Facing a $113 million budget deficit, the San Francisco Board of Education is being asked to create a new high-level administrator position for communications and governance as one of its first orders of business next week. The post, for whom an individual is already selected, will cost the district over a quarter million dollars annually.
Tuesday’s board meeting will be the first for three new commissioners elected in November — Parag Gupta, Jaime Huling, and Supryia Ray. High on their list of responsibilities and challenges left behind by the departing commissioners are avoiding state takeover, laying off 535 teachers and staff, and guiding new superintendent Maria Su. These tasks are made more difficult by Superintendent Su’s and the prior board’s decision to delay closing or consolidating any schools until at least the Fall 2026 school year. That delay took off the table an estimated $22 million in savings for the coming year.
The first action item on the board meeting agenda developed by the superintendent and board President Matt Alexander is to create a “Head of Communications and Governance,” who will report directly to the superintendent and be responsible for coordinating government and external relations and leading media and crisis communications. Despite being part of the job title, the word “governance” does not appear in the job description, which makes no reference to governance duties.
A lack of effective governance of the board and district has been a persistent criticism for years expressed by City Hall; California Department of Education overseers; and teacher, parent, and community stakeholders. In 2024, board members criticized the prior superintendent for failing to fill key positions, and one state report expressed dissatisfaction that the district had just one or two people who could produce financial reports that entire departments were able to produce in other school districts. Earlier, the district adopted a payroll system that did not provide accurate and timely paychecks for teachers and cost millions of dollars to fix before being abandoned.
A lack of effective governance of the board and district has been a persistent criticism for years.
Since October, the school board has approved a contract for the new superintendent that reimburses the City and County of San Francisco for the compensation she continues to receive as a city department administrator in lieu of paying her a direct salary. It also approved a buyout for the prior superintendent and elevated an existing administrator to assume the duties of deputy superintendent. The superintendent already has in her cabinet an executive director of communications and external affairs. There is no indication that this individual is leaving. If not, the head of communications and governance will cost the district at least an additional $275,000 in salary and benefits (using U.S. Department of Labor total compensation estimates.)
Communications and governance are important facets of restoring trust in our public schools. Stakeholders are closely following what the district does and how it does it. For this particular hire, the Board of Education is being asked to approve a hiring process that involves applicants submitting resumes and references and the Department of Human Resources following up. While that process is waiting to be approved, however, district officials have already selected the successful candidate. They are asking the school board to approve the process and then immediately enter into a three-year employment contract with the new hire as the next item on the agenda.
The Board of Education as well as the person who will assume this new position would be better served if the job duties related to governance were stated in the job description. One of the functions of the new head of communications and governance is to “lead the Board office” to promote communication and collaboration between the commissioners and the district staff. Yet, there is no indication that school board members, departing ones or those newly sworn in, have had any role in defining the job or selecting the new hire.
The new hire is also expected to “partner across the district to lead the district-wide, strategic alignment of internal and external communications, exercising influence and positional authority to create coherence.” This role, too, will be made less challenging with some transparency in the hiring process and not the apparently simultaneous creation, announcement, and hiring for the position.
A more open and public process might elevate voices in the school communities who would prefer spending this money to retain teacher or paraprofessional positions instead of one more central office administrator. Or perhaps they would conclude that this position is key to the district attracting more parents to send their children to public schools and gaining more dollars from City Hall, Sacramento, or Washington, D.C. But we will not know that if the school board proceeds on its current course.
