Brandee Marckmann is a parent, community organizer, and founder of the nonprofit San Francisco Education Alliance. Marckmann formerly taught English as a second language to adults. She is endorsed by the district’s chapter of the Service Employees International Union, Sup. Jackie Fielder, and the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, among others.
For more background on this election and our methodology, please visit our main page. You can also jump to responses from Virginia Cheung and Phil Kim.
This interview is based on a live conversation and questions submitted via email. It has been edited and condensed for clarity and brevity. Asterisks indicate links that candidates provided.
SFUSD just pushed back its goals for academic improvement to October 2028. It also acknowledges stalled progress for reading and math. What is working and not working?
One thing that needs to be re-examined is why the school board directed the superintendent to spend money it didn’t have on two extremely expensive literacy and math curricula, which has plunged the district into debt even further.
What do you mean by ‘money it didn’t have’?
Whenever you adopt new curriculum, it’s very expensive. It takes time to roll out, to hire people. It doesn’t make sense for a school district that’s in debt to be purchasing new math or literacy curriculum at all.
Editor’s note: The math curriculum cost $8 million, according to the Chronicle, and the literacy program cost $10 million according to a district presentation.
The board also disregarded veteran literacy and math teachers who expressed concerns that the curricula would not meet the needs of students. Since it was fully implemented district-wide, third grade literacy scores have fallen.
Does ‘teachers expressing concerns’ refer to SFUSD teachers?
I was referring to numerous teachers I have discussed this issue with. I was also referring to opposition from Californians Together, an advocacy organization for English learners and bilingual education. Executive director Martha Hernandez summed it up here*.
Editor’s note: The 2024 EdSource article Marckmann shared is about opposition to a state bill requiring “the science of reading” curriculum. A version of the bill passed this year.
Should the board focus less on student outcomes?
It’s impossible to have good student outcomes if educators aren’t getting basic things. If we’re talking about being fiscally responsible, the focus needs to be fixing the payroll.
Teacher turnover has been a factor in flattening and declining test scores. Educators are still reporting not being paid on time and seeing inaccuracies in their paycheck, which has depressed morale and increased turnover. A school district with a malfunctioning payroll system cannot serve students well.
When I’m on the school board, my A-1 priority will be to fix the payroll system. I would call for a state and local audit to do a deep dive. I would also have this as a standing item on every school board agenda until this was fixed. I would bring back the Personnel and Labor Committee and the Budget and Business Services Committee. The buck stops at the board.
Like all public school districts, SFUSD’s budget is tied to enrollment and attendance, both of which have been dropping for decades. How can SFUSD — and specifically the board — boost them?
We can attract families by declaring a moratorium on school closures. When we close public schools, we exacerbate budget issues, and families see the district as unstable, which is an important point in a city where one out of every three children attends private school. High enrollment in private and charter schools is also a huge drain on the SFUSD budget.
I am the only candidate who has consistently fought for a moratorium on closures, co-locations, and mergers. I organized parents and elected officials to stop the reckless plan to permanently close 13 neighborhood schools in late 2024. This school closure plan was developed and executed by Phil Kim, a charter school [director] hired by former SFUSD superintendent Matt Wayne.
Editor’s note: Marckmann was among several parties who fought the closures. Kim was hired in January 2024. Now the school board president, he says he worked on the school closure plan but did not run it. His Q&A is here.
The enrollment decline is happening across California. Have you seen evidence of school closures driving that statewide?
There’s underfunding of public schools in San Francisco, in California, and on a national level, and we know this is coming from the current presidential administration. But continuing to close schools is just a downward spiral. If we want to see better outcomes for our kids, we have to fund our schools better.
Last December the board revisited closures. At first it seemed like closing nine schools was possible.
They had some spreadsheet, and it showed [closing] three schools a year and the savings was $3 million. I’m happy to hear that the district is not intending to close nine schools, and that this plan is not set in stone. But they don’t take into account that it costs a lot of money to close a school.
School closures do not save money — when public schools close, they are usually converted into charter schools.
Editor’s note: Data compiled by Paul Gardiner dating back to the 1970s show only 10 percent of shuttered SFUSD schools have become charters. The largest share, 45 percent, have become revamped district schools.
State funding, which accounts for 68 percent of the district’s budget, isn’t keeping up with costs. How can the board address this?
I will ask my fellow board members and the superintendent to join me in calling on the state legislature to put Prop. 13 reform on the ballot. For nearly 50 years, Prop. 13 has drained over $200 billion from California schools and communities. Prop 15 (Schools and Communities First) almost passed in 2020, and it is essential that California “Trump-proof” our budget.
Editor’s note: There are various calculations of the effects of Prop 13’s property tax caps, including a recent one from a local professor showing different numbers.
School sites serving immigrants say they’re being systematically defunded. Some families and educators allege the enrollment office is routing them away from these schools. What is your response to them?
We should be providing more resources, not cutting them. I would protect the communities who are being targeted by the Trump administration.
How?
First of all, by making sure those schools don’t see cuts. For example, this year the district proposed [staffing] cuts to 19 schools, 17 of which primarily serve low income students. We cannot expect to hit reading or math goals if we are simultaneously disinvesting in schools.
On March 24, I stood in solidarity with SFUSD’s immigrant families at a rally to demand that cuts to programs serving immigrant children be [stopped].
It sounds like staff serving newcomers might still be cut.
I think people are starting to pay attention more. I am saddened that nearly half of the educator positions at International High School have been cut under my incumbent opponent and the superintendent.
I’m not exactly sure when that decision was made, but this is one reason why we need to have a Program and Curriculum Committee back. If they are talking about making cuts, especially such drastic ones, the public deserves to have some input.
Editor’s note: The district has noted that proposed cuts remain preliminary until the budget is finalized in June. In previous years, preliminary layoffs were often rescinded before the final budget.
Do you see another way of stabilizing the budget without school staff cuts?
We can stabilize the budget by pushing SFUSD to become a 100 percent Sustainable Community Schools district. They are the antidote to school closures, and they are cost-effective. They have nonprofits that provide wraparound services for students beyond the normal school day, bringing chronic absenteeism down. Those services are determined not by the central office, but by the families and educators working in schools. For example, at an elementary school in Chicago, the University of Illinois brought in a medical clinic. That school experienced rising test scores, lower absenteeism, and the clinic was available to people in the neighborhood, which helped the whole community.
Editor’s note: Chicago is expanding from 20 to 70 Sustainable Community Schools. Chalkbeat recently analyzed the performance of the first 20.
SFUSD has programs and nonprofits that work with kids in some schools. Would this model be different?
Sustainable Community Schools are cost-effective for the district. If there are schools that don’t have after-school programs, our parents won’t be able to send kids to public schools, because the traditional school day just doesn’t work on a lot of parents’ schedules.
Who pays for this?
It just kind of depends. Sometimes the district will pay half, and sometimes the nonprofit will pay half. It would be good if there were more city funding for some of these nonprofits.
→ Jump to responses from Virginia Cheung and Phil Kim
