• Office: School Board
• Election Date: November 5, 2024
• Candidate: Supryia Ray
• Due Date: May 31, 2024
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the November 5, 2024 election! GrowSF believes in a growing, beautiful, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city delivered via common sense solutions and effective government. Our work includes running public opinion polls to understand what voters want, advocating for those changes, and ensuring that the SF government represents the people.

The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco.

This questionnaire will be published on growsf.org, and so we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

Please complete this questionnaire by May 31, 2024 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

Note: This questionnaire will use the initialism “SFUSD” when referring to the San Francisco Unified School District.

• Your Goals
• Executive experience
• The Issues
  • Budget
  • Curriculum
  • Bullying & violence
  • Teachers
  • School assignment system
  • General information
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Goals

We'd like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.

Why are you running for School Board?

I’m running for the School Board because I have the knowledge and experience from advocating with other parents over the past four years to ensure all kids have the access and opportunity to reach their potential. For too long, School Boards have failed to listen to families and other key stakeholders in SFUSD.

We need to make our schools places that more kids, families, and teachers want to come—and stay. If elected, my priorities will be the budget, safety, and excellence. Every kid can grow and thrive with the right support and opportunities.

I also know from experience, growing up with tremendous adversity, how important schools are as places of safety, stability, and opportunity. I got all the way to Harvard Law School, and I am a lawyer and writer today. I’ve also had experience in the classroom teaching English as a Second Language and other subjects to adults.

I have the knowledge, ability, and courage to serve effectively on the Board from Day 1. I am the only candidate who declined to sign the Teachers’ Union pledge—not out of disrespect to teachers, but to fulfill an officeholder’s duty to all the people: to obtain input from various stakeholders and communities and to make principled decisions based on all the facts and information available.

I will stay focused on what we all want: safe, high-quality schools. I would be honored to have your support.

What is your #1 policy goal?

My three overall priorities are the budget, safety, and excellence. My #1 policy goal – to improve attendance throughout the District and at all levels, by reducing absences and tardiness – touches upon all three.

Kids can’t benefit from the education or support the District offers if they are not in school, whatever the reason (e.g., safety concerns, motivational issues, transportation problems). Moreover, boosting attendance for all students is the strategy most likely to ensure that SFUSD meets its instructional goals for literacy, math, and college and career readiness. Further, increasing Average Daily Attendance brings more revenue to SFUSD (state funding is tied to this metric) and gives families more reason to remain in or return to our public schools.

As a Board member, I will propose adding attendance to the District’s three current goals – 3rd grade literacy, 8th grade math, and college and career readiness – all of which depend significantly on student attendance. The Superintendent and his staff would then be responsible for setting interim goals, and the Board would be able to monitor progress and hold the Superintendent accountable for results. Prioritizing attendance would also send a clear signal about the foundational importance of attendance to school communities throughout the District.

Improving attendance will require a massive community engagement and education program to understand what challenges students face in getting to school on time and to help families understand and support the District’s attendance requirements. We will also need to engage with the City and County of San Francisco to address housing, transportation, and other obstacles under their purview. SFUSD needs to bring together all stakeholders in a shared commitment to solidify equitable and effective practices and goals to drive continuous improvement for “every student, every period, every day,” so to speak.

By the end of my first term, I hope SFUSD will be well on its way to recognition as one of California’s model school attendance review boards:

https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr24/yr24rel29.asp

We can learn from these boards, which have committed to serving as role models and providing support to other districts, and we should!

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal?

Building coalitions and support to advance goals is what I’ve been doing for more than four years with parents throughout SFUSD. Through my work as a parent organizer, both in community groups and at Jefferson Elementary School, which my kids attended, I have emphasized shared needs and common goals that unite parents in all communities: safe schools, providing quality educational opportunities, reinforced at home. This approach builds coalitions within schools and the larger community in order to drive change.

Drawing on my experience in law, education, and public service, I’ve led efforts for outdoor learning and collaborated on issues ranging from reopening and safety to literacy and math. For example, I have:

• Organized advocacy at Board meetings to improve math and literacy curricula;

• Organized community advocacy for outdoor learning through meetings, email campaigns, public comment, and informational materials;

• Advocated for safety improvements districtwide and to address safety breaches at Jefferson;

• Helped Spanish-speaking mothers advocate for outdoor learning and safety at Everett Middle School;

• Led community efforts to obtain bond funding for outdoor spaces districtwide;

• Helped secure grants for outdoor learning at A.P. Giannini Middle School, Drew Elementary School, Jefferson, & the Mission Education Center; and

• Organized a Zoom-In at Jefferson during the school closures.

Every family, business, and community depends on good schools for our future as a city. I will be a School Board member who will work with colleagues to rebuild trust so we can get the help we need for thriving schools and a thriving city.

Will the power of the office of School Board be enough to achieve this goal?

Yes, but we all have to do this work together. In addition to providing oversight, one of the key roles of a School Board member in SFUSD is community outreach and engagement. SF Parent Action’s endorsement of my campaign is a validation of my years of listening to and collaborating with parents across the city. As parents, we have sought to be heard and to be part of the District’s decision-making about school openings and closings, responsive and effective curriculum, and school safety. If I am elected, I’ll bring those values and experiences and, together with my colleagues on the Board and other stakeholders in SFUSD, create the change we have been seeking for all kids.

What are your #2 and #3 policy goals?

The District’s ability to attract and retain families will largely depend upon the decisions the current Board will make later this year regarding school closures and resource alignment. The new Board will be tasked with overseeing the implementation of those decisions. Thus, my #2 policy goal is to ensure strong academic and other support for students and teachers at their existing and newly assigned schools. Without Board members asking the right questions and keeping SFUSD staff focused on the need to support students and teachers who find themselves in new environments, SFUSD will be unable to keep families from leaving or give families a reason to return.

While emerging from the budget crisis is my top priority, it is unclear today how much authority School Board members will have in 2025 and how much will be assumed by the state (even if we are not in a full state “takeover”). The power that remains with the Board will still be critical, however. For example, the Board can work with City Hall (e.g., Mayor’s Office, MTA, DCYF) to align transit routes to new schools, promote parental and community involvement, engage libraries, and support student mental health to smooth the transition to new school environments. Taking such steps would help families and school staff, increase educational attainment, and foster economic and community support for schools.

My #3 policy goal relates to the threshold issue of school safety. Students and staff are entitled to the assurance of a safe learning and working environment. I have seen the worry and despair at my school and other schools of families who are frustrated from fruitless efforts to obtain facility improvements for safety, emergency protocols on intrusions or safety risks, cooperation from city agencies, and transparency from school officials. I have also heard the concerns of site staff regarding the need to create a coherent and evidence-based disciplinary policy for the District. As a Board member, I will have a better view of the obstacles and will bring new energy to prevention, planning and response to incidents, and systemic issues. Every child and staff member must be safe in school.

Will the power of the office of School Board be enough to achieve these goals?

It’s wrong to overpromise what an individual School Board member or the Board as a whole can do. We need to be truthful and transparent with the public, not foster unrealistic expectations, to regain trust. For example, the best fiscal planning and implementation is done daily by District staff, not Board members who meet periodically, lack access to all the data, and are limited by the Brown Act in communicating with each other between meetings. Board members must ask the right questions, oversee implementation, and hold the Superintendent accountable for carrying out Board policy and meeting stated goals.

