As we discussed in Part 1, the Memo of Understanding (MOU) was the functional security model that was severed in 2020 by the now-recalled Board of Education. This absence of a formal relationship between the SFPD and SFUSD has deprived SFUSD of armed Security Resource Officers (SROs) on campuses. In the interim, the Board of Education has suggested reducing security staff to address the ballooning SFUSD budget deficit, which has grown to over $100 million. The absence of armed SROs was particularly felt at two major SFUSD campuses over the past several years.
On March 28, 2024, Presidio Middle School staff in the Richmond district were forced to intervene when an intoxicated homeless man hurled a beer can at female students over a playground fence, verbally harassed them, and engaged in lewd behavior. School staff had to escort the offender off the school grounds physically. A designated officer under the MOU could have ensured a swift police response, minimizing disruption and risk to staff and students.
Lowell had its own security challenges with several intrusions on campus, including a homeless man in the girls’ locker room and someone posing as a substitute teacher trying to enter the campus. In March 2024, Lowell High School held its own safety town hall, despite reported objections from district leadership, in which former principal Mike Jones and then Supervisor Joel Engardio openly called for the restoration of SROs. Jones told the audience, “This is the first district in my career that hasn’t had SROs. It makes me uncomfortable not having police on campus. It’s very challenging getting the police on campus, sometimes it takes two or three calls to get a response.” He noted that Lowell’s eight on-site security guards are unarmed. Engardio added that SFPD officers “don’t feel welcome on campus,” a problem he attributed to school board policy. Both urged parents to lobby the school board and to make safety a priority in the upcoming school board and mayoral races. One month later, Principal Jones abruptly resigned.
Here is an excerpt from safety town hall coverage, “Security incidents on campus prompt calls for armed security” in the Lowell Student News:
When faced with attendees’ calls for more transparency on the issue of safety, Jones highlighted the bureaucracy Lowell faces in its efforts to communicate with families. “Every time we send an email, it has to be reviewed by SFUSD’s legal and communications team. It’s a collaborative effort,” Jones said, “But there’s also some people who didn’t want me to have this [public safety townhall] meeting tonight, that’s just how San Francisco politics works.”
Then there was a bomb threat at Lowell on Oct. 7, 2025 at around 2 p.m., which required full sweeps by SFPD tactical and K9 units, while students were evacuated to nearby Rolph Nicol Jr. Playground. Numerous parents did not receive any phone alerts, and Lowell Principal Jan Bautista only officially informed parents three hours later via email that students had been evacuated, SFPD had conducted a search, and determined the campus was safe for school activities to resume. On top of that, an unsettling video surfaced on Nov. 10, 2025, where a Lowell alum went to the school to purchase some memorabilia, but discovered instead a Lowell security employee with allegedly glazed and bloodshot eyes with a waft of marijuana emerging from his vehicle parked inside school grounds. Video of the exchange on Lowell campus is captured below:
Assistant Vice Principal Isaac Alcantar later acknowledged in the recording that the guard had been called in on his day off due to limited security staffing. When the video surfaced in a Facebook group, the Lowell administration sent out an email asking that it be taken down saying that the alum “made false accusations against the security guard,” and calling the alum’s entry through the back “trespassing;” however, it’s a common, unmarked entry point for parents who are parked on the backside of Lowell for afterschool sporting events.
According to SFUSD Board Policy 3513.4, drugs, including cannabis, are strictly prohibited on district property for both employees and students. Staff may use cannabis off-duty, but possession or impairment on campus is grounds for discipline. A failed drug test, which can detect marijuana use for two to 30 days or more, may result in termination even with a medical prescription. California’s Compassionate Use Act (section 11362.2) permits medical use off-duty, but SFUSD policy makes clear: “No person may possess, use, or be under the influence of any controlled substance … on school premises.”
