What We're Hearing from San Franciscans
San Francisco's public schools are an important part of the fabric of our city.
If you have a question that isn't answered here, let us know!
Strong Academic Outcomes for All Students
Building equitable schools and programs that allow all students to thrive and grow.
Infrastructure Renewal
Modernizing our financial, payroll, HR systems, and creating digital networks and policies for the 21st century.
Transparent Governance
Committing to open communication and accountability in every decision.
Public Safety Reimagined
Investing in community-based solutions such as Resorative Practices and universal design for learning that build trust and ensure safety for everyone.
What we're being asked by consituents
Frequently Asked Questions
What are your top priorities?
The SFUSD School Board has adopted the Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG) model. It provides a clear framework for accountability while delineating “Board work” from “Superintendent work.” The Board progress monitors three core priorities: improving third-grade reading proficiency, strengthening eighth-grade math proficiency, and ensuring students graduate prepared for college and careers. The Superintendent’s evaluation is directly tied to these student outcome measures, creating accountability and keeping our focus where it belongs: on students.
Personally, beyond our shared goals, my top three SFUSD priorities are:
-
aligning resources with equity at the forefront;
-
increasing inclusive practices; and
-
developing robust community engagement practices.
We must ensure SFUSD's resources are aligned with student outcomes to close persistent equity gaps. Budgets are moral documents and must reflect our commitment to investing where students need the most support. As we continue implementing new literacy and math curriculum, we must invest in ongoing professional development, instructional coaching, differentiated academic supports (including RTI and MTSS) and behavioral supports, so every educator has the tools to meet students' diverse needs and every student has the opportunity to succeed.
Equity requires more than equal distribution of resources; it requires targeted investments that ensure students with the greatest needs receive the support necessary to thrive. I believe strongly in the principle of targeted universalism: when we design systems and services that effectively support students who face the greatest barriers, the benefits extend to all students. As John F. Kennedy said, “a rising tide lifts all boats;” Investments in inclusive practices strengthen entire communities.
Strong governance also requires meaningful public engagement, transparent decision-making, and accountability structures (such as a public data dashboard). I advocated for the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Community Engagement, and am proud of the recommendations we brought to the full Board in June. Now, it's time to implement them as the district navigates significant decisions related to enrollment systems, budgeting, and school portfolio planning in the years ahead.
What are your top accomplishments?
During my term as commissioner, the Board has:
-
adopted a balanced 2025–26 budget while advancing a multi-year fiscal stabilization plan, moving SFUSD from negative to qualified certification and positioning the district for positive certification next school year;
-
adopted new curriculum in English language arts, math, social studies, history, and ethnic studies, providing educators with stronger instructional tools and creating greater stability and coherence across the district;
-
modernized outdated financial and HR systems through the implementation of Frontline and Red Rover, improving operational effectiveness and helping ensure employees are paid accurately and on time;
-
passed a $790 million bond to modernize schools and build a new central food preparation kitchen;
-
reached multi-year agreements with all labor partners, including historic dependent health care benefits for educators; and
-
successfully implemented a major districtwide Transitional Kindergarten expansion, increasing access to early learning opportunities for families across San Francisco.
Above and beyond the accomplishments of our Board as a whole, I have brought a data-driven, special education advocate and parent perspective to the Board. I consistently ask whether SFUSD's policies, budgets, and investments are actually improving outcomes for students. I have:
-
helped advance literacy reform: as a longtime literacy advocate, I have pushed SFUSD toward research-aligned structured literacy and stronger ELA curriculum. I have specifically pressed the District to ensure instructional practices reflect established research and best practices.
-
made student outcomes a central focus of budgeting: I have consistently pushed the District to connect spending decisions to student outcomes and to ask whether investments are producing results (particularly in literacy, math, special education, and other areas where students need additional support). I focus on how resources are allocated and how the District measures impact.
