Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Renaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD Blue Ribbon panel recommends 40+ schools for renaming; some schools ask for extended engagement
Summary
A volunteer School Names Advisory (Blue Ribbon) Panel released findings identifying more than 40 campuses meeting criteria for possible renaming and opened an engagement process inviting each school community to submit alternative names; some site leaders and unions asked for a longer timeline to ensure equitable outreach during the pandemic.
The School Names Advisory Panel (Blue Ribbon Panel), convened under a 2018 board resolution, presented its process and initial findings on Nov. 10, identifying dozens of district campuses whose names the panel found met criteria for reconsideration.
Panel process and criteria
Panel members described a modified consensus decision-making approach and a set of guiding principles focused on social and economic justice, alignment with SFUSD core values, honoring local contributors and Indigenous heritage, and uplifting names that bring “joy and healing.” The panel and staff told the board they reviewed the history of more than 200 campuses, worked with SFUSD educators and researchers and narrowed a list to roughly 42 sites for recommendation. The panel will invite each identified school community to submit up to eight alternative names drawn from student bodies, school-site councils, parent affinity groups and staff. The committee plans to reconvene in January to review school-submitted alternatives and then will recommend one alternative per site to the board.
Community reaction and next steps
Public comment showed both support and requests for pause: parents, students and community groups applauded the process and said renaming can be a pedagogy-rich opportunity for student civic learning. But site leaders and United Administrators of San Francisco (UASF) urged a pause or an extended timeline so schools can conduct thoughtful, inclusive engagement amid COVID-19 and avoid excluding families who lack access to virtual engagement.
Panel and staff indicated willingness to support school communities that lack capacity and offered volunteer support and guidance; staff committed to follow up and to provide a list of which schools had engaged their stakeholder bodies and which had not. The panel will continue meeting and has asked schools to use existing representative bodies (SSC, ELAC, student councils, etc.) to generate names and feedback by the end of the semester; the panel will then craft recommendations for the board to consider next year.