But it’s also wrong to see the Board’s power as insufficient to achieve these goals. I am committed to tapping into civic, community, business, and other networks to gain the support necessary for the District to implement these goals. I’ve spent years as a teacher, lawyer, public-interest advocate, and, yes, parent using listening, mediating, and decision-making skills. I will be respectful of every stakeholder, collaborate where we agree, and seek to persuade where we may differ.

What is an existing Board of Education policy you would like to reform?

I believe the SFUSD Guidelines for Schools Interacting with Law Enforcement need to be reviewed and updated to make sure they equip school personnel with the resources they need to be safe and ensure the safety of students and the public. The current guidelines were well-intentioned when they were adopted, and I share the deep concern about historical practices and the dangers of over-criminalizing student and school conduct. However, in a time of heightened intergroup tensions, we can’t ignore our responsibility to provide a safe environment because of past failures and shortcomings. Getting it right will involve maximum community communication and participation to shape reforms. What works at one school may not work or be desired at another.

Do/Did you have children in SFUSD? If so, what have you learned about SFUSD that other parents would benefit from? If not, why not?

Yes, I have two kids in SFUSD, both of whom have been in the District since kindergarten. My son started at Jefferson ES and is now a freshman at Lowell HS. My daughter is graduating from Jefferson this year and will be attending A.P. Giannini MS.

While I’ve learned many things from my family’s ten years in the District so far, the most important lesson is that collaboration and persistence are key to solving problems and creating change. For example, in advocating for “School Outside” during the pandemic, our group of parents and teachers at Jefferson encountered one obstacle after another in the District, even as more and more people from other school communities reached out to us with interest in developing their own plans. Our group worked together to develop surveys to assess community interest, schedules and other plans for how outdoor instruction could work at Jefferson, a workbook we could share with other school communities, and even a webinar at the request of SF Parents’ predecessor organization. It took sustained effort to build awareness of the value of outdoor learning, but over the last few years, we have obtained an iLab Innovation Award grant, school bond funding, and other funding to create outdoor classrooms and improve our schoolyards.

My family’s experience with the lottery is another case in point. For kindergarten, our daughter was placed in a school across town even though our son was enrolled at our neighborhood school. With sibling preference, she should have been placed at the same school as her brother, but we went through multiple rounds, asked for information and advice from EPC and school site staff, and obtained the information we needed to prove the algorithm failed. No family should have to go through this experience (and many families don’t have the ability or resources needed to do so).

Executive experience

Please describe your experience running or governing large organizations, managing teams (including hiring, firing, and performance management), driving cultural change and clear communication throughout all levels, effective financial management (budgets, reporting, audit, etc.), and any other relevant experience.

While I have executive experience and skills, these are not the primary attributes I would call on to be an effective School Board member. From my years of experience observing and advocating before the Board, one of the most significant problems for the District has been the Board’s own irresponsible behavior, including its failure to fulfill its statutory role, attempts to dictate and control countless facets of the District’s operations, and ideological posturing. The Board’s attempts to do the Superintendent’s job have actually hurt the District, muddying the division of responsibilities, spawning an ever-changing list of tasks and priorities, and interfering with the effective and efficient operation of the District. In short, the Board is not the CEO, and having seven members acting as CEOs is even worse.

Board members have a fiduciary duty, so they must act in the best interest of the students the District serves. A Board member’s role is to set direction, hire/fire the Superintendent (including assessing the Superintendent’s performance and holding the Superintendent accountable for meeting identified goals), approve the budget, distill and act upon community input, communicate to school and community stakeholders, and oversee the implementation and administration of District operations.

Significantly, going beyond these roles adds to the confusion and politicization of District governance, spending that is not tied to student outcomes, and families leaving the school system. As a result, I have supported former Board President Lam’s and current Board President Motamedi’s focus on student-centered governance and leadership regarding goals and guardrails, with the guidance of AJ Crabill and the Council of Great City Schools.

I would bring to the Board a respectful approach, focused on results for

all students. I would lead by first listening to and learning from the families who entrust their children to SFUSD, the professionals in the classroom, and the Superintendent and his leadership team. I would share and incorporate the best ideas and work with fellow Board members to shape a consensus for change. Without a collaborative approach, one Board member might be able to make apparent and temporary change, but it would not be the sustainable change that the District needs and San Franciscans want. Overpromising and not delivering is a luxury we can’t afford.

Please describe a time when you had an underperforming subordinate and how you handled the situation, including (and especially) how you were able to increase their performance.

Note: Please remember that this questionnaire will be public, so do not include any personally identifiable information.

I try to work collaboratively with everyone I interact with, regardless of their position. I view the workplace experience much like the classroom experience. Everyone can do better with the proper guidance, resources, and support. In that way, we don’t have to limit ourselves to performance “standards” any more than we should put a ceiling on student achievement.

For example, when I was teaching and tutoring students in adult basic education programs through AmeriCorps, I managed a Speakers’ Bureau of adult learners from ESL, GED, and basic-skills programs aimed at improving literacy and math skills. It was my job to recruit, select, and train students from seven community colleges and community-based organizations to go out and speak in the community. The students served as “Ambassadors,” making presentations to educate people about the importance of literacy and to raise awareness of their programs.

Many students struggled to develop and deliver their speeches. For many students, English was a new language; for others, it was their native tongue, but they had limited reading and writing skills for various reasons. Almost none had experience speaking in public, so many were nervous about doing so. But all of them had enrolled in their programs to improve their and their families’ lives, and they wanted others to benefit as well. I drew on that desire and encouraged them to approach presentations as a way to share their personal stories, which would be more engaging to their audiences as well. I used examples, helped them outline what they wanted to say, encouraged them to work with each other on writing and delivering their speeches, and provided opportunities for practice and feedback. The training culminated in a “graduation” event where each student delivered their speech to a friendly audience of families and friends. Then, when they went out into the community, I encouraged them to present with others, when possible, and to continue to give each other peer support and feedback. I also continued to provide guidance and feedback myself.

Using this approach, along with the curriculum I developed for the students, resulted in substantial growth of the Speakers’ Bureau during my tenure – not just in the number of speakers trained, but also in the number of presentations given and the number of community members the speakers reached. The keys to my students’ progress and success were to recognize where each student was; identify what help they needed; set clear deliverables and deadlines; and provide opportunities for collaboration, practice, and feedback.

As a Board member, I would improve performance by working with Board colleagues to ensure we set the right performance indicators and outcomes for the Superintendent, who is the Board’s only employee. Throughout the year, I would closely examine and keep track of the presentations and reports that the Superintendent and Central Office staff give to the Board, especially with respect to the District’s finances and curriculum. I would also take advantage of the new draft Board meeting agendas to ask questions in advance. The point of Board oversight, like employee management, is not to publicly ask embarrassing questions or otherwise put people on the spot, but to get the most thorough and responsive answers and then validate the Superintendent and his staff or guide them in a better direction.

Throughout my years in education, the court system, publishing, and community advocacy, I have found communication and collaboration to be critical to successful outcomes. Everyone has potential; the key is how to unlock it.

Please describe a time when your organization faced an extreme challenge and how you got the organization through it.

The Speakers’ Bureau I ran (see above) was sponsored by a consortium of seven community colleges and community-based organizations, all of which offered free or low-cost adult basic-skills programs, so its funding and very existence depended on the organizations’ evaluation of its utility. The first year’s class was small, there was substantial attrition, and there was a significant disparity in how many students from each organization participated.

When I came on, at the start of the Bureau’s second year, there were questions about the effectiveness of the program and whether to continue it. I developed new curriculum, reorganized the program, and conducted major outreach efforts to students at all of the member organizations. The results were great – as noted above, I substantially increased performance in all areas, including student recruitment, retention, presentations, and audience numbers – and the students found their experience invaluable. As a result, the program was greenlighted for a third year.