-
been a persistent advocate for students with disabilities: this is arguably the most distinctive part of my Board record, building directly on my years of advocacy before taking office. I have continued to press the District on special education staffing, budgeting, contracting, services, and accountability.
-
asked hard questions about whether SFUSD's systems are actually working: my recurring focus is on data, research, accountability, and implementation. I don't simply want to adopt new policies, but instead I ask how the District will know whether they are working.
What is your position on algebra in middle schools?
I am a firm believer in offering more choices and opportunities to students. The evidence supporting recent changes to the middle school math sequence is encouraging, but it also underscores why we must proceed thoughtfully and continue to monitor outcomes.
Stanford research and SFUSD pilot data show that offering Algebra as an eighth-grade elective can produce significant gains in both state and local assessment scores, with students continuing to perform strongly in high school. Data shows that demand for the piloted elective was much higher than anticipated. For example, Aptos Middle School structured their elective as opt-out, and encouraged all students to participate even if they did not feel prepared. School leaders initially planned for three sections of the elective, yet enough students opted in to support five sections in the first year of implementation. Students enrolled in both Math 8 and the Algebra elective received a “double dose” of math instruction, and outcomes improved substantially. The school also saw increases in state and local test scores, attributed in no small part to a culture of collaborative learning and high expectations.
The evidence also suggests that simply placing all students into Algebra early is not the same as providing meaningful access to advanced mathematics. The Algebra for All pilot produced no notable test-score gains. Administrators reported that students who skipped Math 8 or opted for the compression course often arrived in Algebra with gaps in foundational concepts such as linear equations. Some students subsequently repeated Algebra in ninth grade, while students entering Geometry had missed many concepts that supported their success.
We need more disaggregated data before drawing definitive conclusions, particularly about students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students affected by pandemic-related learning loss. The strongest evidence supports expanding access to Algebra while preserving Math 8 as a critical foundation. We must also recognize that n`ot every student wants to accelerate. Any change must be accompanied by adequate instructional planning time, intervention, staffing, family engagement, and ongoing progress monitoring.
What are your thoughts on school closures?
I was initially a vocal opponent of school closures. I disagree with the manner in which we conducted our 2024 Resource Alignment Initiative (RAI) process and believe we violated our own community engagement guardrails. By not fully and transparently engaging with our school communities, we lost a huge amount of trust and goodwill in the process.
I now believe we need to have a much more public, honest, and inclusive conversation about portfolio alignment. Let’s be clear: closing schools won’t save money. Rather, aligning our number of schools and facilities with enrollment could allow us to concentrate resources across fewer, better-resourced campuses and improve the quality of learning environments.
Our system has not adjusted to sustained enrollment decline, creating ongoing challenges for equity, staffing, and resource allocation. Enrollment has declined significantly and is projected to continue to decrease. Currently, we have approximately 14,000 empty seats across our system. Yet SFUSD continues to operate the same number of school sites (more than 100). This creates a structural mismatch, resulting in the district operating buildings well below capacity. We spend disproportionate amounts on facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative staff that could otherwise fund teacher salaries and academic programs. Many elementary campuses now operate with only a single classroom per grade level, or even split classes with multiple grades. It becomes harder to consistently offer robust academic programming, enrichment opportunities, and specialized services across all schools.
SFUSD’s upcoming work to redesign its school portfolio is intended to better align the number and configuration of schools with enrollment realities. We want to create a district where every school will have a principal, assistant principal, and qualified educators, including a librarian, arts and PE instructors, and additional staff members tailored to meet student needs. Every school should have a full-time social worker and nurse, a Wellness Center with robust mental health supports, and academic interventionists that ensure all students’ needs are met.
By centering student outcomes and strengthening equity, we can build a school portfolio that creates more stable, well-resourced learning environments for all students and closes our equity gap. However, no portfolio redesign will be successful without robust engagement and ultimately community buy-in. School communities, students, educators, and families must be at the forefront of these decisions.
What are your plans to increase enrollment in our public schools?
