The Friends of Lowell Foundation has sued the San Francisco Unified School District, alleging that the school board violated California’s Brown Act when it approved a new ethnic studies curriculum and related spending.
Editorial Note
This article discusses an active lawsuit involving the San Francisco Unified School District. The claims described below are allegations made by the Friends of Lowell Foundation and have not been proven in court.
The lawsuit primarily challenges the process used to approve the instructional materials, not SFUSD’s general authority to offer or require ethnic studies. A court has not determined that the curriculum is unlawful, that the district improperly spent public money, or that the Board of Education violated California’s open-meeting law.
A Curriculum Dispute Moves From the School Board to the Courtroom
San Francisco’s continuing debate over ethnic studies has entered a new legal phase.
The Friends of Lowell Foundation has sued the San Francisco Unified School District, alleging that the Board of Education violated California’s Ralph M. Brown Act when it approved new instructional materials for the district’s required ethnic studies course.
The lawsuit challenges an April 28, 2026 board vote approving a broader package of history and social studies materials. That package included resources for ethnic studies, United States history, world history, government, and certain Advanced Placement courses.
Friends of Lowell argues that the meeting agenda did not clearly tell the public that the board would make a final decision about the ethnic studies curriculum. The organization also contends that the ethnic studies materials should have received a separate agenda item and vote because of the course’s significance and the controversy surrounding it.
The organization is asking a California Superior Court to invalidate the April vote. SFUSD has not admitted wrongdoing and has said it generally does not comment on pending litigation.
What Friends of Lowell Is Alleging
Friends of Lowell is a nonprofit organization associated with supporters of Lowell High School and academically selective educational programs.
The group maintains that parents and other members of the public were not given sufficiently clear notice that the April meeting would include final approval of the materials used in the district’s ethnic studies course.
Under the organization’s interpretation of the Brown Act, the agenda should have described the proposed action in language that allowed an ordinary member of the public to understand what the board was preparing to decide.
Friends of Lowell argues that placing the ethnic studies materials within a much broader social studies adoption made the significance of the decision less apparent. It contends that families may have understood the agenda as a routine instructional-materials purchase rather than a final decision affecting a required course for high school students.
The foundation is also challenging aspects of the funding used for the broader curriculum purchase. It argues that approximately $7.3 million in voter-designated funds was committed through the adoption and questions whether that spending was consistent with the purposes presented to voters.
An important clarification is that the reported $7.3 million covered the broader history and social studies curriculum package. It should not be described as the price of the ethnic studies curriculum alone.
What the Brown Act Requires
The Ralph M. Brown Act is California’s open-meeting law for local legislative bodies, including public school boards.
The law generally requires school boards to hold meetings openly, post agendas in advance, describe the business they intend to discuss or act upon, and provide opportunities for public participation.
California Government Code Section 54954.2 requires an agenda to contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed. Public bodies generally may not take action on matters that were not adequately identified on the posted agenda, subject to limited exceptions.
The law does not require an agenda to explain every detail of a proposal. The legal question is whether the description gave the public enough information to understand the general nature of the action the board intended to take.
That distinction will likely be central to the SFUSD case.
Friends of Lowell will attempt to show that the agenda was too broad to alert families to the final ethnic studies decision. SFUSD may argue that the agenda properly identified a history and social studies curriculum adoption and that ethnic studies is commonly treated as part of the social sciences.
Why the April 28 Vote Matters
The April vote was part of SFUSD’s wider effort to update instructional materials that district officials considered outdated.
The board approved materials for multiple courses and grade levels rather than voting on a single textbook or program. The district selected a commercially available curriculum known as Voices for the ethnic studies course.
The new materials replaced a locally developed curriculum that had been used in different forms since SFUSD began offering ethnic studies as a semester-long elective in 2010.
District leaders had previously acknowledged concerns about inconsistency in the locally created course. Critics argued that some lessons emphasized activism or predetermined political conclusions, while supporters maintained that ethnic studies should directly address racism, inequality, colonialism, and historically excluded perspectives.
The selection of Voices was intended to provide a more structured curriculum across the district. However, the decision did not end the controversy.
Some families questioned whether the new program received enough public review. Others continued to object to requiring a full year of ethnic studies, arguing that it reduces the space students have for world languages, arts, advanced coursework, and other electives.
The Lawsuit Challenges Process More Than Content
The legal distinction between curriculum content and curriculum adoption is important.
Friends of Lowell has publicly criticized aspects of SFUSD’s ethnic studies program, but the Brown Act claim focuses primarily on how the school board reached its decision.
A judge considering the open-meeting allegation will not necessarily determine whether Voices is educationally balanced, politically biased, academically effective, or appropriate for ninth-grade students.
The court will instead examine whether the board provided legally sufficient notice before approving the materials.
A curriculum can be academically strong and still be adopted through a legally defective process. A curriculum can also be controversial while being approved through a process that fully complies with the law.
The lawsuit therefore asks the court to evaluate transparency before reaching any broader debate about the course itself.
SFUSD’s Ethnic Studies Graduation Requirement
SFUSD has established a year-long ethnic studies course as a local graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2029.
