This is a critical election for San Francisco’s public schools, which are grappling with falling enrollment, staff shortages, and a fiscal crisis that could trigger a state takeover.
Four of the seven Board of Education seats are up for grabs, with 11 candidates vying for them.
A lawyer, mother of SFUSD students, and early advocate for reopening COVID-shuttered schools, Supryia Ray answers our questions below.
For more background on the school district’s situation, our questionnaire methodology (such as: why do some links come with asterisks?), and an overview of all the candidates, please visit our main page. – Ida Mojadad and Alex Lash
The Frisc: If Superintendent Wayne deserves to be fired, what specifically has he done that can’t be blamed on longtime SFUSD dysfunction? If he deserves to stay, please describe why.
Supryia Ray: Firing Wayne without a knowledgeable, capable, and experienced replacement would only inject more chaos and dysfunction into SFUSD — especially at a time of multiple crises — and accelerate further departures of families and educators.
Calling an “emergency” 9 a.m. meeting on 24-hour notice only exacerbated the worry and anxiety school communities were feeling.
What SFUSD needs to do right now is to fix its finances and processes. Board President Matt Alexander must stop creating unnecessary drama to distract voters and deflect attention from the board’s own irresponsibility and failures over the years. Notably, Alexander and all but one board member have been in office longer than Wayne.
Our schools are already reeling from multiple crises, including the budget, enrollment, staffing, and trust. SFUSD is one step away from state takeover and subject to a hiring freeze. Fifteen percent of our classrooms don’t have a credentialed teacher.* Many of our facilities lack basic safety measures and functional infrastructure*: PA systems, clean water, usable restrooms, proper heating. The list goes on.
We need competence, focus, and stability — not adult drama. Otherwise we won’t get the progress we need to restore the safe, excellent schools kids and families deserve.
What issue in SFUSD doesn’t get enough attention, and what do you plan to do about it?
SFUSD needs to understand and protect the things that make parents choose to come – and stay. Offering the programs students and families want is the key to improving enrollment and our school system more broadly.
Our AP [Advanced Placement] program is a great example. The program is world-renowned for outstanding and equitable student outcomes because, unlike in other Bay Area districts, SFUSD students don’t just enroll in AP courses, they actually succeed on AP exams. And they do it without having to pay out of pocket for private tutors or test prep programs.
How do we do it? We fund an additional AP support period in every AP teacher’s schedule. That gives teachers time to tutor students, provide more feedback, and deepen instructional experiences. As a result, each and every AP student throughout SFUSD gets the deeper support they need to succeed on AP exams.
Every dollar we budget for this support period goes directly to student outcomes, yet district leadership tries to eliminate it in every negotiation cycle with UESF.
This is wrong-headed. We need to identify, study, and protect our educational and institutional strengths! We cannot simply “cut” our way to success.
[Editor’s note: In 2022, SFUSD eliminated extra funding for AP support for one year.]
Many saw the AP funding cuts as targeted at Lowell since: (1) most of the district’s AP enrollments and examinations are associated with Lowell students; and (2) members of the board justified the cuts based on “equity,” irrespective of the financial impact on the district.
In reality, other schools offer AP courses and exams as well. Further, the cuts deprived students – especially low-income students – of the opportunity to take AP courses, pass the exams, gain college admission, and waive out of college courses, which saves students and families a lot of time and money.
The board subsequently restored the funding to all schools that offer AP courses, not just Lowell.
Many candidates bring up the importance of more early education, intervention, and meeting basic needs. What do you recommend under the current financial circumstances? Please be specific.
Early education and interventions pay for themselves by setting students up for success. They meet basic needs, prevent stress and equity gaps, and reduce the need for remediation later. In a budget crisis, these strategies are investments, not cuts.
● Early education: Childhood Special Education assessments, universal pre-kindergarten, and transitional kindergarten are foundations for success.
● Literacy: Unlocks all areas of learning, and universal reading assessment uncovers challenges in early grades. Interventions can be targeted based on these assessments.
● Social-emotional support: Students need access to wellness centers, social workers, and nurses at every school.
● Instructional interventions for struggling students (e.g., small group instruction, specialized reading support): These should be integrated during the school day to maximize access/equity.
● Family engagement/support: Schools should coach and support parents in reinforcing strategies at home, especially in reading, math, and socialization.
● California Universal Meals Program: Feeds all students without stigma. No one can focus and learn when their belly is rumbling.
● Active movement in the early grades: Incorporating active movement in student schedules meets key basic needs of young children: in class, at recess, and in PE.