But there remained a disparity in how much the organizations used and benefited from the Bureau, and one organization indicated it might withdraw. Around the same time, funding for AmeriCorps was threatened, which threatened the future of the Bureau, as it depended on AmeriCorps support. To overcome these challenges, I organized current and former students, AmeriCorps colleagues, and my own network to lobby key decision-makers, whether at their own schools/organizations or in government. I also spoke to the head of the organization that was considering withdrawal to hear his concerns and sought to address them by increasing outreach to current and former students. In addition, I worked to institutionalize and professionalize the program so that it would be easier for someone else to take over and would not be dependent on my presence. By the time my two-year term was over, the Speakers’ Bureau was much stronger than when I started, and I understand that it continued for years afterwards.

The Issues

Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

Budget

SFUSD faces an existential crisis in its budget deficit. In your view, what factors have led to this crisis?

Budgets are predictable and should not be in crisis. SFUSD prepares multi-year projections in order to anticipate long-term effects of current decisions, and nothing new has happened to throw the system into crisis. Rather, the crisis in our budget deficit is rooted in poor leadership and management – the tragic and avoidable result of years of overspending and kicking the proverbial can down the road.

Unfortunately, numerous past and present School Board members and Superintendents have failed to adhere to their financial responsibilities. For example, the District has regularly and knowingly outspent its revenue and repeatedly used one-time funding to pay for recurring expenses. Various Boards and Administrations have ignored financial red flags, supported programs the District could not pay for, and neglected to implement appropriate financial and personnel systems.

There are many specific examples – adopting the EMPower payroll system without appropriate contracts or testing; failing to implement internal audit controls; failing to do a proper audit of property needs; and failing to address or account for declining enrollment, including by adjusting staffing levels or the number of schools, to name just a few. Moreover, Boards and Superintendents have engaged in divisive and distracting controversies over numerous matters, such as school renaming, Lowell admissions, and 8th grade algebra, that have not only consumed time and energy but discouraged many families from enrolling – or staying – in SFUSD.

More recently, the District chose to make investments in pay raises for teachers and other staff – a decision I support – but did so without fully implementing expenditure reductions to pay for these important investments. (The District’s pay raise investments amount to about $95 million this year and an additional $80 million next year.) The legal challenge to the Prop G parcel tax compounded the problem, as it resulted in withholding funding for salary increases, but does not excuse the District’s failure to act responsibly.

SFUSD was deemed to be “no longer a going concern” and to be at risk of insolvency by the 2025-26 fiscal year unless it restructures and corrects its budget deficit. Please explain the current budget situation.

SFUSD needs to have a balanced budget. Fortunately, we have fund balances that buy us some time to make structural budget fixes. The 2024-25 budget will be presented at the Board meeting on June 11, 2024, and will provide an update of where we are and the road ahead.

Last June, for the 2023-24 budget, the District projected it would spend more than it collected in revenue. Since then, the District has approved substantial pay raises, and while it has also made substantial cuts to expenditures, they are not sufficient to offset the increased spending, which means the District will still spend more than it collects in revenue for 2024-25. The District will present the 2024-25 budget at the Board meeting on June 11, 2024, again showing deficit spending that will draw on the fund balances.

However, the district is working to eliminate the structural deficit for 2025-26. At a recent meeting of the newly established Ad Hoc Committee on Fiscal and Operational Health, SFUSD outlined a plan and timelines for eliminating the structural deficit in 2025-26, with a final Board vote on the specifics slated for December 2024.

How does the role of the CDE’s Fiscal Advisor to SFUSD inform your perspective and priorities on the responsibilities of a Board of Ed commissioner?

Board members represent the vision and values of the community. As a Board member, I would be part of a team that sets goals for the District and monitors the Superintendent’s progress toward the goals. However, to achieve these goals, the District needs to be on sound, sustainable financial footing – if the District becomes insolvent, the State takes over, and our ability to improve student outcomes and experiences will suffer.

To get SFUSD’s finances in order, CDE has assigned a fiscal advisor (in this case, a team of two people) to the District. When the District was still in “qualified” status, the fiscal advisor’s role was to provide guidance on what a fiscally and operationally sound district looks like and how to restructure a district to get there. Now, however, the District has been downgraded to “negative” status, so the fiscal advisor has the authority to “stay and rescind” decisions that affect the budget, meaning it can pause or reverse such decisions.

Please summarize the recommended solutions in the SFUSD Fiscal Health Risk Analysis report, and tell us how you would prioritize them.

The intended audience of the Fiscal Health Risk Analysis report is the operator of the District, which is the Superintendent. While it is appropriate for the Financial Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) to present its report to the Board, all of the recommendations are directed towards operating the District, so it’s up to the Superintendent and his staff to decide how to implement the measures in the report.

The Board’s role is to set clear expectations, ask questions about how the Superintendent and his staff will respond to the recommendations, oversee the implementation efforts, and hold the Superintendent accountable for the results. The Board can also communicate what is happening to the public and reach out for support and expertise to assist Central Office.

To summarize the FCMAT report, FCMAT conducted a fiscal health risk analysis, based on the 2023-24 budget, and concluded that the District is at high risk of insolvency in the 2025-26 school year. It found that SFUSD faces tremendous fiscal challenges and identified six areas in particular need of improvement: budget monitoring, cash management, collective bargaining, internal controls, enrollment and attendance, and position control. Very broadly, major points in the report include the following:

• The District’s financial systems – and lack thereof – prevent it from conducting business accurately, efficiently, and effectively. For example, the payroll and HR systems are not part of the financial system, and there is no true position control system.

• The District relies too much on consultants, rather than permanent employees. The District has not had a chief business officer for several years, which has resulted in lack of leadership, understanding, and proper monitoring of the District’s finances.

• The District needs to improve staff training. For example, only one or two people in the business and finance departments can generate reports that they should all be to generate.

• The District’s perception that it is unique is incorrect; it would benefit from collaborating with local educational agencies in California.

Some of the items in the report were addressed by the Superintendent before the report was presented to the Board. For example, during the FCMAT presentation, the president of FCMAT indicated that SFUSD had extended an offer for a chief business officer and that he supported this decision – and at the next regular Board meeting, the Board approved the Superintendent's proposed contract to hire that person.

The District does not have the luxury to pick and choose which measures to implement or to delay instituting reforms to subsequent fiscal years. Thus, it is not really a question of prioritizing. Nonetheless, to maximize the likelihood of succeeding on all of the measures, if I were on the Board now, I would work with my colleagues to urge the Superintendent to request that the Mayor and/or Controller detail staff with budget and fiscal expertise from City Hall for assistance.

The budget deficit will require hard and unpopular decisions, like closing schools, laying off teachers, reducing or changing available courses, and renegotiating the teachers’ union contract. Regardless of your stance on those specific issues, what credentials or work experience do you have in handling those sorts of challenges?

Raising a family in San Francisco with your spouse is a good start to understanding the need to address the District’s budget problems and make hard choices. It may not be at the same level as a $1.2 billion budget, but living within your means, collaborating, giving difficult news, giving/taking, looking at the long-term, and being creative are skills that can be applied in both scenarios.