Students are generally scheduled to take the course during the ninth grade, although district procedures may allow them to complete the requirement later in high school.
This local requirement is separate from California’s statewide ethnic studies law.
California enacted Assembly Bill 101 in 2021, creating a future one-semester ethnic studies graduation requirement and directing high schools to offer ethnic studies. The statewide mandate was tied to legislative funding, however, and its implementation has been delayed because the necessary appropriation was not included in the state budget.
Districts such as San Francisco may still establish their own local ethnic studies programs and graduation requirements. The delayed statewide mandate does not prevent SFUSD from moving forward independently.
The current lawsuit does not appear to argue that SFUSD lacks the basic authority to require the course. It challenges whether the district complied with open-meeting and funding requirements when it selected the instructional materials.
The Debate Over the Broader $7.3 Million Adoption
The lawsuit also questions the district’s use of approximately $7.3 million for the larger history and social studies curriculum adoption.
Friends of Lowell argues that the money came from voter-approved funds intended for student enrichment and that the district’s use of those funds deserves additional scrutiny.
The organization has suggested that the money could instead have supported services such as individual tutoring for students who are academically behind.
SFUSD may respond that modern instructional materials are themselves a form of student enrichment and that the expenditure fell within the legally authorized purposes of the funding source.
The court may need to examine ballot language, expenditure restrictions, district financial documents, staff reports, and the board resolution approving the purchase.
The funding issue should be treated separately from the Brown Act claim. A board might provide inadequate notice while still spending money on a legally permitted purpose. Conversely, a clearly noticed vote would not automatically resolve whether restricted funds were used properly.
SFUSD May Have a Credible Legal Defense
The filing of a lawsuit does not mean Friends of Lowell will prevail.
SFUSD may argue that the board agenda clearly identified the adoption of history and social studies instructional materials. Because ethnic studies is generally categorized within the social sciences, the district could contend that the course did not require a separate agenda item.
School boards commonly approve collections of textbooks, digital platforms, teacher resources, and course materials through a single subject-area resolution. They do not typically vote separately on every individual class included in a districtwide adoption.
The district may also argue that the proposed curriculum had already been discussed publicly and that families were aware of the broader debate before the April vote.
Friends of Lowell is likely to respond that general public awareness does not excuse an unclear formal agenda. The Brown Act places the responsibility on the public body to disclose the business it intends to conduct, rather than requiring residents to reconstruct the decision from earlier meetings, media coverage, or district documents.
The outcome may depend on the precise wording of the April agenda and the materials made available before the meeting.
Friends of Lowell Has Previously Challenged SFUSD Under the Brown Act
Friends of Lowell has used Brown Act litigation against SFUSD before.
The organization participated in a previous legal challenge involving the school board’s decision to make a lottery-based admissions system permanent at Lowell High School.
In 2021, a judge concluded that the board had not provided adequate public notice before acting on the admissions policy and invalidated the vote.
That ruling did not permanently prohibit the district from adopting a lottery. It meant the board could not rely on the procedurally defective vote and would have to reconsider the matter through a properly noticed process.
The earlier case does not automatically determine the outcome of the ethnic studies lawsuit. The agenda language, underlying policy, board records, and circumstances are different.
It nevertheless gives Friends of Lowell experience pursuing open-meeting claims and may strengthen its argument that SFUSD has faced recurring transparency disputes.
What Would Happen If Friends of Lowell Wins?
A victory for Friends of Lowell would not necessarily remove ethnic studies permanently from SFUSD schools.
A court could declare the April 28 action null and void because of a Brown Act violation. The district could then place the curriculum adoption on a clearly written future agenda, accept public comment, and vote again.
SFUSD might ultimately approve the same materials through a corrected process.
The immediate consequences would depend on the wording of any court order and whether the judge allowed the existing materials to remain in use temporarily.
The case could also lead to a settlement. SFUSD might agree to conduct another vote, hold additional public meetings, release more detailed curriculum information, or provide a clearer accounting of how the purchase was funded.
Why the Case Matters Beyond San Francisco
California school boards regularly approve textbooks, digital programs, assessments, technology contracts, graduation requirements, and curriculum frameworks through long meeting agendas.
Some agenda packages contain hundreds or even thousands of pages.
Parents and residents may have difficulty determining which decisions are routine and which could significantly change what students are required to learn.
A ruling against SFUSD could encourage school districts to provide more detailed descriptions when voting on controversial, expensive, or mandatory instructional programs.
Boards might separate disputed courses from larger curriculum packages, conduct additional public hearings, or provide longer review periods before making final decisions.
That could strengthen transparency, but it could also make curriculum adoption slower and expose districts to more frequent litigation over agenda wording.
A ruling for SFUSD could confirm that school boards have reasonable flexibility to group related courses and materials within broader subject-area approvals.
Either outcome could influence how California districts prepare agendas for major educational decisions.
Public Notice Is About More Than Technical Compliance
The lawsuit also raises a broader question about public trust.
Families often become frustrated when they believe a school district has effectively completed a decision before inviting public participation.
By the time a proposal reaches a final vote, administrators may have already selected a vendor, negotiated pricing, scheduled teacher training, or planned implementation. Parents may therefore view public comment as symbolic rather than meaningful.
