If you've been following the saga, you know this isn't really about whether kids should learn about different cultures and histories — virtually everyone agrees that's valuable. The real debate is about how ethnic studies has been taught, what ideological frameworks have been baked into the curriculum, and whether the program as implemented actually serves students or serves adults with political agendas.

San Francisco's school district — the same one that spent months renaming schools during a pandemic while kids sat at home without functioning Zoom links — has a credibility problem when it comes to prioritizing academics over activism. Ethnic studies, at its best, broadens understanding. At its worst, it becomes a vehicle for a very specific political worldview that has little to do with preparing students for the real world.

The question school board candidates should be answering isn't whether ethnic studies belongs in schools. It's whether SFUSD can be trusted to implement any curriculum with rigor and accountability. This is a district where reading proficiency rates are dismal, enrollment is cratering, and families are fleeing to private schools or the suburbs. Every hour spent on a poorly designed program is an hour not spent teaching kids to read, write, and do math at grade level.

Reform isn't a dirty word. It's what responsible governance looks like. Candidates who can't say clearly whether a program needed improvement — or who treat any critique of curriculum as an attack on diversity itself — are telling you exactly how they'll govern: defensively, ideologically, and with zero accountability.

Voters deserve board members who care more about outcomes than orthodoxy. Watch how candidates answer this question. It tells you everything about whether they'll fight for students or for the status quo.