As for credentials and work experience, I graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and worked for eleven years in the federal court system, including five years in U.S. District courts and six years in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. My work in the court system involved tackling tough issues, understanding complex subject matter, digging deeply into differing arguments, and crafting written work product understandable to lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

The work ahead for SFUSD will not be done in a vacuum. It requires teamwork within the Board and with the Superintendent. It requires humility to understand the pain for teachers, families, and communities who now have to pay for the inaction of previous Boards and District leaders. And it requires being able to explain to the voters, stakeholders, and the state Department of Education that our course of action merits their trust going forward. It will not be easy, but I have the knowledge, skills, and courage to do the job.

How do you approach making difficult decisions that you deem necessary even if unpopular? Please share a relevant example, if applicable.

Local government decision-making, especially amidst a budget crisis, is all about making difficult decisions. For too long, our School District has failed to make difficult calls and has added or continued programs that may have been popular but did not result in better student outcomes. My general approach in the education arena is to assume good faith among all parties, but I look at the relevant facts, law, circumstances, and data in reaching positions. I state my positions directly but with respect and openness to opposing views.

A recent example of how I approach difficult decisions is when I was the only School Board candidate to decline to sign the Teachers’ Union pledge. I did not sign the pledge because many of the items either relate to matters beyond the purview of the School Board (e.g., affordable housing, rent control, “ensur[ing] that no SFUSD student ever experiences homelessness,”) or go beyond the fiscal capacity of the District. In addition, I want all stakeholders to have the assurance and confidence that I will listen to them, work with them, and seek to address their concerns, especially in this time of crisis for SFUSD.

My decision not to sign did not stem from any disrespect for teachers. Indeed, I am one of the only candidates to have taught in the classroom, and I am tremendously grateful for the educators who have taught me and my children. But I want to be honest and transparent with the public: we are at a crossroads, with major challenges in our finances, staffing, enrollment, and public trust, and we will need flexibility to address and adapt to changing conditions. Whatever electoral consequences there may be, I took a stand consistent with my obligation to voters to make decisions based on all facts and views.

While I did not sign the pledge, I made my own: to listen to the view of all stakeholders, including the Union; hold District leadership accountable for budgetary and other decisions; and to tackle issues respectfully, together.

SFUSD facilities are in poor condition, with reports of some bathrooms being so dirty that students refuse to use them. What will you do to remedy this situation, especially given the budget constraints you will have to operate under?

The school district has a responsibility to provide safe, clean schools for all students. Appropriate staffing of custodians should be a top priority. Cuts should not be made that threaten the health and safety of students.

One of the key features of the upcoming school bond is to improve and modernize facilities. The bond has a difficult but viable path to victory. A key to victory is regaining voter trust that the bond funds will be responsibly and effectively utilized. If I am elected to the Board, I will seek answers regarding funding priorities, best practices to prevent cost overruns, and the alignment of funds to student outcomes and needs. I will promote transparency, provide those answers to the public, and help shape the level of confidence needed to secure school bond measures.

One reason for the budget deficit is declining enrollment. Approximately 30% of children attend private schools, and that percentage is growing. Each student not in SFUSD takes away nearly $15,000 in State funding. How will you make SFUSD more attractive to prospective students and parents?

To increase enrollment and attract more families and students, SFUSD needs to get the basics right. We’ve all heard about SFUSD’s financial straits, staffing shortages, and safety issues, so we need to put the District back on secure financial footing and ensure adequate staffing and safety measures.

SFUSD also needs to engage families, teachers, staff, students, and the wider community to build trust and articulate a compelling vision of our public school system as a place of access and opportunity for all children. More people will want to come (and stay) when they see SFUSD as a place where their kids—whatever their needs or circumstances—can grow, get a quality education, and become the best versions of themselves. Welcoming all families, providing information promptly and transparently, embracing our city’s diversity, and ensuring that students graduate on time, ready for college or a career, will all help.

SFUSD should also simplify student assignment, facilitate transportation to maximize family choice in enrollment, and ensure quality schools in every part of the city. Lowell's location in a rather remote corner reflects families’ willingness to send kids across town for an excellent education, but we shouldn't have to.

In addition, SFUSD should improve collaboration with city agencies, including to promote readiness for early education and kindergarten. Within SFUSD, we need to assure families that closures/consolidations will not be replicated.

What is your perspective on SFUSD’s school closures and approach to pandemic recovery?

While the pandemic posed an incredible challenge, SFUSD took far too long to reopen schools. Certainly, we should accord significant grace to those faced with making the difficult decisions regarding whether and how long to close schools and how to provide instruction outside the classroom. But by summer 2020, it had become clear that schools could reopen safely – as so many private schools did, even in San Francisco, and as public and private schools in the Bay Area, across the country, and elsewhere in the world did. Families quickly saw the detrimental effect school closures and distance learning were having on students’ mental health, well-being, motivation, and learning. Moreover, while school closures were detrimental to most students and families, the burden tended to fall most heavily on those who were already the most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

Sadly, the Board and District rejected calls for reopening and declined opportunities for assistance. For example, when the Superintendent sought to hire a consultant for reopening, the Board voted against his request. And when the Mayor urged SFUSD to reopen schools and outlined how this could occur, the District decided not to take advantage of the opportunity and went all in on “distance learning” instead – an approach that burdened families and resulted in tremendous harm and learning loss for students throughout the District. Even after the City stood up hubs to help our most-disadvantaged students and those whose parents, as essential workers, could not remain at home, the District did not move toward reopening. It took a massive, grassroots parent movement for the District to change course, and even then SFUSD was among the last major urban school districts to reopen.

SFUSD’s approach to pandemic recovery has been spotty. Commendably, the District made significant efforts to address student mental health and wellness, including with social-emotional learning curriculum. But it struggled (and continues to struggle) to hire social workers, and teachers and staff throughout the District have been stretched thin. Moreover, while the District received substantial federal and state funding for pandemic recovery efforts, it used much of that funding to plug budget holes, which severely hampered efforts to address learning loss. Post-pandemic, the District has also relied too heavily on computer-based interventions. Better to use targeted, evidence-based interventions such as high-dosage tutoring, which also fosters relationships.

Curriculum

What changes are coming to the SFUSD curriculum over the next few years?

Amidst massive infrastructural and fiscal change, SFUSD is also undertaking curricular reforms, following the results of literacy and math audits by TNTP that showed major deficits in curriculum and instruction in SFUSD. Chief among the changes are:

Changes to literacy curriculum: SFUSD’s Vision for Language and Literacy spans PreK to Grade 5 and strengthens English Language Arts in Grades 6-8. The District aims to foster students’ ability to analyze complex text as a foundation for becoming critical thinkers and proficient readers and writers. The Board has set a goal of 70% of 3rd grade students being able to read at grade level by October 2027.

Changes to math curriculum: After a decade of parent advocacy to restore 8th grade Algebra, which culminated in the passage of Prop G in March, the District will reintroduce algebra into 8th grade starting this fall, with three pilots from 2024-26 and implementation across all schools in 2026-27. As discussed below, I worked heavily on Prop G, both to restore algebra in 8th grade and to support better math instruction from PreK–7th grade so students are better prepared to take and succeed in algebra and advanced classes up to calculus (and beyond!).

The District has also committed to adopting new math curriculum, likewise through a piloting process. In the meantime, I continue to work collaboratively with parents, teachers, and education advocates to promote math opportunities and to engage with the Superintendent to improve math outcomes. Three areas to focus on are: (1) teacher empowerment and training to strengthen teaching techniques; (2) literacy, as solving word problems and understanding foundational concepts require reading proficiency; and (3) high-dosage tutoring for kids who have fallen behind in math.