All of these strategies improve student outcomes and reduce the need for expensive outside placements and chronic absences.
There’s a chronic shortage of special education staff. Students have to go outside the district for services, which costs the district a lot of money. What do you propose to fix this?
SFUSD faces an impossible bind under current special education funding. Services are mandated by law, but their costs outstrip government funding. During the pandemic, students didn’t always get services they needed and thus now need more care.
As a public school district, SFUSD must accept and serve all students, even if disabilities are costly. But with staff shortages and poorly implemented IEPs, districts frequently fail to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education*. Some parents sue, and the resulting settlements rely on outside services or non-public schools.
To address this, SFUSD must improve its core services, including early intervention, supervision, placement, and recruitment. It must listen to the concerns of frontline teachers and parents and make corrections promptly.
A longer-term solution requires funding the legal mandate, and we need a bridge strategy to get us from the problem to fully-funded solutions. Money that the city gives SFUSD via the Student Success Fund and the Public Education Enrichment Fund* (PEEF) could be designated to help pay for special education, including outside placements.
Without more funding for special education, SFUSD needs to optimize internal efficiencies for service delivery while we pay for legally mandated outside services. Better services will result in lower outside costs.
You suggest SFUSD use city funds such as PEEF to fund special ed. Does the legislation behind these funds allow for this?
Yes. The PEEF Act of 2014*, as passed by the voters, allows for funding of special education. Section 16-123.4 of the City Charter,* titled “Universal Access to Early Education,” directs the Office of Early Childhood Education to develop guidelines to serve “children with special needs” in its plan for early childhood education. In addition, Section 16-123.5 lists “special education” as a permissible use* of SFUSD spending under PEEF.
The Student Success Fund (SSF), passed by voters as Proposition G in 2022, has broad parameters around usage to reduce social inequities and help all students achieve academic success and social/emotional well-being at their schools. Excluding students in special education from benefiting from SSF monies would be unacceptable.
If you’re elected, will you abide by the final decisions in December to close schools?
The closure decisions that the current board will make in December are of monumental importance to all SFUSD families, especially those in schools that may be slated for closure or consolidation. How the district handles this process will also affect our ability to fend off further state takeover beyond the state’s current “stay and rescind” authority over decisions with financial impacts.
It will also impact our enrollment, including our ability to keep families from leaving, bring back families who have already left, and attract new families. It is unclear whether the current board will approve the superintendent’s recommendations, which have not yet been announced.*
Given all this uncertainty and the district’s poor track record in listening to the concerns of families, I can’t commit today to rubber-stamping the outcome of an as-yet-unfinished closure process. In January, if the circumstances and community sentiment warrant it, I will be open to requests that the new board improve upon the decisions and their implementation.
With that said, I recognize the difficult financial position the district is in and that it is not sustainable long-term to keep every small school.
If “improving upon the decisions” of the previous board means delaying closures, and perhaps risking full state takeover, would you still be open to this?
Risking full state takeover would not be an improvement. I would base my own decision on whether to review the current board’s decision on school closures (expected in December) on the best information available from the community, superintendent, and state officials regarding the impact of any review or delay.
The district needs to get the closure decision right and fully understand the impact on the budget — short term and long term — of closing schools or keeping them open. It also needs time to assess the impacts on enrollment and the well-being and education of students.
That is why I have already called on the superintendent to make the case for the necessity of closures to families, educators, and voters and to develop a strong, credible transition plan. While any closures will be painful, these elements are critical to navigating the school closure process.
How do you propose keeping families in the district after the school closure decisions and further budget cuts?
To retain families, SFUSD has to listen to them and build on the district’s strengths. No one wants to choose a school or district that is simply “failing less” than it used to. Ultimately, what families want most is safe, high quality schools for their kids.
We need to take a two-pronged approach: (1) identify the key attractors for families; and (2) focus on improving the areas where the district is performing poorly.
One of the most powerful changes we can make is to improve student attendance. Districts that boost attendance see great improvements and stabilization in student outcomes. The results are so compelling that the State of California recognizes districts with top-performing attendance programs,* and these model districts provide mentoring services to others. By sharing operational plans and best practices, mentor districts can help mentee districts turn around their attendance problems faster and more effectively than through consulting companies.
If elected, I will advocate for making increased attendance a district goal and for taking advantage of partnerships with mentor districts. I will also promote community outreach and education to help parents and families understand the importance and impact of high attendance for their children.
