Ethnic Studies: A Tale Of Two California School Districts

In a state initiative with potential national implications, school districts across California are navigating the complexities of meeting the state’s looming Ethnic Studies requirement. This mandate, based on Assembly Bill 101 (AB 101) signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2021, stipulates that students graduating during the 2029–2030 school year must complete at least one semester of Ethnic Studies. California stands as the first state to enact such a requirement, aiming to ostensibly foster cultural understanding through core concepts of equality, equity, justice, and the study of race and ethnicity, as outlined in the California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.

As I reported previously here and here, the Northern California Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) took an ambitious approach to implementing this requirement, going beyond the basic framework typically adopted by other districts, incorporating content in English (multiple years across 9th through 12th grades), History, and Art classes. With grant funding, PVUSD hired Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, Founder and Co-Director of Community Responsive Education (CRE), whose controversial model curriculum had previously been rejected by the state for being excessively divisive and antisemitic. Despite public outcry — particularly from the Jewish community — over the district’s reliance on the rejected curriculum, PVUSD persisted through two rounds of consultation with CRE. The third round, however, stalled amidst growing dissent.

In 2024, the Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers, including supporters of CRE, mobilized to change the composition of the school board in the November elections. They successfully unseated three incumbents, replacing them with challengers ready to renew the contract with CRE. By April, the new board approved the final contract, signaling a shift toward dismissing community concerns. This change was epitomized by radical activist board member Gabriel Medina, who labeled opposition to the curriculum as “propaganda” and accused dissenters of being “segregationists” intent on undermining marginalized communities. Listening to Medina’s characterizations of America in both March and April meetings, one would think we currently live under the rule of the Antebellum South.

Conversely, the Glendora Unified School District (GUSD) in Southern California adopted a more cautious strategy. District staff proposed an Ethnic Studies pilot course outline for the 2025–2026 school year, leveraging the state-approved model curriculum which focuses on four historically marginalized groups: African Americans, Chicano/Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian American/Pacific Islanders. Presented in February by the history and social science representatives, the pilot course adhered to the one-semester requirement.

However, the proposal faced scrutiny from the board for its lack of detailed content and transparency regarding implementation. At the May school board meeting, board members raised concerns about community opposition to perceived influences of Critical Race Theory (CRT) within the curriculum’s theoretical frameworks. While Assistant Superintendent Jennifer Prince emphasized that CRT was not the course’s focus, the board remained wary of its potential influence. Respecting community input, the board voted 3–2 against moving forward with the pilot course, citing the unfunded mandate of AB 101 as well as the need for further clarity and safeguards.

Unlike PVUSD, GUSD’s board demonstrated respect for all viewpoints, emphasizing the importance of community concerns alongside the practicalities of Ethnic Studies implementation. They expressed openness to revisiting the curriculum once AB 101 funding is secured and a more detailed outline addressing community hesitations is developed.

Even though local districts are not required to do so, GUSD leveraged the state’s model curriculum, which explicitly encourages educators adopt a CRT lens as follows: “Teachers and administrators… should familiarize themselves with current scholarly research around ethnic studies instruction, such as critically and culturally or community relevant and responsive pedagogies, critical race theory, and intersectionality, which are key theoretical frameworks and pedagogies that can be used in ethnic studies research and instruction.”

This stance from the state model curriculum highlights the ongoing tension between ideological and non-ideological approaches to the subject. During public commentary, one speaker recommended the Independent Institute’s Comparative Cultures Ethnic Studies Curriculum as a viable alternative. Unlike the state framework, this curriculum examines the diverse tapestry of American history, portraying both its challenges and triumphs to emphasize unity over division.

Although the Comparative curriculum was unavailable at the outset of GUSD’s Ethnic Studies journey, it remains an option worth considering for the district moving forward. As a panelist at its launch last year, I can attest to its efficacy as a balanced, non-partisan resource that aims to foster inclusivity without isolating specific groups. While it may be too late for PVUSD to revise its course, GUSD still can chart a different path — one that prioritizes connection and collective growth over ideological division.

The contrasting approaches taken by PVUSD and GUSD illustrate the complexities of implementing California’s Ethnic Studies mandate. While PVUSD’s path has fueled divisiveness and polarized community relations, GUSD’s measured approach reflects a willingness to adapt and address concerns thoughtfully. As school districts across the state grapple with fulfilling AB 101, GUSD’s restraint and respect for diverse perspectives offer a model for navigating this challenging — but vital — initiative.

* * *

Walter Myers III is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and an adjunct faculty member at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.