SFUSD student performance is low, with some of the widest achievement gaps among student populations in the state, with many students being left unprepared for high school and college. How and why are we failing our students?

To improve academic outcomes and close the achievement gap, SFUSD will need to work closely with educators and families. As a Board member, I will foster inclusivity, involve all key stakeholders, and seek effective solutions. The Board should determine whether the Superintendent and his staff have reviewed school data, called upon experts, and developed evidence-based strategies to teach all student populations, then hold the Superintendent and staff accountable for results and for course correcting as needed.

Drawing on my experience and knowledge regarding literacy and math, I believe early education, reading, and reducing chronic absenteeism will be critical.

First, gaps develop in readiness even before kindergarten. Early education programs should support and empower parents to promote learning.

Second, as Frederick Douglass said, reading is the key to freedom. Children need to understand the curriculum, and to do that they need to be able to read. I will keep a close eye on SFUSD’s newly adopted curriculum and prioritize training and support so teachers feel encouraged to have high expectations for students. Alumni and community groups can also step up as tutors in reading and other subjects.

Third, regular attendance is critical, as being absent from school often means not learning. Missing instruction not only increases the risk of falling behind, it can have a compounding effect, especially in certain classes where knowledge really builds on prior content and learning.

As discussed above, the #1 evidence-based intervention we can implement is to take advantage of the role-model mentoring and support services being provided by model districts in California to peer districts (like ours) that have ineffective attendance programs (https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr24/yr24rel29.asp). If Long Beach can do it, San Francisco can, too – and as a model attendance program, Long Beach is even committed to helping us.

In addition, working with city agencies, we should identify why children are not in school and what can be done in school, at home, or in the community to remove obstacles. Some aspects may be beyond SFUSD control, but we can foster community partnerships for regular school attendance.

SFUSD will be reintroducing 8th grade algebra over the next couple school years. Do you support this change?

Absolutely! In fact, I have actively worked to restore algebra in 8th grade. I not only voted for Prop G, I wrote and led a parent ballot argument, raised funds, spoke at debates, and distributed materials in the community.

On a personal note, the lack of challenge for my son in math motivated me to engage with others to improve SFUSD’s curriculum and restore algebra in 8th grade. We can revamp our approach to math, and we have examples to draw from—ranging from MLK MS in the 1990s to John Muir ES today—to improve proficiency for our most disadvantaged students.

To be part of the solution, I worked on SF Parents’ “Kids Can’t Wait” initiative to improve math and literacy, organizing parents to speak at BOE meetings and recognize bright spots in SFUSD. I also worked with educators and advocates to highlight the inequitable effects of removing algebra from 8th grade and to call for changing state law to remedy this issue. Notably, Senator Cory Booker’s federal Advanced Coursework Equity Act estimates that about 100,000 Black and Brown children nationwide are denied access to 8th grade algebra, which limits their opportunities for advanced math in high school and their access to competitive colleges and STEM careers.

How should SFUSD balance instructional minutes for core curriculum subjects with access to electives?

SFUSD should leverage instructional minutes for core subjects by improving attendance and reducing tardiness. In high schools, for example, it is too easy for students to miss enormous amounts of time in core classes through lateness and excused out-of-class activities. I understand many students lose 20% or more of their core subject instructional minutes. This is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for improving student outcomes.

The balance between core instruction and electives is somewhat irrelevant if students are missing a substantial amount of course time. We need students and teachers in the classroom to optimize use of core-subject instructional minutes, and we need the Board to lead the charge of unifying parents, students, teachers, and other staff to make this happen.

Specifically with regard to electives, I do not favor reducing the time for them. Indeed, if it’s feasible, I would favor increasing opportunities to take electives by offering a 0 period or other means by which students could opt to take an additional class. Electives give students an opportunity to make choices and pursue subjects they are interested in. They are often the classes students love most and one of the reasons they are motivated to come to school.

Many of SFUSD’s language pathways have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified educators and classrooms are under-enrolled as early as grade 4, how would you address this?

Addressing under-enrollment requires an analysis as to why these classrooms are under enrolled. This is a task the Superintendent and his staff can undertake, speaking with parents about their experiences. There may be site-specific reasons, and there may be more universal reasons, such as failing to market the value of the particular language adequately or not offering the most popular and/or future-relevant languages.

One way to address the teacher shortage for language pathways is to encourage SFUSD graduates, many of whom already speak a second language at home, to enter the teaching profession and channel their coursework in high school toward language careers. SFUSD could encourage the local business community, especially those with global markets and operations, to support and sponsor students who enter the teacher academy, so they can return to SFUSD as teachers.

What is your position on supporting lottery-based access to language immersion programs for some versus access to second language instruction for all as part of general education instruction?

I think all children should learn at least one other language and that language instruction should be offered as a regular part of school (general education instruction), like math and language arts. While not common in the U.S. (sadly), teaching kids another language is routine in much of the rest of the world, and exposure to other languages and cultures has many benefits.

I also support language immersion programs. Many families want their kids to attend an immersion program, whether for family or cultural reasons or because they provide an in-depth experience that goes far beyond “regular” language classes. Such programs also have enrollment benefits for SFUSD, as they can attract families who might otherwise opt to send their kids to private/parochial schools.

In my view, offering immersion programs and “regular” language classes is not an either/or proposition. Rather, it should be a long-term goal of the District to add language instruction as part of general education, giving students and families more choices in how to learn another language. Beyond its direct academic importance, language education enhances appreciation for other cultures and an understanding of the challenges facing newcomers to a different society. Both of these benefits advance the District’s values around diversity and belonging.

What is the current state of advanced education at SFUSD?

Elementary and middle school: There are currently no opportunities for honors or advanced classes at the elementary and middle school levels in SFUSD. In general, I support providing middle school students with the opportunity to do advanced coursework and providing elementary school students with lessons that meet the needs of high-achieving students.

Advanced Placement (AP) classes: With respect to AP classes, advanced education is actually thriving in SFUSD. Our AP Program is the envy of other districts around the country because even though we have a high percentage of disadvantaged students, we have both a very high participation rate and – more importantly – a very high success rate. This is a key reason why many middle-class families choose to stay in SFUSD for high school or return from private schools.

We invest more in our AP Program than other districts, but we get a lot of value for that investment. Our district’s additional support period for AP teachers gives them time to provide intensive support for students tackling advanced material – particularly on the analytical and writing skills that are required to succeed on college-level AP exams.

These additional support periods are uniquely beneficial in helping students obtain positive outcomes on their AP exams. It was a mistake for the Board to temporarily eliminate this support under the guise of “equity” and to ignore or marginalize Asian American and other students of color who prioritize success on AP exams.

Notably, good AP test scores offer tangible financial benefits for students and families. For some students, they are a path to scholarships and other financial assistance. They can also satisfy core requirements in college, enabling students to proceed directly to higher-level classes, which can save thousands – or even tens of thousands – of dollars on the cost of going to college.

This is why I see advanced education as one of the real bright spots in SFUSD. Through wise investments, we are generating real benefits for SFUSD students and their families. We should be celebrating these successes and doing a better job of communicating their benefits to the public and to prospective SFUSD families.

What should SFUSD be doing to ensure more students have access to more advanced education, including classes above their grade level, accelerated courses, and advanced subjects including those currently only offered by outside institutions such as community colleges?

Please see my answer to the previous question. In addition –

SFUSD students who have taken the advanced offerings at their high schools – including AP courses – and who wish to go further should be able to do so. For example, SFUSD has dual enrollment for high school students with CCSF and should promote this option.

