Greetings Board of Education Commissioners,
Over the past several weeks, SF Parents has been closely following the Board’s discussions about enrollment. We have attended the study sessions, collected input with our enrollment survey, and talked with families across a spectrum of experience with the lottery process about what the proposed changes could mean for the future. So far, the message has been consistent: families want the predictability of a guaranteed school close to home, but many also want the option to choose something different when that school is not the right fit.
Since early September, 263 parents have responded to our enrollment poll. It is an informal, self-selected survey, but the pattern was clear.
- Three-quarters (75%) named having a school close to home as one of their top two priorities, and 37% named knowing in advance which school their child will attend.
- Given a direct tradeoff, 54% chose a guaranteed school close to home even with fewer choices, 31% wanted a balance between the two, and 11% preferred more choice without knowing where their child would be assigned.
- Parents’ comments show that for most, the guarantee is a floor rather than a ceiling. As one wrote: “Balance between predictability and choice. Guaranteed school close to home, option to apply to City-wide programs or other schools.”
Of the three options currently under consideration, we believe that Option 2 — Neighborhood + All Schools — best balances those priorities. Option 2 gives families a clear anchor while recognizing the reality that a family’s guaranteed neighborhood school will not always be the right fit for their child. It is the only scenario under consideration that preserves families’ ability to choose another SFUSD school outside of a small zone or their guaranteed neighborhood school, other than citywide programs, when space at other programs is available.
Families choose schools for many reasons: proximity to home or work or caregivers, start times, school culture, transportation, aftercare programs, and their child’s particular needs. Schools in the same neighborhood can differ enormously, and as one parent in our poll put it, “families must not be locked into just one school.” For many kids, the school closest to home is not necessarily the one that is the best fit. The district’s 2026 enrollment highlights show that only 28% of incoming kindergarten students listed their AA as their first choice, and only 53% included it somewhere on their list. Proximity matters most to families as a dependable guarantee, not as a mandate.
Our goal is to make public school the best option for students in San Francisco. But it is important to remember, as one parent told us, that “Families have choice. And whether it’s the choice within SFUSD or it’s a choice of private or religious or whatever it is, if you strip that away, I think you’re gonna lose a lot of people.” At a time when SFUSD needs to retain and attract students, we should be very cautious about creating an enrollment system that gives families fewer reasons to stay.
We support investing in schools that families have historically been less likely to choose. But improving academic outcomes and building confidence across every SFUSD school will require sustained work over many years. Families will continue making enrollment decisions in the meantime, and changing the enrollment system cannot substitute for improving schools or force those improvements to happen. The Board must design an enrollment system for the schools and families San Francisco has today, and not for the system we hope to have years from now.
That is also why we urge the Board to carefully consider the equity implications of reducing choice, particularly for Black and Latino families. San Francisco’s neighborhoods reflect a long history of racial and economic segregation, and an enrollment system that restricts families largely based on geography risks reproducing those patterns in our schools and limiting options for the families SFUSD most needs to serve equitably. The small-zone proposal raises its own equity questions, particularly while zone boundaries and a potential socioeconomic tiebreaker remain unresolved. There is an important difference between guaranteeing every family a neighborhood school, which we strongly support, and significantly limiting families’ choices based on where they live.
Our data also has limits. We heard disproportionately from families in the west-side and central neighborhoods, and think the district should focus more efforts on outreach with Black and Latino families, as well as those who will be most affected by the loss or replacement of CTIP. Before changing how families enroll in elementary schools, the Board needs to hear from the families who will be navigating that system.
Before selecting a model to build out in October, we respectfully ask the Board to:
- Preserve Option 2 for consideration and seriously evaluate a model that provides both a guaranteed neighborhood school and the opportunity to apply to other non-citywide programs within SFUSD.
- Direct the District to conduct meaningful parent engagement, including and especially with Black and Latino families and families currently entering SFUSD, whose experiences and choices will be directly affected by this change.
- Evaluate the enrollment models based on the schools and conditions that exist today, while pursuing the separate and essential work of making every SFUSD school one that families are excited to choose.
SF Parents shares the Board’s goals of making enrollment more predictable, improving equity, and ensuring that every family has access to a great public school. But we should be careful not to mistake restricting families’ choices for solving the underlying reasons they make those choices. Predictability and choice do not have to be competing values.
We look forward to working with you and bringing more parent voices into this conversation before October 13th.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Kee
Executive Director
San Francisco Parents Coalition