Item C.1 School Reorganization #3 (presentation link here)
Perhaps reacting to some of the concerns raised during Public Comment, Superintendent Su reminded everyone that the evening’s meeting is a study session to narrow down the options for next week. Furthermore, while there is a vote on 10/13, she further contextualized that while it will be setting broad direction, from there she promises significant community engagement to address concerns and non-negotiables for the chosen path forward.
Staff presented the presentation slide by slide, highlighting some of the preferences of different constituencies for Option A and B. Overall, Options A and B had similar levels of popularity, while Option C lagged far behind.
Capacity Match (slides 23-27) – as multiple plans are guaranteeing seats, SFUSD has been doing significant work looking at current and future capacity. To address this, there are two main solutions:
- Half of shortages can be addressed by moving boundaries, though zones drawn by staff (currently) might be more optimistic than final changes proposed by future demography work
- Changing citywide schools to neighborhood schools and/or turning language seats into neighborhood seats, would address the rest of the capacity challenges
When staff presented Slide 28 which outlines the major areas of implementation consideration (Programs, Enrollment, Staffing, Facilities, Transportation, Technology) and risk, it became clear that changing to the Small Zone Option would be quite challenging with current staffing.
Some highlights from the Q&A with the board (not all attributed as there were some camera and audio issues throughout the meeting):
- “Are we really proposing cuts to language pathway programs?”
- Dr. Su responded that seats would be moved, not necessarily cut, to make room in neighborhoods for general education seats
- Staff mentioned that diversity tie-breakers would have additional impact on capacity planning.
- Vice President Huling asked if moving to the neighborhood model would diversify schools.
- Staff responded that there is some evidence that there may be increased racial diversity, but potentially less socioeconomic diversity
- Commissioner Fisher asked, “how can we do this without discussing Special Ed?”
- Dr. Su responded that they are asking for general direction from the board to then figure out for the selected options what this would look like.
- Vice President Huling asked if Option B isn’t just the lottery without CTIP.
- Staff pointed out that there is more certainty to get neighborhood school, though Commissioner Huling didn’t seem to appreciate the peace of mind this provides to applicants. Her justification for this position was that a high percentage of applicants currently get into their neighborhood school in the lottery system.
- Commissioner Ray smartly made the point that the uncertainty of the lottery turns off a lot of potential students/families, so there is a real difference in knowing that you can attend your neighborhood school.
- President Kim posed to the room that “how we implement a choice impacts which option I would choose”… then asked “what is the short list of things that we should assume are protected (in each option)?” (this was a bit rhetorical, but perhaps will be addressed by staff on 10/13)
- Answering confusion from one commissioner about why we were making a change to enrollment, Commissioner Alexander clearly stated that “we need to challenge enrollment so we don’t have underenrolled schools, and so we have fully-resourced schools for marginalized students.” This was echoed by Ray, “We have 19,000 empty seats, we will have to make significant decisions to properly resource schools.”
- Commissioner Ray questioned giving feedback to Staff that evening, as how the Community Survey is still open until 10/9. In reply, Commissioner Alexander, striking a practical note, said “the survey matters, staff have reflected their input well. Option A doesn’t work, as it creates a mini-lottery and does not remove the anxiety (of the lottery).”
President Kim, recognizing the discussion could go on forever, called for a straw poll to get SFUSD the feedback they needed to prepare for the 10/13 meeting. In the first straw poll Option A was eliminated – it had only 2 votes, while each of the other options had 6. In the second straw poll between B and C, the audio for the meeting was not clear, so we couldn’t hear the exact straw votes between Option B and Option C, but someone in the room reported that they each got 6 votes to remain in discussion, and both will be on the table at next week’s meeting.
Our Take
Tuesday’s meeting left us with some big concerns. Parents have been clear about what they want, but it’s not clear the Board is listening. Option C received the least support from families in the feedback presented to commissioners, yet it is now one of only two options moving forward.
At the same time, parts of the discussion raised questions about whether all commissioners fully understand how enrollment works today, what families actually experience, and how these options would change that experience.
Parents have spent months learning about these proposals, showing up, filling out surveys, and giving feedback. Parents did the homework. We should expect the people making this decision to do the same, and to show families that their input actually matters.
The Board takes its next step on October 13, and we’re turning parents out. If you care about where this lands, this is the meeting to show up for. Parents have been clear. Let’s make sure the Board hears us.