Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD board approves one-year extension of JROTC after heated public comment
Summary
The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education voted to amend and adopt a resolution extending JROTC for the 2008–2009 school year while a task force develops non‑military alternatives. The decision followed more than an hour of public comment from students, educators and anti‑war activists and passed by recorded roll call.
The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education voted to extend the district's Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program for one year, adopting an amended resolution that allows schools to offer JROTC as an elective for the 2008–2009 school year.
The amendment — debated after more than an hour of public testimony — was intended to preserve existing student credits and give a board-appointed task force additional time to develop and pilot alternative, non‑military leadership programs. The board recorded votes during a roll-call: the amendment passed in the first vote and the resolution as amended was announced as approved by the board.
Why it mattered: supporters said a continuation would prevent disruption to students’ credits and provide time for alternatives to be built and tested; critics said JROTC functions as a military recruiting tool and reaffirmed the board’s previous resolution to phase the program out. The controversy drew students, retired administrators and community activists to the microphone.
Supporters’ case: speakers who identified as retired administrators, school principals and union leaders urged the board not to remove credited coursework mid‑stream. Dennis Kelly, president of United Educators of San Francisco, urged the board to "give the people the time to put that together before you do anything," arguing the district had not developed a satisfactory replacement. Juliana Lee, who identified herself as a brigade commander for more than 1,200 JROTC students, requested that students "not be penalized for the credits earned" if the program changes.
Opponents’ case: several speakers framed JROTC as an extension of the military into schools and a recruitment pathway. One caller told the board, "You did the right thing when you passed the resolution dropping JROTC," and argued that San Francisco voters oppose military recruitment in schools and that JROTC "violates our anti‑discrimination policies." Code Pink and other groups urged development of non‑military alternatives focused on peace and conflict resolution.
Financial and program questions: public testimony raised operational questions, including how many students would be affected and the program’s cost. One public commenter asked whether the district intended to spend "a million dollars per year" on a program with comparatively few students; union and task‑force speakers said enrollment and budget impacts should be examined as alternatives are piloted.
What the board decided next: the board adopted the extension as amended and recessed briefly; staff and the task force are expected to continue developing alternatives and report back to the board. Several board members signaled concern about preserving credits and about labor impacts for instructors.
The board’s action leaves the JROTC program in place for one school year while the district tests alternatives and works through remaining questions about credit, funding and program evaluation.