One advantage of SFUSD’s AP Program, as opposed to outside courses, is that AP courses are offered on our high school campuses, which means that students don’t have to choose between academic enrichment and extracurriculars. Students report that travel time to and from outside courses limits their participation in activities they don’t want to give up. This issue could also be addressed by holding a community college class on-site at an SFUSD campus, as Lincoln High School does with its psychology course.

What is the current state of special or remedial education at SFUSD?

The current state of the SFUSD Special Education (SPED) Department is deeply concerning. The backbone of SPED is a federal mandate, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Roughly 15% of the District’s student population consists of SPED students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Moreover, 80% of SPED students are a part of the General Education (GEN) classroom. SPED must be part of the big picture, especially as SPED issues have a greater impact on the school district than most people realize.

SPED students are a high-needs population. On average, it costs three times the amount for a SPED student as for a GEN student. Under IDEA, there is a legal mandate for SPED students to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). SPED students are also entitled to make appropriate educational progress according to their cognitive profile, per the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. To improve outcomes for students, families, and the District as a whole – and to avoid compounding the problem(s) any given student faces (including from a financial perspective) – it’s critically important to identify which students need SPED services and to provide needed services in a timely manner.

While I have come across several IEP success stories in SFUSD, my discussions with families, educators, and advocates in SPED have revealed a high level of parental concern and dissatisfaction and real alarm regarding legal, financial, and educational impacts of the District’s actions (or lack thereof). For example, SFUSD is significantly out of compliance with many IEPs, and failure to provide SPED students with thorough and accurate psycho-educational evaluations can lead to numerous problems, ranging from erroneous findings of failure to qualify for SPED services to ineffective IEPs. Families also worry that their kids are passed on from grade to grade without achieving true educational progress. In addition, the system is also extremely complex and difficult for families to navigate, which creates a major equity issue.

Some GEN students who do not have a disability under IDEA may also need remediation. Unfortunately, many of these students do not receive the targeted interventions they need to reach grade-level proficiency in elementary school, as reflected by low standardized test scores, and such interventions appear to be rare at the middle- and high-school levels.

What should SFUSD be doing to ensure students who need special education (either due to disability or academic performance) have access and the support they need to thrive?

There is a lot of opportunity in the SPED arena to use resources more effectively (and perhaps even save resources) while achieving better outcomes. A few of the ideas I’ve heard include the following:

• In SPED & GEN, SFUSD has historically used standardized testing three times a year to monitor student progress. However, low assessment scores rarely trigger any action or additional interventions. In theory, a student with low scores should be eligible for Tier 2 intervention, yet not all school sites offer such intervention. There is currently no consistent districtwide Tier 2 curriculum in math or literacy and no standard Tier 3 math program districtwide.

• Obstacles to attracting and retaining quality employees are even more prevalent in SPED. As a result, the District pays twice the real cost for speech therapists, occupational therapists, resource specialists (SPED teachers), paraeducators, behavior technicians, and psychologists. Moving from the caseload model to a workload model would help with staffing and fulfillment of student needs.

• Conducting an external audit of SFUSD IEPs could promote the establishment of better processes and reduce the risk and costs of legal liability/settlements and external placements in Nonpublic Schools. Timely administration and use of a dynamic supply/demand staffing model that addresses the needs of students with IEPs could be more cost-effective than the current staffing model of fixed resources.

The funding challenge for SPED deserves special mention. Special education is severely underfunded at the state and national levels: the actual costs of special education far exceed the funding provided. This problem is beyond the District’s direct control, but it cannot be ignored because it reduces the funding available for other students.

If elected, I would highlight SPED needs for our Sacramento and Washington D.C. legislative delegations and help them educate their colleagues on the effect of all school district families of underfunding special education. We should also explore more deeply tapping into Student Success funds and PEEF to augment district-wide and school site resources for SPED participants.

As noted above, the District faces severe staffing challenges, especially of SPED of teachers, social workers, psychologists, and paraeducators. Local colleges and universities that train new entrants into these fields can help expose them to SFUSD by partnering with the District for educational and training opportunities that lead to District employment. Similarly, qualified staff who provide support for SPED students should be protected from cuts. Teachers with credentials to teach these children should be encouraged to work in classes that support SPED students.

Finally, SPED issues again raise the issue of investing in our teachers by providing training so they can better assist SPED students in their classrooms. This includes being able to identify students who may have disabilities or and referring them for assessments to determine needs and eligibility. It also includes supporting and training SPED teachers and supervisors in how to regularly observe GEN and SPED classrooms to ensure compliance with IEP requirements and provide assistance to teachers in implementing IEPs or 504 plans.

Bullying & violence

Last school year SFUSD was beset by reports of rampant bullying and both in-school and after-school violence. Has the School Board done enough to fix and prevent these issues? And what more should be done, if anything?

As discussed elsewhere in this questionnaire, safety is a threshold issue for everyone in our school communities, and it is a significant reason many families either choose not to enroll in SFUSD or decide to leave the District. In addition, we can’t be true to our values without paying special regard to vulnerable groups – it is often members of such groups, such as African American, homeless, and LGBTQ youth, who are subject to bullying and violence. Moreover, we can’t ignore the increased instances of hatred and violence against Asians and Asian Americans since the pandemic began.

SFUSD’s disciplinary policies are out of date and need to be revisited and revised. We need to gather input from teachers in particular, as they are on the front lines of these problems, in order to have a productive policy-making conversation.

At the Board level, there is a need for greater clarity and consideration of when restorative practices are appropriate and how to implement them, and when discipline is the appropriate course of action. I understand that our current system of MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) for discipline is unclear, incoherent, and inequitable. We should examine these policies and bring them into alignment with the District’s Vision, Values, Goals, and Guardrails (VVGG).

​​We should not consign people to a script or expect them just to know how to use restorative practices effectively. Rather, we should provide professional development and training to anyone charged with using them (e.g., social workers, counselors, principals), so they are aware of best practices and know when and how to engage in restorative practices.

We must also be prepared to use other tools and paths to address conflicts, as there may be times/situations when restorative practices are not appropriate or effective. For example, I understand that younger students tend to be more open to restorative practices than older ones—and regardless of age, we will need other options for students who won’t engage. Moreover, one of the top concerns the Youth Commission hears is that students who have suffered sexual harassment or assault feel coerced and further victimized by their experiences with restorative practices meetings. We must ensure that students are informed of their rights with respect to such meetings, including that they do not have to attend. In addition, we must ensure that victims of bullying, assault, or other harm—whether children or adults—feel safe to stay in their schools. Sadly, I understand that it’s often the victim who transfers to another school—or leaves the District entirely

What failures in administration allowed such violence to happen in our schools?

Major administrative factors include high turnover in site-based administration, lack of understanding and training with respect to restorative practices, and out-of-date discipline policies. Developing a coherent new discipline policy needs to be a top priority.

What is your opinion about the new "Say Something Anonymous System"? Are other interventions warranted, as well?

I approach this question the same way I would evaluate any matter as a Board member. My opinion and conclusions would be based on facts, experiences, and data, which are sadly lacking in SFUSD. The SS-ARS (Say Something Anonymous Reporting System) page on the SFUSD website has not been updated in a year.

To its credit, SFUSD brought a strong program to San Francisco. (For too long, SFUSD has declined to adopt best practices from elsewhere, considering itself unique or better able to innovate, which hasn’t always been the case.) The program, which was designed to surface potential threats of violence in schools, was started by Sandy Hook Promise and has credible people such as former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter on its board.

