TLDR: In a 5-2 vote, the SFUSD Board of Education backed Option C, despite family feedback strongly favoring other options. Even more concerning? District leaders admitted it could take 5–10 years to bring neighborhood schools up to a high standard, while the new assignment system is expected to begin in 2028. Commissioners Ray and Fisher voted NO, raising concerns about parent choice, equity, and whether the district can deliver on its promises. Families asked for predictability AND choice. The Board chose to limit choice before delivering on its promises to improve schools.
During public comment, SF Parents leaders and staff were able to share their concerns about the enrollment options. As parent leader Stephanie Falkenstein said, “Outcomes should not be determined by street address,” particularly when SFUSD has not invested equally in schools. She urged commissioners to listen to parents and select Option B.
Item I.1 Action Item: Approval of Fiscal Year 2025-26 Unaudited Financial Report (presentation link here, report link here)
SFUSD staff presented the district’s unaudited financial results for the 2025-26 fiscal year. The biggest takeaway was that actual spending was very close to the adopted budget, with only about a 1% variance.
Commissioners praised the financial team for its work and improved budgeting processes.
- Commissioner Gupta asked how the district could maintain this level of financial accuracy. Staff explained that financial processes have been standardized and documented.
- Commissioner Alexander asked about spending patterns shown in the presentation. Staff explained that programs proposed after the budget is adopted often do not move forward, contributing to the pattern.
- Commissioner Fisher asked whether school leaders are now being included in budget conversations so their priorities can be reflected in future budgets.
Vote: PASSED 7-0. All commissioners voted YES.
Items H.1 and I.2 / I.3 Discussion and Action Item: School Reorganization, Elementary School Assignment Policy Direction (presentation link here, Resolution for Option B link here, Resolution for Option C link here)
First, a Reminder: What’s the Difference Between Options B and C?
|
Option B: Neighborhood + All Schools |
Option C: Neighborhood + Citywide Programs |
|---|---|
|
Neighborhood school guarantee |
Neighborhood school guarantee |
|
Families can apply to other schools across the district |
Families generally limited to neighborhood schools and designated citywide programs |
|
Preserves broader family choice |
Significantly limits family choice |
Both options offer more predictability. The key difference is whether families retain meaningful choice beyond their neighborhood school.
Superintendent Su Recommends Option C, Despite Parent Feedback
Superintendent Dr. Su recommended Option C, acknowledging that her recommendation went against what families had expressed in community feedback. She argued that Option B would preserve the status quo and described Option C as the more “brave and bold” choice, one that would push SFUSD to improve every neighborhood school.
But both options offered neighborhood school guarantees. Option B would also preserve families’ ability to apply to other schools.
The central contradiction? Su recommended limiting family choice even though the district acknowledged it cannot deliver on its vision for neighborhood schools by 2028.
What Commissioners Said
Commissioner Fisher: Where is the plan, and why aren’t we listening to parents? Fisher raised some of the most important questions of the night, pressing district leadership on its promises to families, particularly historically underserved communities. She questioned how the Board could move forward without a clear plan for improving schools, pointing to years of broken promises. She also directly challenged the recommendation for Option C when family feedback pointed elsewhere:
“The results of the survey did not get us to Option C.” Fisher asked why the Board would limit family choice when the district acknowledged schools would not all be improved by 2028. She also pushed for clarity on how future community engagement would actually influence decisions.
Commissioner Ray: Follow the evidence and listen to families
Ray made a strong, evidence-based case for Option B, consistently bringing the conversation back to what families said they wanted. She emphasized that the Board should choose a system that keeps families in SFUSD, reduces enrollment losses, and responds to parent feedback.
“From the evidence we have right now … we should pick Option B.” Ray also challenged concerns about late-enrolling students, pointing out that SFUSD already has data that could help address those issues. She later raised concerns about the order of voting, which meant Option B never received a vote.
Commissioner Weissman-Ward: How long will improvements take? Weissman-Ward questioned why Option C was considered the more ambitious choice when SFUSD needs to invest in all schools regardless of the assignment system. Her questions prompted one of the night’s biggest revelations:
- Dr. Su: SFUSD cannot make every neighborhood school “top tier” within two years.
- John Davis: Improving schools could take 5–10 years, likely closer to 10.
That means families could lose meaningful school choice years before the district delivers the improvements it is promising.
Other Commissioner Comments
- Alexander: Acknowledged Option B was not the status quo but viewed Option C as more visionary, particularly for underserved families.
- Gupta: Compared Option B to the current lottery, despite its proposed neighborhood school guarantee.
- Huling: Argued that Option B would result in “the lottery, but with more segregation.”
- Kim: Acknowledged that Option C was not yet a complete policy but supported giving staff direction, with more information expected November 10.
A Confusing and Chaotic Meeting Process
The meeting itself was difficult to follow at times. Facilitation felt chaotic, public comment appeared to be taken out of order, and the process for moving through discussion and votes was not always clear. For a decision this consequential, families deserved a meeting that was organized, transparent, and easy to follow. The voting process raised additional concerns. Because Option C was the superintendent’s recommendation, it was brought forward for a vote first. Once it passed, the Board did not vote on Option B.
Commissioner Ray raised concerns about how the order of the votes may have shaped the outcome.
The Vote: Option C Passes 5-2
Voting YES (5): Alexander, Gupta, Huling, Weissman-Ward, Kim
Voting NO (2): Ray, Fisher
FINAL VOTE: OPTION C PASSES 5-2.
The vote directs SFUSD to develop Option C into a new elementary school assignment policy. It is not the final adoption of all policy details, and additional decisions and implementation planning remain ahead.
OUR TAKE: FAMILIES CAN’T WAIT A DECADE FOR BETTER SCHOOLS.
The Board heard what parents wanted and voted for something else. Superintendent Su recommended Option C despite family feedback favoring other options, and five commissioners backed her recommendation.
Even more concerning? SFUSD admits it could take 5–10 years to improve neighborhood schools. That means children entering kindergarten under the new system in 2028 could finish elementary school before those improvements are fully in place.
Families want predictability AND meaningful choice. They shouldn’t have to give up one while waiting for the district to deliver the other.
Commissioners Ray and Fisher deserve credit for asking tough questions, challenging the district’s assumptions, and lifting up parent voices. Their questions highlighted serious concerns about equity, school quality, and whether SFUSD can deliver on its promises.
And the process matters, too. When families are already questioning whether their voices are being heard, a confusing meeting and voting process only makes it harder to build trust.
This vote isn’t the finish line. SFUSD still has to develop the policy, and parents deserve a real voice in what comes next.