Although it is not renaming schools, the San Francisco Board of Education, headed by President Phil Kim, appears determined to remove the word “public” from the names of public schools. Over the past six months, under the guise of good governance, it has systematically reduced accountability and deprived parents, the public, and other stakeholders of access to information and a voice in the state of our public schools.
On Tuesday, the board will seek to grant Superintendent Maria Su a contract that extends to June 2028, as a last-minute add-on to a packed agenda, with no public input. Even in a cohesive, well-run school district not considered by state education officials to be in financial danger, failing to solicit and integrate community input and instead relying on closed-door decision-making would raise concerns. In San Francisco, a city that shouts the loudest against the Trump administration’s attacks on democracy and the rule of law, the absence of transparency is even more surprising.
On a Sunday morning in August at Everett Middle School, one board member stated that board meetings “aren’t for or with the public. It is our work in view of the public.”
Education observers will recall that Maria Su was installed as superintendent last year after a Sunday 9 a.m. special meeting of the prior school board, and is the beneficiary of a unique arrangement between the city and the school district that up to now has kept her a city employee paid by the schools, a separate governmental body. The Board of Supervisors was required to approve this arrangement for it to take effect, but after a year, it has declined to do so.
According to the Board of Education’s own rules, draft meeting agendas are made public 12 days in advance of a meeting, allowing the public to know what will be discussed and decided. Agenda items include relatively minor decisions, such as approving student field trips out of town and the acquisition of materials. They even list the names of student teacher interns coming from local colleges.
However, for the most essential items, such as extending the superintendent’s contract, only three days’ notice is provided. Under an agreement between Superintendent Su and Board President Kim, contracts of top administrators are placed on the agenda without their names. Suppose parents or community members have relevant knowledge or experience with these top administrators who are routinely paid over $200,000 per year. In that case, they are unable to provide it since the names are not revealed until the board meeting itself.
Superintendent Su has had many accomplishments over the past year. Her signature achievement may be closing a $113 million budget deficit the district faced in the current fiscal year. However, the remaining $13 million budget gap, as outlined in her first budget stabilization plan, has grown to $59 million four months ago and is now $102 million, according to the Board of Education itself. Educators, parents, and the public deserve answers to this question and other fundamental questions about the operation of the school district before, not after, she is granted a contract through 2028.
Superintendent Su was able to close the $113 million budget gap by buying out the contracts of senior teachers and administrators, which, while avoiding layoffs, has resulted in the elimination of many school-based positions. If the board knows what Superintendent Su’s strategy is for cutting the next $102 million, it should share it with the parents, educators, and public who will be directly affected, allowing for meaningful public input before the vote, not after.
Another aspect of the suspect timing that suggests a desire to keep the public away from decision-making is the new contract’s effective date. The contract to be voted upon on Tuesday will not take effect until January 2026. Superintendent Su’s existing arrangement does not expire until June 2026 and, by its terms, can be extended for two years. President Kim could easily schedule the vote for December, giving his colleagues the opportunity to hear from the public this month and next before they vote. He could easily schedule the vote in early 2026 after the state education finance officials approve or disapprove Superintendent Su’s next budget plan. Alternatively, the board could continue the existing contract without taking on the additional costs and liabilities outlined in the proposal, which is being rushed to a vote on Tuesday.
A.J. Crabill, a nationally recognized education governance coach hired by the school board, stated at a recent board meeting that board members were “not attending to a core function of [their jobs], which is engaging with [the] community.” A rushed vote extending Superintendent Su’s contract is more of the same.
The school board’s posture toward public input was on display at a near-secret board meeting on a Sunday morning in August at Everett Middle School, when one board member stated that board meetings “aren’t for or with the public. It is our work in view of the public.” At the same meeting, the board’s general counsel stated that the board could meet despite not following its own rules regarding notification to the community about the meeting.
When it was founded in 1916, the American Federation of Teachers‘ motto was “Democracy in education; education for democracy.” Superintendent Su’s future tenure and the success of students will be strengthened by restoring that vision. Reversing the current “hide the ball” approach of the school board and allowing the people to speak on her contract are the immediate first steps toward transparency and accountability.