In the aftermath of San Francisco Superintendent of Schools Matt Wayne’s long-awaited and briefly delayed announcement of which public schools may be closed or merged in fall 2025, confusion about the need for closure of these particular schools is leading to resistance to his future as superintendent.
Following Board of Education President Lainie Motamedi’s resignation in August, less than a month before the expected closure announcement, Mayor Breed appointed Phil Kim to the school board effectively depriving Superintendent Wayne of his lead consultant managing the closure process. The shift made it more challenging to present a comprehensive community outreach plan and justification for particular closures insisted upon by the Board of Education. Now that parents and community leaders are criticizing the closures, the mayor is calling for a delay in school closures and stating she has lost confidence in Superintendent Wayne’s ability to manage the process. City Hall is now offering staff expertise to the school district and some additional funding but increasing scrutiny and making sometimes contradictory demands on Superintendent Wayne.
The actual school closure plan continues to be mired in questions and doubt. To its credit, the district has provided information about the process and solicited parent and community feedback for months. However, it has been unsuccessful in cultivating supporters or validators of the need to close schools. The superintendent’s rationales are that we have too many schools for too few students and that remaining schools will be better resourced. Board of Education members have not stepped up to join the superintendent or validate this message. Some community members feel schools need more investments and that if cutting these schools won’t solve the budget crisis entirely, it should not be done.
To date, the superintendent has taken on the burden almost entirely on his own. The school community consultation phase after last week’s announcement is focused on “how,” not “whether” a school should be closed. The proposal will not be presented to the school board until November — after the election — for an up or down vote in December without the ability of board members to remove any schools from the list or make changes. With a “take it or leave it” offer, a majority of the board is expected to take the latter option.
Superintendent Wayne must convince San Franciscans that he understands the pain of school closures and that he has a plan to make the experience for students and the resources at the receiving schools better than the schools slated for closure.
Currently, even the school district’s terminology of “closed” school versus “merged” school raises questions. Whether a school is closed or merged, its students will be leaving it at the end of the spring 2025 semester. The only difference is whether the students will move to one school or two schools. But they will be leaving. For example, Harvey Milk Civil Rights Academy is slated to be “merged” with Sanchez Elementary. Harvey Milk students and parents have told the school board and superintendent that the merger threatens the unique LGBT-friendly school policies, programs, and atmosphere that attract students to it even from outside San Francisco. They have yet to be told whether the Harvey Milk civil rights-oriented curriculum and learning approach will continue at the new school. If it does not continue, many students will leave or feel less accepted and safe. If it remains (along with its faculty), how much money is saved? According to the school district data, Harvey Milk Academy scores higher on “excellence” and “efficiency” but lower on “equity” than Sanchez Elementary. It is difficult to understand why a civil rights academy would score lower on equity than a school without that focus.
Other community members criticize the closure of Sutro Elementary School in the Richmond District in part because they fear the end of its Cantonese biliteracy program. Six blocks away is another elementary school whose composite ranking is 10 points lower than Sutro’s (29.87 versus 19.41). Four blocks south of that school is a third elementary school with an even lower composite score. All three are high performing schools, similar in size, with low equity rankings.
The superintendent will be met by vigorous opposition not only at the affected school sites he and his team will visit over the next few weeks but at upcoming school board meetings. Already, incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors and candidates have issued press releases criticizing the plan for closing schools in their districts. What is lost in these efforts, though, is that the closures themselves will move about 1,750 students or under 4 percent of total enrollment — far fewer and more intentionally cognizant of equity concerns than first envisioned.
To salvage his proposed closure plan, keep the school district from being taken over by the state Department of Education and ultimately save his job, Superintendent Wayne must convince San Franciscans that he understands the pain of school closures and that he has a plan to make the experience for students and the resources at the receiving schools better than the schools slated for closure. Wayne must also warn the school board — and now Mayor Breed — that San Francisco risks more widespread and more severe pain for public schools and students if his plan is not adopted.
