All eyes will be on SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su and two other school figures from Chicago and Virginia who are set to speak before a GOP-led committee in DC this week on “inappropriate content” and “legal abuses” in public schools.

Maria Su, superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District, is headed to testify Wednesday morning before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, in a hearing focused on “parental rights,” classroom content, and alleged legal abuses in K–12 schools. As the Chronicle reports, the session, set to begin at 7:15 am PDT, is chaired by Representative Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) and will also feature superintendents from Chicago and Loudoun County, Virginia.

Su is likely to face pointed questioning on issues including transgender student policies, locker room access, sexual health curriculum, pronoun use, and parent notification rules. The hearing reportedly comes as Republican lawmakers intensify scrutiny of school districts in Democratic-led cities, with a focus on policies they argue limit parental oversight.

In written remarks submitted ahead of the hearing, Su emphasizes SFUSD’s focus on academic outcomes alongside student well-being, saying schools must be safe and inclusive for learning to occur. According to the Chronicle, Su writes that the district serves all students regardless of background and works to create environments free from harassment, bullying, and discrimination.

Su’s statement also highlights San Francisco’s history of LGBTQ rights and diversity, noting the district’s efforts to incorporate that history into education. At the same time, she underscores core academic goals including third-grade literacy, eighth-grade math, and college and career readiness, and describes parents as essential partners with defined rights to information, participation, and opt-out provisions in areas such as reproductive health instruction.

Su adds that SFUSD has recently updated curriculum, improved operations, strengthened its financial position, and begun work on its enrollment system, while acknowledging ongoing challenges ahead.

The Chronicle reports that Su is being represented by the City Attorney’s Office, and either San Francisco, the county, or both will be required to cover the costs associated with travel and legal support for the hearing.

A recent Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor, reportedly added new precedent allowing parents to opt their children out of instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs, in a case involving LGBTQ-themed books in an Alabama elementary school. Legal experts say the ruling leaves unclear how schools are expected to implement it, and critics argue it could give individual families broader influence over classroom content based on religious objections — an issue that is expected to surface during Wednesday’s hearing.

Su is the latest Bay Area K–12 leader to appear before the same committee, following Berkeley Unified Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel’s testimony in May 2024 at a hearing focused on antisemitism in schools, as SFist reported previously. That session drew national attention, though Morthel faced relatively limited scrutiny compared to the New York City schools chancellor, who became the primary focus, per the Chronicle.

The format will reportedly give each superintendent a five-minute opening statement, followed by rounds of five-minute questioning from committee members, with no fixed end time. The Chronicle notes that experts and local officials expect aggressive questioning on politically charged education issues, and say the hearing may hinge on whether witnesses directly engage with lawmakers or attempt to avoid rhetorical traps.

SF Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman said the hearing is likely to be performative at points, and that Su will need to balance defending district policies with avoiding exchanges that could escalate into viral or politically damaging moments.

Related: Berkeley Schools Superintendent Called to Testify Before Congressional Committee Over Antisemitism Claims

Image: SFUSD/Facebook

According to police reports Paul Dhaliwal admitted to "standing atop a railing of the big cat enclosure and yelling and waving at the animal that would later maul them," killing Carlos Sousa Jr. on Christmas Day at the SF Zoo.

The trio, it seems, were also hopped up on mary jane and expensive vodka. Toxicology reports turned up numbers indicating that Paul was especially wasted during the attack. His blood alcohol level was 0.16 percent after Tatiana's reign of terror, "twice the legal threshold for drunkenness." ("Threshold for drunkenness." Heh.) Kulbir Dhaliwal's blood alcohol level came out to 0.04 percent, and lightweight Sousa's was at 0.02 percent. According to the Gate:

Police said they had recovered messages and images but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack. Investigators seized a small amount of marijuana as well as a partially filled bottle of Grey Goose vodka from the car, according to the inventory that police submitted from the search.

They also found a kit commonly used to defeat drug testing, which included a vial of unisex synthetic urine, police said. Paul Dhaliwal was on probation stemming from a drunken driving incident that occurred before the attack.

Oh oh. Mark Geragos has some explaining to do.

In the battle to see who's going down and who gets what and how much in court, new "evidence" suggests that possibly, maybe, perhaps Tatiana the tiger was provoked. It seems that said proof is in the form of a footprint and blood found inside the tiger enclosure at the SF Zoo. According to the kids down at KCBS:

...a significant amount of blood was found on an exhibit sign inside the tiger enclosure, a foot and a half from the public railing. The blood on the sign indicates someone may have climbed the railing and was attacked while standing in the planted area between the moat and the railing.

The source also said a footprint found on top of the three-foot high railing was located on a portion of the railing across from the sign.

Pro-Tatiana activist and SF Zoo spokesperson Sam Singer also confirmed that blood was found on foliage inside the tiger enclosure. But? How it got thee or whose veins the blood ran through prior to spattering remains unanswered. Khulbir and Paul Dhaliwal's team of attorney deny that the boys were inside the enclosure during the now infamous Christmas Day big-cat attack that killed their friend, Carlos Sousa Jr.

Footprints? Blood? Rapscallions? We really need Jessica Fletcher on this case.