How California Ethnic Studies Curriculum
Got It Right ...and how the California Department of Education is throwing it away
The California Board of Education is nearing the end of its journey to meet the mandate of the State Legislature to create an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) for California's K-12 schools. It got off to a good start by appointing a well-qualified Advisory Committee to develop a first draft for public comment. The Advisory Committee developed a thorough draft that was firmly grounded in the principles of ethnic studies and was well-received by practitioners of that discipline.
Then came the period for public comment. There was a torrent of criticism: there were some who objected to its use of "politically correct" language, some who thought that the draft was politically biased, some who said that their ethnic group was improperly omitted, and some who complained that someone else's ethnic group was improperly included. Criticism grew and was amplified to such a degree that the schedule for adoption was put off and the State Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) was charged with developing a new draft.
Two more drafts were developed. The idea behind them was to change the focus of the Model Curriculum from a holistic approach to ethnic studies to a multiculturalism that recognizes the experiences and dignity of all groups but does not integrate them into a single discipline.
So, what's the difference and why does it matter?
Modern ethnic studies grew out of initiatives by students at San Francisco State College and UC Berkeley in 1968 and 1969. The students were inspired by the wave of national movements for independence and self-determination sweeping Asia, Africa and Latin America and were fed up with an academia that gave scant attention to the dispossessed, colonized, enslaved, exploited and marginalized. Black, Chicano/a, Asian and Native American students joined together in Third World Liberation Fronts to demand the creation of new programs in which the previously marginalized could determine for themselves the features of study of their own histories and experiences. After bitter strikes at both campuses, The first Ethnic Studies programs of the modern era were established. Now, 50 years later, the ethnic studies discipline has grown and developed, embracing the dynamic way in which ethnic groups in U.S. society have evolved to reflect the influences of successive waves of immigration.
The original draft of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum was true to these roots: it placed ethnic studies squarely in an understanding of racism, colonialism and the struggle of exploited and marginalized peoples to understand and overcome the effects of decades, even centuries, of subjugation. And it provided a framework for students of all ethnicities to grow from that understanding to a vision of societal hope and healing. The ESMC did that through a series of course outlines and sample lessons ranging from a general view of ethnic studies overall to detailed examinations of each of the 4 traditional groupings of the ethnic studies discipline.
Multiculturalism as now embraced by the ESMC, on the other hand, pays lip service to the idea of ethnic studies. But in the end, it eliminates the content-rich course outlines and sample lessons from the original ESMC draft that were prepared by experienced educators grounded in the discipline of ethnic studies in favor of general guidance for a "theme-based" approach to ethnic studies supplemented by a menu of 42 lesson plans on various topics from which teachers and administrators can choose, depending on the composition of their student bodies and the specific units that they intend to teach. The bulk of the 42 plans were submitted by members of the “public” who evidently were knowledgeable in the specific areas covered in the lesson plans but were not experienced in the field of ethnic studies. They have in common an honest attempt to examine the experiences of a wide range of ethnic groups in the US. Unfortunately, they avoid connecting those experiences to the ways in which they were and are affected by racism and colonialism and to the ways in which they have attempted to free themselves from those effects. These connections are fundamental to what is now regarded as the anti-racist, decolonial and liberatory essence of ethnic studies.
So why did the Instructional Quality Commission make such a drastic change?
There were two things that led to the change. One was that a number of groups felt that they were not properly represented in the Curriculum. Sikh, Armenian and Jewish groups, for example, thought that their experiences should be included in the course outlines and sample lessons. But, more fundamental, was that pro-Israel forces objected to Arab American studies being included in the Curriculum in a substantive way.
The IQC resolved the first problem by expanding the menu of lesson plans. It resolved the second one by burying the Arab American course outline. Despite committing twice to including an Arab American studies lesson plan (once at its August 13 meeting and again at its November 18-19 meeting), somehow the Arab American lesson plan got left out.
Unfortunately, the IQC's willingness to accommodate complaining groups did not result in enriching the content of the ESMC. Rather, it sacrificed the essential content of ethnic studies in a way that compromises its value for all ethnic groups. And worse, it does so by taking the very definition of ethnic studies away from those whom the ethnic studies discipline was established to serve and turning it over to the "systems of oppression" that led to the struggles to create ethnic studies programs to start with--the approach that resulted in the student strikes of 1968 and 1969.
The current draft is now in the hands of the California Board of Education. There's a public comment period that closes on January 21. Then the Board will adopt a final version at its meeting on March 17-18.