Closing schools will free up facilities. What should the district do with those buildings? Do you support charter schools moving in?
I oppose a one-size-fits-all strategy for future use of closed facilities and lean toward uses that would bring a continuing revenue stream to the district. The best use for any given facility will depend upon the needs of the community, including whether or not complementary activities or amenities exist nearby. For example, the most appropriate use might be as housing, a childcare center, or a health facility.
There are, of course, some general parameters and legal requirements.* For example, land must first be made available for low-cost housing and for park and recreational facilities. In addition, if surplus property is sold, proceeds from the sale must be used for capital outlays (e.g., school construction and renovation) or maintaining school district property, not for operating expenses (e.g., salaries).
Another option would be to lease surplus property. An existing charter school might be an option, depending on community input, but I do not favor opening new charters.
In order to keep families in SFUSD and attract others, we don’t need additional schools. We need better ones.
What’s the No. 1 thing that SFUSD can do to improve campus safety for students and staff?
While SFUSD faces many challenges, campus safety is a threshold issue for me, as it is for the overwhelming majority of parents and teachers with whom I have advocated over the past several years. I’m honored to be the first SF school board candidate in 2024 to be recognized by Moms Demand Action as the Gun Sense candidate. [Editor’s note: several candidates are listed in the Gun Sense database.*]
Every student, educator, and staff member must have a safe learning, teaching, and working environment. Selecting one initiative for safety is challenging. All are essential.
The district must complete gun safety infrastructure improvements at all school sites, especially Columbine locks* and functional PA systems. For health and safety, the district needs to address the long-standing environmental concerns surrounding ventilation and water quality at all schools, but particularly in the Mission and Bayview districts.
Mental health is also a safety issue. Students must be safe from bullying, and victims should be provided with trauma-aware counseling and assistance. In addition, many perpetrators of violent activities have unaddressed mental health challenges. Failing to address these problems keeps students from learning and leads to absenteeism and/or disenrollment.
To me, safety is an essential investment in our school communities.
It’s been two years since 5-year academic reforms began: math, literacy, and high school curriculum. What’s gone right? What’s gone wrong? How should the board address the next three years?
The new governance model has brought attention to student outcomes, but it has also revealed that our board needs to add attendance as a goal so it can track and oversee the district’s efforts – preferably every month, all year long.
To improve student outcomes for literacy, math, and college and career readiness, we need kids to come to school and reduce tardiness/missed class time. Research shows that by the start of a student’s 9th grade year, regular attendance is a stronger predictor of graduation* than 8th grade test scores. As noted above, we should take advantage of peer mentoring by a model district. In addition, as attendance is closely tied to transportation*, we should demand better alignment between Muni routes and transportation hubs near schools.
Having advocated for better literacy and math curriculum and to bring back 8th grade algebra, including by campaigning for Proposition G*, I’ve been heartened to see the district commit to adopting evidence-based curriculum and to restoring algebra. However, it took far too long for the district to listen to families and acknowledge its failures, and we need to ensure appropriate support for educators implementing new curriculum for it to be effective and improve student outcomes.
You’ve mentioned having a rough childhood, and that school really helped. What should SFUSD do with counseling/mental health to help students given the current budget constraints?
Doing more in this area does not always require spending more. The superintendent describes the Resource Allocation Initiative [school closure process] as a way to enhance student services at remaining schools. It’s easier to provide a nurse or social worker at every school when there are fewer schools. Student emergencies don’t wait for the day a professional is on campus, and traveling from school to school is inefficient.
Providing spaces that promote calmness, physical activity, and well-being, such as wellness centers and natural areas on campus, are also very helpful. Bond funding can be used to create or improve such spaces.
Attending to mental health needs is not only essential for student well-being, it also reduces chronic absenteeism, keeps families from leaving, and thus increases revenue.
I also appreciate City Attorney David Chiu’s litigation against corporations that have done students harm. The groundbreaking Altria lawsuit now pays for school nurses and will do so in the future. As an attorney and trauma survivor, I support the city’s pursuit of such “bad actors.”
Click to jump to other candidates:
✏️ Matt Alexander
✏️ Min Chang
✏️ Virginia Cheung
✏️ Lefteris Eleftheriou
✏️ Parag Gupta
✏️ Ann Hsu
✏️ Jaime Huling
✏️ John Jersin
✏️ Maddy Krantz
✏️ Laurance Lem Lee
Ida Mojadad covers education for The Frisc. Alex Lash is The Frisc’s editor in chief.