Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community clash over removal of Ulloa principal; board hears hundreds of public comments
Summary
Dozens of residents, parents and community leaders urged the San Francisco Board of Education on June 28 to restore Ulloa Principal Fong after district leaders removed her from the school following an incident where the principal repeated a racial slur while attempting a teachable moment. Other speakers urged the board to uphold the reassignment and prioritize safety for harmed families.
A prolonged public-comment period at the San Francisco Board of Education’s June 28 meeting focused on community reaction to the district’s reassignment of Principal Fong at Ulloa Elementary School. The board allocated lengthy time for in‑person and virtual public comment; speakers offered sharply divided views on whether the district’s administrative response was appropriate.
Supporters of Principal Fong — including long‑time parents, former students and Ulloa staff — said Fong had apologized and that her actions were intended as a teachable moment for English-language learners. Jack Chen said the principal ‘‘has been respectful to the community’’ and urged the board not to remove her. Several speakers emphasized Fong’s decades of service and school awards under her leadership.
Other commenters, including Rev. Amos Brown and several Black community members who said students and families were harmed, argued the principal’s repeated use of a racial slur required disciplinary action. In public comment, Rev. Brown told the board that the NAACP ‘‘will engage at a law school to provide restorative justice for the principal’’ and urged attention to the harms described by families.
The board did not take an immediate vote to reverse district personnel decisions at the meeting; several public commenters requested more transparency about the investigation and asked staff to provide full information on process and findings. Superintendent Matthews and staff acknowledged ongoing follow-up but framed the decision as an administrative action by the superintendent and central office rather than a board personnel vote.
The meeting record shows a vigorous and prolonged community debate over discipline, restorative practices and procedural transparency. Speakers asked for clearer public explanation of investigatory steps, restorative processes and the evidence that led to the reassignment.