District officials face a different problem. Curriculum adoption can require years of review, committee work, teacher input, negotiations, and planning. Reopening every decision repeatedly can delay the replacement of outdated materials.
Clear communication can reduce that tension.
School boards can publish understandable agenda descriptions, provide direct links to proposed materials, explain costs, identify the courses affected, and distinguish preliminary discussions from final votes.
These practices may go beyond the minimum requirements of the Brown Act, but they can make controversial decisions more credible.
What Educators and Families Should Watch
The first major development will be SFUSD’s formal response to the complaint.
The district may challenge whether Friends of Lowell has stated a valid Brown Act or funding claim, or it may defend the agenda language and vote on their merits.
The court could examine the posted agenda, board resolution, staff reports, meeting video, curriculum documents, financial records, and communications associated with the April adoption.
Families should also watch whether SFUSD continues using Voices while the litigation proceeds. Unless a court issues an order affecting implementation, the lawsuit alone does not automatically suspend the curriculum or the graduation requirement.
The case may take months to resolve unless the parties reach an agreement or the board voluntarily conducts another vote.
Key Takeaways
The Friends of Lowell Foundation has sued SFUSD over the Board of Education’s April 28, 2026 approval of new history and social studies materials, including the Voices ethnic studies curriculum.
The organization alleges that the district violated the Brown Act because the meeting agenda did not clearly inform the public that the board would make a final decision about ethnic studies materials.
The lawsuit also questions the district’s use of approximately $7.3 million in voter-designated funding. That amount appears to relate to the broader history and social studies adoption, not solely to the ethnic studies program.
SFUSD has not been found liable. The district may argue that ethnic studies was properly included within a clearly identified social studies curriculum adoption and did not require a separate vote.
Even if the plaintiffs prevail, SFUSD could potentially correct the alleged procedural problem by providing clearer notice and voting on the materials again.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Brown Act?
The Ralph M. Brown Act is California’s open-meeting law for local government bodies, including public school boards. It generally requires advance agendas, open deliberations, public access, and opportunities for public comment.
Who filed the lawsuit?
The Friends of Lowell Foundation filed the lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District.
What curriculum did SFUSD approve?
SFUSD approved Voices as the instructional program for its ethnic studies course within a larger adoption of history and social studies materials.
Did SFUSD spend $7.3 million solely on ethnic studies?
The available reporting indicates that approximately $7.3 million was associated with the broader history and social studies curriculum purchase. It should not be described as the cost of the ethnic studies curriculum alone.
Is ethnic studies required for SFUSD students?
SFUSD has established a year-long ethnic studies graduation requirement beginning with the class of 2029.
Did a court find the curriculum illegal?
No. No court has ruled that the curriculum is illegal or that SFUSD violated the Brown Act.
Could the April vote be overturned?
Friends of Lowell is asking the court to invalidate the vote. If that happens, SFUSD may still be able to reconsider and approve the materials through a properly noticed meeting.
Final Thoughts
The lawsuit against SFUSD is not merely another disagreement about whether ethnic studies should be taught.
It is a legal test of how clearly school boards must communicate when they are approving required courses, controversial instructional materials, and multimillion-dollar purchases.
SFUSD has a legitimate responsibility to replace outdated materials and provide teachers with consistent resources. It also has a responsibility to conduct that work openly and give families a meaningful opportunity to understand what the board is deciding.
Friends of Lowell believes the district failed to meet that obligation. SFUSD is likely to argue that the curriculum was properly identified within a routine social studies adoption and that the public had opportunities to participate.
A court will ultimately have to decide whether the board’s agenda satisfied California law.
Whatever the outcome, the controversy illustrates why transparency matters. Curriculum decisions are more likely to earn public trust when families can easily identify the proposal, examine the materials, understand the cost, and know precisely when a final vote will occur.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, curriculum policy, educator rights, school governance, and the legal decisions affecting students and families.
Your support helps us continue producing accessible educational content and highlighting important developments that may otherwise receive limited attention. Readers can support New To Education through the donation area below, share this article, or explore our educational and professional services.
Related Articles
Texas Tech Professors Sue Over Restrictions on Teaching Race and Gender
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/texas-tech-professors-sue-over-restrictions-on-teaching-race-and-gender-6a5de3d7e9913
Dallas Teacher Case Raises Questions About When School Discipline Becomes Employment Discrimination
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/dallas-teacher-case-raises-questions-about-when-school-discipline-becomes-employment-discrimination
Sources
San Francisco Chronicle — Lowell High School Group Sues SFUSD Over Board’s Approval of Ethnic Studies Curriculum
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/lowell-high-school-group-sues-sfusd-ethnic-studies-22348036.php
San Francisco Chronicle — S.F. Schools to Overhaul Outdated History Curriculum and Approve Ethnic Studies Course
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sfusd-ethnic-studies-curriculum-update-22208139.php
California Legislative Information — Government Code Section 54954.2
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=54954.2&lawCode=GOV
California Department of Education — Ethnic Studies
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/ethnicstudies.asp
California Attorney General — The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf
