San Franciscans often regard ourselves as at the forefront of the fight for the rule of law and government transparency. Our city is frequently the first and only local government joining states in the role of plaintiff against the Trump administration’s excesses of authority and arbitrary actions. It is disheartening, therefore, when the mirror is reversed. A Voice of San Francisco examination of the governance of our schools — not only by officials at the school district but by officials at City Hall as well — finds challenges, if not failures, to carry out promised actions. Here is what we found:
On Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee will consider a recommendation to direct $29 million to the school district’s Student Success Fund despite not receiving two overdue annual reports on how the money is spent. The reports are required by the City Charter to fulfill a promise that city money going to the school district will be used to promote academic success and social-emotional well-being.
Just last November, voters passed Proposition J “to support budget accountability for children.” Proponents, led by Supervisor Myrna Melgar, told voters that it would ensure that the city and school district plan, coordinate and account for funding spent on children, youth, and families to improve outcomes. They said it would “ensure budget accountability . . . and increase transparency so we know what we are spending on children and measure if it is effective.” The city already sends over $100 million annually to the school district. Proposition J requires the school district to submit an expenditure plan to City Hall starting in January 2026.
In the meantime, there are existing reporting requirements that are not being met by the city’s Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, which is in charge of the program and, until last November, was headed by the current school superintendent, Maria Su. According to the budget analyst’s report for the next delivery of money, “the annual evaluation of the outcomes did not take place as required by Charter Section 16.131(g)” for the first $9 million provided in 2023–24 and a report on how $27 million was spent in 2024–25 will not be available to the public until sometime in October, or after the supervisors’ hearing on the new money. The most recent report was due in May.
City funds under these programs are intended to increase success among students described as historically underserved and overlooked in academia and to fill wellness gaps through more nurses, counselors, social workers, arts, and summer programs. The required reports are geared toward demonstrating how the funds help schools reach academic goals that the school district acknowledges it is off-track in achieving: third-grade literacy, eighth- grade math, and twelfth grade college/career readiness.
Without the promised reports, it is hard to know how the money is spent and on whom. One high school, with an enrollment of just 225 students, was awarded $200,000 for these program goals: (1) create a student planning committee, (2) launch quarterly newsletters, and (3) require student interns to attend the School Site Council. Supervisors should ask why these activities cost $200,000 and, if they didn’t, whether and/or where the money was spent.
Without the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families and the school district producing the reports required under the city charter, members of the Board of Supervisors have little information they can rely on that demonstrates the money that was already distributed was spent legally and appropriately, any problems have been identified and necessary adjustments have been made to better serve the students with the next $29 million.
When voters passed Proposition G in 2022 to establish the Student Success Fund and in 2024 to amend the 2022 law and increase accountability, they did so over the warning of the city controller that the propositions were not in compliance with city policy passed by the voters to limit budget mechanisms that reduce dollars spent by the mayor and Board of Supervisors.
The city’s and school district’s budget situations demand that their budget accountability promises be met and that voters, who have generously supported the schools at the ballot box for years, be assured that their money is reaching the students. Supervisor Connie Chan, who chairs the Budget Committee, is well-positioned to exert the oversight authority over the schools that she pledged to wield in 2023. In addition to this $29 million under her purview, she has retained control over the City Hall agreement that enabled Maria Su to become superintendent.
If the requirement for the Board of Supervisors to approve the agreement for Su’s appointment is ignored and the required reports on how over $35 million is spent by the school district are not produced, then the rule of law will have taken yet another hit but this time inflicted by San Francisco leaders.