Students, families and staff urge SFUSD to halt planned closure of Academy at McAteer

Students, parents and school staff pleaded with the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education to stop plans to close the Academy at McAteer and merge its students into Wallenberg, saying the move would strip students of a supportive, close-knit environment and campus resources.

The appeals came during the board's public comment period. Students delivered a string of personal appeals: "The Academy is not a school. It's a family," said Dolly (junior), who described improved grades and support after transferring back to the Academy. Jaden Knutson, who identified himself as the Academy student body president, said he transferred away when the school faced closure and that his grades dropped until he returned. "I felt isolated and invisible," he told the board.

Dozens of speakers — current students, parents and some teachers — described the Academy's small-school supports, a student-run campus farm and a campus that staff and students said serves many low-income students. They asked the district to give the school more time and to consider whether staffing and enrollment decisions had undercut Academy's prospects.

Students emphasized a belief that a larger school like Wallenberg could not replicate Academy's supports. "In a bigger school with less tight-knit community and less involved wellness staff, these issues will be more likely to occur," said Finnegan Kelly, a sophomore and a transgender student, who said he feared increased transphobia, bullying and a loss of supports if the merger goes forward. Several students said they would not attend Wallenberg and would leave SFUSD rather than risk diminished protections and supports.

Speakers described campus assets they said would be lost: Alex Perez Waters, an Academy student, said the McAteer campus is "massive, with over 80 acres," and cited a campus farm that supplies fresher food. Other students said Academy serves a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students (a speaker cited 60%) and supports many students with 504 plans and IEPs in ways that are not easily reduced to paperwork.

Teachers and staff joined students. An Academy science teacher and another staff speaker described the school as a successful model serving a diverse population and criticized the district for not consulting the community before moving forward. "We're confronted with the future vision of an SFUSD that no longer consults its communities before making decisions that deeply impact them," a teacher said.

District response and context: President Kim reminded the public that the board follows a governance model that emphasizes student outcomes and that the superintendent and staff will respond to public questions via the board's Q&A documents linked to the agenda. The superintendent and staff have been asked to provide draft agendas 12 days in advance and to answer clarifying questions ahead of meetings, she said; the superintendent will also ask staff to follow up with commenters when appropriate.

The board did not take formal action on the comments during the meeting. Multiple speakers asked the board to delay or revisit the closure plan and for the district to provide clearer, updated enrollment and program data; they also asked for the district to ensure that services to students with disabilities and wellness staff would be preserved if students move to a different campus.

Votes at this meeting affecting Academy operations or program funding were not recorded during the public comment period. The board discussed governance and planning later in the agenda, and the superintendent said staff would include community engagement during the upcoming budget and planning cycles.