A SFUSD official spokesperson responded to our request for comment; excerpts are below:
After reviewing the situation thoroughly, we are confident that the employee in the video was not under the influence and was within the bounds of performing their work duties. What the video does confirm is that the individual involved in recording the video was trespassing. Our schools maintain visitor policies in order to ensure the safety of students and staff, and it is disappointing that this policy was not followed by the individual recording the video after being asked multiple times to follow protocol. We commend our employee for ensuring the safety of the Lowell campus and its students. We are concerned by the amplification of false accusations against our employees.
All employees and adults who have more than limited contact with students are required to complete annual Mandated Reporter training and pass criminal background checks. We also provide training on Professional Adult-Student Boundaries and expect employees to bring any concerns directly to administration.
When pressed on whether the district’s review included a toxicology test to confirm the guard was not impaired, SFUSD did not provide further details.
Lee Cheng, an attorney and cofounder of the Friends of Lowell Foundation shared his reaction to the incident and the SFUSD response; excerpt below:
I am appalled and disappointed to hear about these incidents. No fair and reasonable person can look at a video like that and categorically deny the evidence in the video.…They cannot categorically say that the allegation of marijuana on campus use was false. It is clear that the SFUSD remains more focused on trying to avoid embarrassment and on blaming concerned alumni and citizens for its failures in securing school grounds and managing security staff. Unless an independent toxicology report was performed…the statement that the security guard had not used marijuana on campus grounds or was under the influence of marijuana lacks credibility…
The trespass allegation is also specious. No signs were posted … the entrance was wide open and unsecured. The alleged security guard did not have or present any ID…. Someone with bloodshot eyes smelling heavily of marijuana would not in any well managed organization or locale be considered credible authority … SFUSD should be making sure that signage is placed conspicuously at entrances, entrances are well secured, and staff are never permitted to use controlled substances on campus (or within 1000 feet of any school grounds). Administrators should be trained to know relevant law, there is no medical exception to use or function under the influence of marijuana on school campuses in California.
On Nov. 21, 2025, a police report was filed regarding the Lowell incident. Security challenges continue to plague the Lowell campus, which spans 26 acres with a 4,000-foot perimeter, roughly eight city blocks. Meanwhile, SFUSD announced plans to slash school security staff by 50 percent to address its $113 million budget deficit. This deficit ballooned from $15 million in December 2024 to over $100 million within a year. Yet the Board of Education renewed Superintendent Maria Su’s contract until 2028 without public review of her performance.
Guns, gang-related threats (as covered in Part 1) and declining safety at SFUSD is a facet of a wider systemic problem of youth crime and gang-related violence, which city and state laws have loosened over a decade. Recent gang-related shootings occurred on Black Friday at Valley Fair Mall and at a kids’ birthday party in Stockton, which wounded 17 and killed three children. Even District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has shifted her stance toward prosecuting youth crimes, from stating she would only prosecute “heinous” youth crimes in adult court in 2022, to “children’s chances of reoffending might be lower if they were tried as adults and sent to county jail or state prison” in 2025.
Under current law, San Francisco juveniles arrested for firearms or violence fall mostly under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC). There, staff, not police or prosecutors, decide whether the offender is released to parents, sent to a nonprofit shelter such as Huckleberry House, or held briefly in a locked JJC facility. Proposition 57 (passed in 2015) and subsequent reforms stripped prosecutors of direct transfer authority to adult courts, leaving the final decision to judges. In 2017, SB 190 prohibited counties from charging families for costs related to juvenile justice processes, which averaged $23,000 per youth. While this reduced financial burdens on families it also disincentivized families from providing more structure and accountability for their kids because of the shared responsibility that youth crime fines had on the entire family. And SB 81, passed in 2021, specifically tells judges to dismiss gang enhancements, prior-strike enhancements, and most other add-ons unless the prosecutor can prove that dismissal would “endanger public safety.”
A new board, same defensiveness, ballooning deficit, and misdirected priorities?
SFUSD continues to repeat the mantra that its campuses are “safe.” Each new shooting, bomb threat, and intrusion tells a different story. The district is quick to praise SFPD when officers rush in to clean up the latest crisis, yet remains slow to restore the formal partnership that once kept armed, trained SROs on campus. What other security risks do students face? Look out for Part 3 of our multipart series on SFUSD and student safety.