Virginia Cheung is a parent and chief advancement officer at Open Door Legal, and a director at Parents for Public Schools SF. She’s the former director of Wu Yee Children’s Services, the city’s largest Head Start provider. Cheung has the endorsement of the teachers union, among others. She also ran for the school board in 2024.
For more background on this election and our methodology, please visit our main page. You can also jump to responses from Phil Kim and Brandee Marckmann.
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?
SFUSD has made progress setting clear goals and improving data tracking. However, the lack of [academic] progress suggests that we are not yet addressing the full set of conditions that drive student outcomes.
Student achievement isn’t driven by curriculum alone. It depends on consistent instruction, attendance, and early foundations. When students miss school due to housing instability, unmet mental health needs, or lack of coordinated supports, they fall behind. That’s why paraprofessionals, counselors, and social workers are so important. And when classrooms are staffed by substitutes students lose continuity and interventions.
Editor’s note: While the district began the school year with 95 percent of classrooms staffed, it relied largely on substitutes for the remainder, mostly in transitional kindergarten and special education classrooms.
From my experience, I know that foundational literacy and numeracy skills develop early. Gaps become more difficult to close over time.
We also need to ensure that interventions are clearly defined, consistently implemented, and scaled. Data without action is not accountability.
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?
The most immediate way is to ensure fully staffed, stable schools. Families make decisions based on trust and reliability.
The board can also support enrollment by listening to families, ensuring accountability, and more actively sharing the strengths and successes of SFUSD programs.
We also need stronger oversight and alignment in early education, particularly transitional kindergarten, because improving attendance requires addressing root causes, including housing instability, food insecurity, mental health needs, and scheduling challenges for working families.
How much of this can the district achieve? The board can’t house every child, for example.
While SFUSD can’t do it all alone, it can connect families to services, and schools need the staffing and partnerships to respond to these realities.
SFUSD should partner more closely with the Department of Early Childhood, DCYF [Department of Children, Youth, and Families], Recreation and Parks, and community-based providers to ensure families have access to developmentally appropriate full-day options [for childcare and early education].
Editor’s note: The recent teacher strike put a spotlight on SFUSD’s reliance on city-funded nonprofits.
Studies* show that every dollar spent in the first five years [of a child’s life] gives 13 times the savings in lifetime public services. Robust interventions as early as possible will help the school district save money, especially on long-term special education. Often it’s stuff like language delays and speech delays, and if [students] have therapy as soon as possible, they can get integrated into general education.
We don’t have as robust services once kids are school-aged, and that needs to be a priority. A child’s future shouldn’t depend on luck. Every child should get the support that they need in order to thrive.
Special education costs are growing at a disproportionate rate. How do early interventions play into that?
The longer we ignore it, the bigger the problem gets. And if the district fails to meet the needs of its special education students, they have to pay for services outside the district, sometimes including legal fees.
Even though the state promises funding for special education, they don’t fully fund it, and that eats into the general education budget as well.
State funding, which accounts for 68 percent of the district’s budget, isn’t keeping up with costs. How can the board address this?
At the district level, the board should prioritize transparency, accountability, and alignment of spending with student outcomes. The board can educate the public and ask [district staff] for more clarity. What’s not clear right now is how [funds] get allocated.
At the same time, California’s funding model is fundamentally misaligned. The reliance on average daily attendance creates volatility and disproportionately impacts districts serving high-need students.
The school board doesn’t make decisions on state policies, but they can lead in driving the narrative and acknowledging the truth of our funding issues. The [state] funding formula was designed by people. If people can create a problem, they can fix it.
The board can also play a leadership role by:
- Building coalitions to advocate for reforms to Prop 13, Prop 98, LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula), and ADA (Average Daily Attendance)
- Working with City Hall to access local funding streams, including excess ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund)
- Aligning services with city agencies and community organizations to maximize impact
We must also think beyond cuts. Strategic investments, especially in early education and staffing, can stabilize enrollment and reduce long-term costs.
Where do school closures fit into the enrollment decline?
School closures should not be treated as a primary solution to the enrollment crisis. While the district must address its financial, structural, and operational realities, closures may contribute to further decline if not carefully planned and implemented.
If consolidation is considered, it must be guided by a clear cost-benefit analysis, ensure that receiving schools are fully staffed and prepared, and include robust engagement with affected communities. The goal should always be to minimize disruption and protect student outcomes.
SFUSD schools 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?
The district is not saying much, and that’s one of the issues. Why are the newcomer programs shrinking? The perception is that they’re not enrolling, or that the district is artificially suppressing enrollment. The district has not confirmed, and they’re not giving real stats. Our population growth comes from immigrants, so why are we not investing in our newcomers?
Editor’s note: Earlier this year, when The Frisc reported on SFUSD immigrant programs, the district did not respond to some questions about projected enrollment and staffing.
As the daughter of immigrants, a former nonprofit leader serving predominantly immigrant families, and a public school parent, I understand how critical trust and access are to family engagement. Families deserve to understand how decisions are made.
The district should strengthen language access, invest in newcomer supports, and ensure that engagement opportunities are accessible and culturally responsive. Partnering with trusted community-based organizations can help ensure that outreach is effective and inclusive. English learners already face some of the lowest academic outcomes and highest barriers. Reducing services or limiting access only deepens inequities.
→ Jump to responses from Phil Kim and Brandee Marckmann
