Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Closures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students and teachers urge SF Board to pause school-closure plans and demand transparency
Summary
More than two dozen in-person speakers and many virtual commenters told the San Francisco Board of Education to stop proposed school closures, saying closures would not save money, harm small schools and special‑education students, and demanded meaningful community engagement and transparent transition plans.
The San Francisco Board of Education heard more than 26 in-person speakers and dozens of virtual commenters on the district’s proposed school-closure and resource‑alignment work, with parents, students, teachers and community groups urging the board to pause the process and provide clear transition plans.
“Why do my peers and I have to sacrifice our quality of education and use our resilience because SFUSD has a budget crisis?” said Allen, a student from June Jordan School for Equity, criticizing what he called an unfair burden on students. Other student speakers said closures would increase travel distances, disrupt social supports and harm students with anxiety.
Parents and advocates framed closures as an equity and transparency problem. Brandy Markman, a parent, called the process “a sham” and said it tracks national patterns of school closures that accelerated displacement and community harm. Coleman Advocates urged a temporary pause until the district produces an “equitable, transparent, and fully supportive plan.”
Teachers and staff said small schools provide essential social services and that personnel shortages — especially in special education — would worsen if sites closed. A June Jordan teacher told the board that “on the surface” closing a 200‑student school may look efficient, but such decisions fail to capture the depth of human relationships and services small schools provide.
Public commenters repeatedly asked for data to support claims that closures will create savings. “If we’re saying closing schools will save money, the community would like to see that data,” said a parent who referenced a local Democratic Party resolution urging preservation of SFUSD schools. Multiple speakers said the district has not demonstrated cost savings and urged the board to “chop from the top” — cutting central‑office costs rather than school programs.
President Alexander acknowledged the repeated requests to be involved in decisions, saying she heard “loud and clear a request to be involved in the process” and described meaningful consultation with impacted students, families and staff as a board guardrail. The board did not take action on closures at the meeting; public comment led into two scheduled progress‑monitoring presentations on math and college‑and‑career readiness.
Next steps: speakers asked the board to delay or remove closure items until community‑centered transition plans, disaggregated data and staffing plans are released and sufficient time for consultation is provided.
