Board debates PEAF and Children’s Fund renewal approach; community groups urge separate measures and protections

District leaders and community groups spent a significant portion of the meeting discussing options for renewing two major San Francisco revenue streams that fund enrichment programs: the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEAF) and the Children’s Fund.

Staff presentation and proposals: Superintendent Carranza, Chief of Staff Laura Moran and deputy superintendents described a multi‑step renewal process that has included stakeholder engagement and consultant facilitation (LFA). Staff presented a policy framework called "Our Children Are Our City," proposed creation of a Children and Family Council to steer shared outcomes, and described a small dedicated staff (the collaborative) to operationalize data sharing, an outcomes framework and coordinated planning. "We are not proposing that the Board of Education relinquishes or abdicates its responsibility and decision making authority under PEAF," Carranza said when outlining staff goals for codifying cross‑agency collaboration while preserving elected authorities.

Key policy questions: The presentation identified several outstanding issues that will shape any ballot measure(s): whether to remove charter 'sunset' provisions; whether to eliminate the charter 'trigger' that allows appropriation reductions in difficult budget years; how to treat city 'in‑kind' services that now count toward the district's share of PEAF; and whether to present one combined ballot measure covering both funds or two separate measures. Staff recommended options but said many specifics (governance composition, charter language vs trailing legislation) remained to be finalized.

Public testimony and community positions: Multiple community groups and practitioners urged protections for existing programming and greater stability. Danielle Anderson, a longtime PE teacher, described how PEAF funding supports her school’s curriculum and equipment; Jessica Camille of the San Francisco Alliance for Arts Education urged full funding for arts in all schools and proposed eliminating the city’s in‑kind payments; Chelsea Boylard of Coleman Advocates asked that any coordination costs be borne by the city and not absorbed by the two funds and called for removing sunset provisions.

Board concerns and debate: Commissioners debated the merits of a single "children’s agenda" ballot that would combine reauthorization of both funds against the safer political strategy of two separate measures. Several commissioners urged charter language that is broad and relies on trailing legislation for details; others demanded specific safeguards to ensure the Board of Education retains final authority over educational outcome measures and the spending plan. Concerns were repeatedly raised about the power of a collaborative body to set outcomes without Board approval and about the historical use of the spending‑plan approval process by the Board of Supervisors.

Next steps: Staff and commissioners agreed to continue negotiations with city leaders, community coalitions and the mayor’s office; staff indicated the intent to finalize measures in time for a November ballot but said many details would be resolved through continued stakeholder work and proposed trailing legislation. Community coalitions generally advocated for two separate ballot measures and for removing in‑kind services and trigger language to increase fund stability.