During public comment we heard from a number of teachers and parents concerned about technology in schools. Concerns range from the use of Amira in the classroom to unsupervised laptop use on campus, especially afterschool.
Item G.2 Progress Monitoring Workshop on Student Outcomes: Goal 2 (Summative) (presentation link here)
Background from our Cheat Sheet:
During the 2025-26 school year, SFUSD implemented its new K-8 math curriculum. In Spring 2026, students in grades 3 through 8 took the state’s Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments (SBAC) in Math. Topline results:
- 45% of SFUSD 8th graders performed math at grade level on the SBAC last year, a 4% improvement from the 2024-25 school year
- There is a significant racial disparity in math outcomes. Although 66.1% of Asian and 62.6% of white 8th graders performed at grade level in 2024-25:
- Only 7.1% of African American 8th graders were proficient
- Only 9.5% of Pacific Islander 8th graders were proficient
- Only 16.9% of Hispanic/Latino 8th graders were proficient
- Only 7% of 8th grade English learners were proficient
- Only 12.8% of 8th graders receiving Special Education programs were proficient
- Only 32% of socioeconomically disadvantaged 8th graders were proficient
District staff took the board through the SBAC data, then highlighted what SFUSD is doing to implement the new curriculum and improve outcomes, but also shared some challenges.
- SFUSD staff praised the HR department for filling additional middle school math positions, enabling both the expansion of math offerings for 8th grade, and Math Labs to help struggling students.
- The complexity of last year’s new Secondary Math Policy led to unpredictable enrollment patterns, impacting scheduling, budgets and staffing in late Spring 2026.
- Slides 18-19 outline the district’s plan for improvement for 2026-27, with associated metrics they will be tracking – for example, to track teacher collaboration, staff will track “The percent of Math departments that meet at least once per month to collaborate on unit internalization.” Much of this centers around professional development, coaching, site leader training, and Tier II and III support.
Questions from the Commissioners:
- A number of Commissioners, including Alexander and Weissman-Ward asked specific questions about what is working and why are certain things happening (e.g. big increase for Filipino students, drop for African American students). The common refrain from district staff was “we don’t know yet” but they also added that they are doing extensive learning walks to better understand. It also became clear that the district should do some cohort analysis if it is going to break out performance by group.
- Commissioner Ray asked, “to what extent are we seeing students struggle with persistence, and if significant, what are we doing to support this?”
- Superintendent Davis answered, “Good teachers give them encouragement, some help, but not the answers.” and also added the importance of celebrating when a student struggles to try to solve a problem, not just getting the right answer.
- President Kim pointed out that the 8th grade data likely reflects learning over the past 3-5 years, then asked, “how much of this is just a “COVID rebound?” (as the Pre-COVID baseline was 50% proficiency)
- Dr. Su said “excellent question” and the district data lead answered “time will tell.”
- Along a similar vein, Commissioner Gupta asked, “what does data show in similar school districts? Both in terms of a COVID bounceback trends, focal student challenges?” (there was no direct response to this question, but such a comparison might shed some light on at least the broad trends)
- Commissioner Fisher asked a very practical question to end the evening “I’m convinced about learning walks, love the focus on student ownership, but do we have enough resources in place to implement what we want to do?”
- Dr. Su partly answered this question, addressing the workload of Middle School Principals (though not the budgetary side of things), saying, “we are currently engaging with principals to map out their responsibilities, better understand their loads, and see what they can move to central office leads.”
At the end of the discussion, President Kim reminded the Board that they had previously agreed they could not accept a Progress Monitoring Report until Dr. Su submits a new Goal to replace the 65% proficiency for 2028, which is clearly not realistically achievable at this point. As such, they voted “No” unanimously to reject the report.