In SFUSD, SS-ARS can be used to report 35 different concerns, but I have heard very little about it during my years of advocacy, even though I have worked on safety issues. To have an informed opinion on how the program is working here, I would want quantitative data from the Superintendent and qualitative, experiential input from students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Without such input, we can’t determine whether we have adapted the SS-ARS well for our needs, nor how we can improve it.

Cyberbullying remains a problem. What is SFUSD doing to stop it, and what else should they be doing?

I am not an incumbent. Much of what SFUSD is doing to stop cyberbullying is necessarily kept from public view, as it deals with the privacy of minors and potential criminality. In addition, school districts are limited in what they can do about cyberbullying since the U.S. Supreme Court 2021 ruling in the Mahanoy Area School District case. The decision in that case may have been seen as a victory for student First Amendment rights, but its reversal of a principal’s suspension of a student for her profane Snapchat post attacking students has made combatting cyberbullying more difficult.

Teachers

State regulators have ordered SFUSD to balance its budget by laying off some teachers. What experience do you have with union negotiations, labor disputes, and corporate finance?

While I have not had experience with union negotiations, labor disputes, or corporate finance, these activities are outside the purview of the School Board. In fact, Board members who engage in union negotiations or labor disputes run the risk of violating state law and principles of labor/management relations.

Board members do, of course, have other interactions with teachers and their collective bargaining agent, such as at Board meetings and through other avenues where Teachers’ Union members bring problems and concerns to the Board’s attention. I fully respect the role of unions.

However, I understand that a Board member has a solemn obligation to the District to provide quality education to all students within budget limitations. Sometimes that means saying “No” when you might otherwise want to say “Yes.” I am the only candidate who declined to sign the Teachers’ Union pledge – not out of disrespect for teachers, but because it could compromise my commitment to listening to all stakeholders, working collaboratively to address their concerns, and making decisions based on the law and the best available evidence. We are at a crossroads, with major challenges in our finances, staffing, enrollment, and public trust, and we will need flexibility to address and adapt to changing conditions.

Given SFUSD’s budget crisis, how will you ensure that we are able to attract and retain the best teachers?

While budgetary matters are important, to attract and retain great teachers, it is critical that we provide safe working conditions, pay teachers well, and pay them in an accurate and timely manner. First, having a safe school environment is a threshold issue for everyone. I have worked with parents and staff at my kids’ elementary school and districtwide, as well as with District and City personnel, to improve school safety, and much of this work involves coordination and accountability, not additional funds. With respect to pay, the District has already agreed to a substantial raise, and the Board must hold the District’s executive leadership accountable for the new enterprise resource planning system (which includes payroll) that will be implemented.

I would also encourage the Superintendent to deepen partnerships with CCSF, USF, SF State, and UC to provide and fund teacher training and professional development during the year and over the summer. With such partnerships, the District could benefit without substantial additional costs.

In addition, to make it easier for teachers to focus on teaching, we need to improve recruitment and retention for paraprofessionals in SFUSD. For example, we are so understaffed with paraprofessionals that we are frequently out of compliance with SPED requirements. One of the best ways to improve the hiring of paraprofessionals would be to create a pipeline for paraprofessional training, such as by establishing a Career Technical Education (CTE) pathway in high schools in partnership with CCSF. Being a paraprofessional is a great first career for students who want to work before pivoting to full-time college or who do not necessarily want to go to four-year college. Being a paraprofessional can also be a step on a ladder to education careers in other classified positions or in certificated positions.

Finally, if an underutilized SFUSD property is a good candidate for affordable housing (such as in the case of Shirley Chisholm Village), I would support conversion of that property for housing for SFUSD personnel to attract and retain teachers.

School assignment system

Please summarize the changes needed for the SFUSD school assignment system. How do you see it working best for preK through high school?

San Francisco must have high-quality schools accessible to all communities. Ideally, student enrollment should be an easy, fair, and quick process, one that families of all backgrounds can understand and that requires only a small number of personnel to operate. Unfortunately, the system we have now, with the lottery and the Educational Placement Center (EPC), is the opposite.

The current lottery is a failure that parents dread and that drives families away. While the lottery was a well-intentioned effort to overcome residential segregation, it has not worked as intended, and the complexity and uncertainty of the process have made school selection and enrollment harder, especially for disadvantaged and historically marginalized groups. Kids’ futures should not depend on the luck of the lottery.

The District has an alternative to the current lottery, the zone-based system it developed after Board approval in 2018 to create a new enrollment plan, but it’s a partial solution at best. Notably, it only applies to elementary schools; is not scheduled for implementation until 2026-27; and will be out of date by then, given changes to our school portfolio, including the addition of Mission Bay and any consolidations/closures that occur.

Given the need to revisit the zone-based system, and given that it does not address the enrollment process for middle and high school, we should explore whether there is a better system we could use. I would look at the systems used in other school districts and hold Town Hall meetings to hear directly from families about the factors that are important to them in selecting a school. There are many considerations, including some that may compete with each other, but if we focus on the factors that families identify as most important (e.g., proximity to where they live or work), we have the best chance of coming up with a workable system.

Indicate how you will ensure the changes to the assignment system proceed with minimal problems.

It’s not the Board’s role to determine how to implement changes to the assignment system; rather, it’s the job of the Superintendent and his staff. That said, it is the Board’s role to engage with school and community stakeholders and to oversee the implementation of District operations. In those capacities, I would emphasize creation of a detailed plan for implementing changes, clear communication of those changes, and outreach within and outside SFUSD. For example, to inform families whose kids will be ready for kindergarten, we could reach out to daycare centers, preschool or preK programs, and city agencies who interact with families with kids.

In your opinion, how should any changes to the system balance equity concerns with convenience and the needs of children and parents?

As noted above, I would look at the systems used in other school districts and hold Town Hall meetings to hear directly from families about the factors that are important to them in selecting a school. I would also look for other ways to solicit families’ input. Ultimately, we should try to do what families want, as they are the ones who are making decisions about where to send their children to school.

We should not assume that equity concerns divide our communities or that equity is achieved at the expense of the “needs of children and parents.” For example, 87% percent of parents surveyed by the High School Task Force supported Lowell academic admissions. In the current District Advisory Committee (DAC) process on resource alignment, Stanford experts stated they were “surprised” that parents across the board favored “excellence” over “equity” when making school closure decisions – which leads me to wonder why, since in my experience most parents focus on the quality of education when they consider where to send their kids. Notably, when the survey results were reweighted to account for an uneven response rate, support for excellence among parents of color grew. It would be a great advancement for equity if more students met and surpassed grade-level standards for reading and math.

How will you measure if these changes are beneficial for students and parents?

We can measure whether changes are beneficial by looking at parent satisfaction with the system and enrollment. First, SFUSD could ask parents (and students, if they are old enough) what they think about the changes – and also ask families who leave why they are doing so. In addition, if enrollment increases, particularly after years of decline, that could suggest the changes were beneficial.

General information

In your view, why were San Francisco Board of Education members Alison Collins, Gabriela López, and Faauuga Moliga recalled?

Voters citywide strongly supported the recall of all three members. I think the primary reason was the lengthy school closures during the pandemic. The Board seemed out of step and out of touch with the tremendous challenges so many kids and families experienced – and uninterested in addressing them. For example, in January 2021, almost a year after the closures, only two Board members even listed school reopening as one of their top two priorities.