District enrollment has declined by more than 30,000 students since its peak in the late twentieth century, with projections indicating continued decreases in the years ahead. This mirrors a broader statewide trend: California school enrollment has been declining for nearly a decade, particularly sharply during the pandemic, with pronounced impacts in coastal districts like San Francisco. However, Transitional Kindergarten (TK) has helped stabilize enrollment. Since California’s Universal TK expansion accelerated in 2022, SFUSD’s TK programming has been a source of growth for the district.
In order to continue to grow enrollment, or stop the decline in upper grades, we must not only continue to attract families into our TK programs, but keep them in our schools beyond their earliest years. We see a significant enrollment drop between elementary school and middle school, and another drop in enrollment between middle school and high school.
Growing our public schools is about more than streamlining enrollment, simplifying paperwork, or changing assignment algorithms. It requires building trust in our public institution, and giving families a reason to enroll their children in our schools. It is about creating a system that families can understand and access equitably. A growing and thriving system reduces barriers, increases transparency, strengthens neighborhood community schools, builds programs that families want, and ensures that every student has access to high-quality educational opportunities throughout the district.
We know that when our schools are thoughtfully resourced and aligned with community priorities, families are more likely to choose and stay in SFUSD. That’s why we are investing in programs that meet demonstrated community needs, including community schools, a new Mandarin Immersion school, and a county-level special education school. It’s why we are revisiting our student assignment system and school portfolio over the next few years to ensure we are meeting community needs. These investments can strengthen our schools, expand educational options, help retain families in the district, and attract families back into our schools.
How will you stabilize SFUSD's budget?
SFUSD is on track to self-certify a positive First Interim Budget in December 2026. This means we will have sufficient revenue and reserves to meet our financial obligations not only for the upcoming school year, but for the following two years as well.
Achieving a balanced budget is a major milestone for SFUSD and an important step toward long-term financial stability. Reaching this point has required years of hard work and difficult decisions. Over the past five years, we have invested in new ERP systems, developed position control procedures, implemented fiscal stabilization plans, and made significant and painful budget reductions to put the district on a more sustainable financial path.
While this progress is worth recognizing, our work is not finished. The next phase, which we began this year and discussed extensively during our June Board meetings, is ensuring that every dollar we spend is student-centered and equity-based. Our goal is not only to maintain fiscal stability, but also to align our investments with the needs of our students and our commitment to educational rigor, excellence, and equity. We must close our equity gap. This includes re-investing in restorative practices and multi-tiered systems of support. It includes revisiting the current school staffing model to ensure that school funding is baseline-sufficient to meet student needs.
While we made significant shifts to our school based staffing model as part of our Fiscal Stabilization Plan, I believe our current staffing model is not baseline-sufficient to meet student needs. As I shared during the April 28 Board meeting, the cuts and projected savings embedded in our staffing model are, in many cases, exacerbating our structural deficit in unintended ways. During our March 4 budget study, we discussed how chronic absenteeism has a greater impact on SFUSD’s budget deficit than declining enrollment, yet we have eliminated many of the very positions designed to address attendance and student engagement. At my own son’s school, Mission High School, the loss of the attendance clerk and reductions to Wellness Center staffing have contributed to rising chronic absenteeism, demonstrating how staffing cuts can create downstream academic and fiscal consequences. Investing today’s resources in today’s students can improve student outcomes and reduce long-term costs. By ensuring students receive the supports they need early on, we can prevent many challenges from escalating into the need for more intensive and costly intervention services later.
I have also consistently raised concerns about the long-term costs of contracting out key services, particularly in special education. SFUSD continues to spend significant resources on outside contractors and non-public school placements because we have not sufficiently invested in recruiting and retaining the credentialed staff needed to provide those services in-house. Fully staffing our schools is not only better for students and families; it is also a more sustainable fiscal strategy. I remain committed to working with district leadership to strengthen recruitment and retention efforts and reduce our dependence on costly outside providers.
What is your position on Ethnic Studies as a year-long course required for graduation?
