class, I felt affirmed in a way I had never felt in school." She walked the board through multiple scholarly definitions (Banks, Ladson‑Billings, Django Paris) and argued ethnic studies is not merely "heroes and holidays" or additive content but an interdisciplinary approach to criticality, identity and historical perspective.

Board members used the informational session to probe policy options rather than vote. Questions focused on whether ethnic studies should be a standalone high‑school course or embedded across K–12 subjects; how to define a state graduation requirement (require offering a course vs. require every student to take a course); professional‑development needs for teachers; and public vocabulary that can trigger concern (terms such as "decolonization"). Several members proposed extended study and outreach to other agencies and partners before any formal action; one member suggested the equity committee review the resolution and options. Staff and members agreed to follow up with more detailed survey breakdowns, stakeholder outreach and additional board study time.

The meeting record shows no board action on ethnic‑studies policy at this session; members explicitly noted that no action was expected and that subsequent meetings would be used for deeper study and potential legislative planning.