There was a huge disconnect between the District’s stated values, such as being student-centered and focusing on vulnerable populations, and the reality kids and families faced with school closures and distance learning. There was also a huge disconnect between the issues the Board focused on, such as renaming schools, and what most kids and families urgently needed, which was to reopen schools. The ideological and performative nature of various Board decisions and comments also made SFUSD a national laughingstock.

There are many differences between the pandemic Board’s record and the way I would approach serving on the Board. While I already have deep experience and involvement in school issues and diverse networks of school stakeholders, as a member of the Board, I will continue to listen and learn and then lead. I’m more concerned with what goes on inside the classroom than I am with the name of the building on the outside.

As a parent, I spent countless hours with other parents seeking solutions to the Board's inaction. We shared information, workshopped issues, attended Board meetings, circulated petitions, contacted decision-makers, and looked for alternative ways to help kids learn. Even with a massive parent movement, SFUSD was among the last major urban school districts to reopen.

Did you vote for or against the recalls of Board of Education members Alison Collins, Gabriela López, and Faauuga Moliga?

I voted for the recalls.

Who are your mentors? Are there current or former Board of Education commissioners you believe have been most effective, and why?

I’ve been fortunate to have mentors at key points in my life, especially when I was in school, including the kindergarten teacher who went out of her way to drive me to school in later years when I had no other way to get there, the administrative assistant who introduced me to the idea of going to law school, and the dean who gave me the opportunity to become a published author.

I think Commissioners Lam and Motamedi have been particularly effective. Commissioner Lam’s work to move the Board’s governance practices to focus on student outcomes, with the guidance of AJ Crabill, was a sea change. Previously, Board meetings were often haphazard, contentious, and incredibly long, even up to 10 hours, and yet little to no time was spent addressing substantive matters, such as the District’s deficit spending, declining enrollment, and student outcomes. With the shift to focusing on student outcomes, the Board adopted the VVGG, and the Superintendent and Central Office were responsible for developing plans to reach the goals that were set. While the District has fallen short so far in reaching most of its interim goals, we finally have ways of measuring progress and fostering accountability.

Commissioner Motamedi has continued on the path of student-outcomes focused governance, improved the efficiency of Board meetings, and brought much-needed oversight to SFUSD’s budget and finances. For example, the creation of a committee focused on the District’s financial situation is an important step in addressing the current fiscal crisis, as it promotes accountability and drives the critically necessary collaboration with the Superintendent and his staff.

In what ways are we succeeding in public education?

We are succeeding in a number of ways, such as providing language immersion programs, which attract families to SFUSD, and providing different types of arts programming. My son, for instance, was introduced to the violin in 4th grade, through the District’s instrumental music program, and it has become a passion for him. In addition, as noted above, SFUSD’s AP Program is the envy of other districts around the country and provides a great return for students and families on the District's Investment.

There are a lot of good things happening in SFUSD that are not celebrated enough. For example, in our high schools, Robotics teams recently competed at the national level. In addition, John O’Connell and Lincoln High Schools are doing exciting work promoting youth civic engagement that will lead to lifetime empowerment. Civics was traditionally a core purpose of public education, and I’d like to see the District do more in this regard! I also support ensuring that JROTC is available to all interested students. I’m thankful that the JROTC programs at Mission, Balboa, and Galileo were saved, so students – who fought to preserve them – can continue to participate in JROTC across the District, not just at Washington, Lincoln, and Lowell.

In what ways are we failing in public education?

Perhaps most apparent, right now, is the District’s utter failure of fiscal responsibility. The District has been overspending for years, and consecutive Boards have kicked the can down the road rather than address our structural deficit. Indeed, various Boards have failed to exercise appropriate oversight, failed to hold Superintendents accountable, and even exacerbated our fiscal woes with ill-advised new expenses. There will be little we can do to improve kids’ education if the District is taken over the State.

Second, we have a lot of work to do to make all of our school sites safe, healthy places for kids, teachers, and staff to be. Safe schools are a threshold concern for everyone in our school communities, and many families either decide not to apply to SFUSD or leave the system due to safety concerns. For example, many schools face major challenges with the physical safety of their grounds and buildings, whether from drug paraphernalia, lack of basic safety equipment, or deteriorating infrastructure. And many face significant problems with physical altercations, bullying, and other problematic behaviors, whether directed at students, teachers, or other staff.

Third, we have failed to effectively teach reading and math to many kids in the District, particularly Black and Brown students. TNTP’s audits of our reading and math programs showed major deficits in both curriculum and instruction. Thankfully, we have adopted new reading curriculum, but it has taken too long to get to this point, and we still need to adopt new math curriculum. We also need to provide better training and professional development to teachers so they use evidence-based teaching methods and are encouraged to have high expectations for their students.

How can the school district use its land to help deliver housing for teachers, school staff, and San Francisco families?

SFUSD has a lot of underutilized properties, some of which might be good candidates for housing. For example, Shirley Chisholm Village, which will provide educators and other District employees with affordable housing, was developed on District-owned property.

One part of the Superintendent’s Resource Alignment Initiative is to consider how the District could generate revenue from its properties. It makes sense to explore opportunities to leverage District properties to generate more value for students, but we won’t know which properties are good candidates for housing or what the best use is for any given property until this analysis is conducted. If the Superintendent proposes repurposing District property, I will seek out the input and expertise needed to make fact-based, relevant decisions about the use of any given property.

Personal

Tell us a bit about yourself!

Did you attend SFUSD or public primary schools in other cities? How do our schools differ from when you were a student?

Yes, I attended public school outside Chicago and received an excellent education. The public school I attended served everyone and provided a wide range of classes, including honors and advanced placement classes. SFUSD is much larger than the school I went to and the district I was in, but my school did not have the operational difficulties we see in SFUSD, and there were many more opportunities to be challenged and to excel.

How long have you lived in San Francisco? What brought you here and what keeps you here?

I’ve lived in San Francisco since 2009. We moved here because my husband got a dream job at UCSF. Our son was just 6 months old at the time, and our daughter was born here. My husband loves his work, our kids have both grown up in San Francisco, and I have found a way here to balance work and advocacy. We have established deep connections in the community, and we plan to stay here for the rest of our lives.

What do you love most about San Francisco?

The natural beauty of our surroundings, the diversity of our population, and the compassion and acceptance so many people have for others. I also love all the independent bookstores!

What do you dislike the most about San Francisco?

The city’s failure to effectively address the many unhealthy, unsafe behaviors and conditions we see and experience on a daily basis. For any city or community to thrive, people need to feel safe and reasonably confident in their surroundings.

Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.).

In addition to my advocacy in SFUSD, I’m currently involved with several groups.

• SF Parent Coalition: Parent organizer and advocate since 2020 on multiple issues, including outdoor learning, reopening, safety, good governance, literacy, and math.

• Jefferson Elementary PTA: I’ve been on the PTA board for three years. I’m currently serving as Executive Vice President Pro Tem & Member at Large (2023-24) and previously served as VP of fundraising (2021-2023). I have also co-led and worked collaboratively on efforts to obtain funding for outdoor learning and for renovating the school’s yards since 2020.

• Democratic Clubs: Member of Westside Family Democratic Club since its chartering in 2023; also on the Events Committee since 2023. Member of United Democratic Club (UDC) and Eastern Neighborhoods Democratic Club (ENDC) since 2024.

• LifeSpheres: I’ve provided organizational development assistance to LifeSpheres, a nonprofit organization that offers trauma-resolution programs, since 2019 and have been an Organizational Advisor on the Advisory COmmittee since 2020.

• Kiva: Volunteer editor for microfinance nonprofit organization since 2010.

Thank you

Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!