Palo Alto Unified board affirms ethnic studies graduation requirement after heated debate and public comment

Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education voted 3–2 on Jan. 23, 2025 to confirm a one‑semester California ethnic studies course as a local high‑school graduation requirement after an evening of presentations by teachers and students and extended public comment.

The decision followed two years of committee work and a fall 2024 pilot. Teachers and union leaders told the board the pilot produced positive student outcomes and that the curriculum was carefully developed from the California model. “This reflects our stated values as a community — a community committed to inclusion, diversity, respect,” said Meb Steiner, president of the California School Employees Association Palo Alto chapter, urging approval. Students who completed the pilot spoke at length about projects on redlining, oral histories and civic engagement; several said the course was transformative. “Why are you stopping people from learning about the complicated democracy in which they live?” asked student speaker Brier during public comment.

Board members framed the decision as the result of competing priorities. Supporters pointed to student testimony and pilot survey data showing favorable experiences; opponents — and some board members — cited gaps in public transparency and concerns about certain language and materials in draft documents circulating publicly. “I simply do not feel ready to assert that our ethnic pilots should be made a mandatory graduation requirement at this point,” said Board President Shaa Seagull during the discussion, urging more time to build community trust.

The meeting record shows a formal motion by Board Member Salsman to overturn the prior board action that set the requirement; that motion was discussed at length but did not carry. An amendment to defer the decision until the state clarified its own actions was brought forward and failed. Later, a motion to approve the course and confirm the district policy making it a graduation requirement was seconded and approved in a roll call vote, passing 3–2. During the final roll call a board member can be heard saying, “I vote nay.”

Teachers and instructional leads outlined the course structure that the district would use if implemented: an introductory unit followed by units on identity, power and privilege, resilience and resistance, and action and civic engagement. Instructional lead Ander Lucia described the unit framework and emphasized student choice and project‑based learning. Pilot teachers said the class was team‑taught with two adults in every classroom and that 20 students were enrolled at each of two pilot sites this fall.

Opponents at the meeting requested more transparency about specific instructional materials and detailed community outreach. District staff and teachers said materials in the board packet included an official high‑school course description with essential questions and learning objectives, and they characterized other leaked files circulating publicly as brainstorming documents that were not the adopted curriculum. Staff also said some draft documents were subject to legal exemptions and were mistakenly treated in public as final curriculum.

Board members who voted to approve said the district will pursue additional public engagement and bring progress indicators to an upcoming study session so the board and public can monitor outcomes and implementation. The board president said the district would discuss progress indicators and community outreach in scheduled follow‑up meetings.

What the vote means: with the board’s action, Palo Alto Unified will implement the approved ethnic studies course as a one‑semester requirement for the graduating class identified in the district policy, while staff and trustees work on communication and measurement plans. The board said students will still have access to the pilot‑style courses and that staff will provide implementation updates.

Next steps: the board signaled it will take up monitoring, community outreach and progress indicators in future study sessions; staff said legislative or state guidance could also affect implementation timing.