I’m in favor! Ethnic studies is not only an SFUSD graduation requirement per Board Policy 6146.1, but it’s also a state mandate per Assembly Bill 101.
One of our top three goals, Goal #3, is ensuring students graduate prepared for college and careers. Ethnic studies is a proven strategy to help meet this goal. Ethnic studies classes build strong critical thinking skills by exploring history and society from multiple cultural viewpoints.
Recent research shows that, in SFUSD, taking students taking ethnic studies raises student GPAs by an average of 0.17 points, lowers the likelihood of failing a class by 5.6 points, and has lead to 15% increase in students meeting the GPA required for UC admission. While improvements were noticeable for all students, the strongest gains were experienced by Black and Latinx students, male students, and those with lower prior academic performance.
Ethnic studies participants feel a deeper sense of belonging, pride, and self-worth, leading to increased attendance. Investing in ethnic studies is a direct investment in academic excellence and student achievement.
Does tech such as AI belong in our schools?
Technology can and should be a tool that enhances teaching and learning, not a substitute for great educators, meaningful relationships, or sound judgment. Every decision about technology in our schools should be guided by two questions: Who benefits? Does it improve student outcomes while promoting equity, safety, and well-being?
The Board is launching an Ad Hoc Committee on Tech Usage this year to develop updated tech policies for our district. The goal is to develop and adopt clear standards for transparency, accountability, privacy protections, and ongoing monitoring so that families and educators understand when and how AI and other tech is being used, what data is being collected, and how student information is protected. For example, I have continuously questioned the effectiveness of our AI-based reading screener, Amira. The anecdotal information that has been shared with me by parents and educators makes me question its reliability and impact on student outcomes. I will push for more data around Amira and similar AI instructional tools this school year.
While AI presents exciting opportunities, it also comes with huge risks and many uncertainties that require thoughtful governance. There is growing evidence that tech tools have negative long term learning consequences. AI tools should be evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, and used intentionally to support high-quality instruction. They should assist educators, not replace them, and human oversight must remain central to decisions that affect students. Tools must ease administrative burden to educators and administrators, not add to it. Until we have a comprehensive policy on AI usage in our school district, I support a moratorium on its usage.
We must regularly assess for bias, evaluate outcomes across student groups, and be willing to adjust or discontinue tools that are not serving students equitably.
The February 2026 UESF strike was a powerful reminder of how deeply public schools and educators are woven into the fabric of San Francisco. Watching students, families, educators, labor partners, community members, and local and state leaders come together in solidarity demonstrated the profound commitment to public education and to the people who make our schools function every day. The strike showed the entire state and country that San Francisco loves its public schools and educators. Our community believes that investing in students, classrooms, and school-based supports is not optional; it is essential.
At the same time, the strike was a difficult and disruptive experience for students, families, and educators. It also exposed a significant breakdown in trust between the district and its labor partners. While I am proud that we ultimately reached a two-year agreement that provides fully funded dependent health care benefits and meaningful investments in our educators, I believe we must learn from how we got there. Collective bargaining should be a process of partnership, transparency, and problem-solving, not one that requires a crisis before the parties can reach common ground.
The strike highlighted the importance of protecting the social safety net within schools, including Wellness Centers, social workers, and wraparound supports that many students and families rely upon every day. The way the city collectively lifted and highlighted this work reaffirmed why I continue to live and serve in San Francisco.
I also believe that our agreement doesn’t go far enough: our special educators have been asking for years for more manageable caseloads and support. We have yet to address their reasonable requests.
Our Board and leadership team have made significant investments in strengthening our systems of fiscal oversight and discipline. Aligning resources for maximum impact is more critical than ever.
Our responsibility now is to honor the agreement, rebuild trust with our labor partners, and ensure that the investments we make in educators and students are financially sustainable. Strong labor partnerships and fiscal stability are not competing goals; they are essential to one another.
What are your thoughts about February's educator strike?
