How one can inform if San Francisco’s new faculty board begins screwing up
In the months leading up to the recall of San Francisco school board commissioners Alison Collins, Gabriela López and Faauuga Moliga, we heard a lot about what school boards shouldn’t do. We heard far less about what a school board should do. Or even what a school board is and what it does.
As a three-term member of the San Francisco Board of Education and a parent of two city school district graduates, I can honestly say that most people in San Francisco don’t really know what our board is supposed to do or how to evaluate its performance.
So allow me to explain how things work (at least how they’re supposed to work) because a functional board will prevent future expensive and divisive recalls.
School boards exist to ensure that public schools are responsive to the values, beliefs and priorities of their local communities. San Francisco Board of Education commissioners are responsible for adopting the school district’s budget, curriculum and policies, and ensuring compliance with the California Education Code. They also hire and monitor a superintendent whose job it is to manage the school system on a day-to-day basis. This is the board’s sole employee; all other district staff report to the superintendent.
Commissioners receive a small grant of $500 per month for this role, plus reimbursements for expenses like travel and health insurance.
So how do you know if a board is doing a good or bad job?
There is really no substitute for paying attention to what the commissioners are talking about, which in recent years has unfortunately meant sitting through some very long and angry meetings. In one notorious meeting last year, parents who wanted to weigh in on the impact of school closures had to wait for two hours as the board argued about whether a white gay dad should volunteer on the district’s Parent Advisory Council.
It doesn’t have to be that way! And, moving forward, it shouldn’t be.
Meetings get long when the board piles on too many agenda items. They drag on even further when board members don’t bother to research agenda materials in advance, or when they make long speeches about their views on a particular topic. When the board fails to adequately engage the public on proposed policies — as happened with changes to Lowell High’s admissions policy — or does not give community members space to be heard on things they care about, hours of angry public comment ensue.
An effective board does not spring things on the public in meetings. It sets clear priorities from the outset and works with its superintendent to achieve those objectives. Crucially, it narrows down its expectations to all but a few high-impact goals. Focus and results suffer when it doesn’t.
If everything is a priority, then nothing is.
In 2010, my second year on the board, we set 13 priorities for then-Superintendent Carlos Garcia, even though we knew the district didn’t have the fiscal or organizational capacity to tackle them all. We just couldn’t make the tough decisions about which ones could be deferred. Superintendent Garcia rightly complained about our lack of focus.
Ideally, a board and superintendent should agree to five or six high-priority goals each year — and then follow through. Once those goals and priorities are set, the board’s job is to then monitor the superintendent’s progress in advancing that agenda.
That is what board meetings are for!
Let’s say, for example, that the board and superintendent agree that reading proficiency by third grade is a key indicator of future achievement and that it should be a district priority to raise reading scores for all third-graders. They would mutually agree upon quantifiable targets for the district to meet (hopefully including a focus on raising achievement for specific groups of students who are most behind). The board would then ask the superintendent to identify high impact actions — like changes in curriculum — to help meet those targets. Commissioners would convene public meetings to get input about the superintendent’s proposed actions. It would use this input to set priorities and allot funding, and it would handle any labor negotiations that might arise from implementing the plans. Throughout the school year, the board asks the superintendent for progress reports to evaluate whether targets are being met. At the end of the year, tough conversations are necessary if goals aren’t reached.
Sounds simple enough. Unfortunately, failing to stick to agreed upon priorities and piling on new policies and budget investments happens frequently. This forces the superintendent and staff to shift precious time and budget resources toward these new and unexpected priorities.
Sometimes these pivots are necessary — like when trying to adapt schools to a changing COVID environment.
Most often they’re not.
Every superintendent I’ve worked with has pleaded with the board to limit new resolutions. Last year, however, the board took these diversions to another level. Superintendent Vincent Matthews had to take the highly unusual step of renegotiating his contract to force commissioners to stick to only the most important priorities.
New resolutions kept coming anyway.
When a board sets clear priorities and stays focused on outcomes, it empowers the superintendent to tackle only the most essential work. Crucially, the board must also provide the superintendent with reasonable support and resources.
When that doesn’t happen, the effects can be disastrous.
In mid-2020, for example, the board directed Matthews to focus on safely reopening schools from COVID closures. Matthews thought the district needed outside help, so he asked to hire a consultant (paid for entirely by private grant funding) to assist in developing a reopening strategy. But the board voted 5-2 to deny the contract because the consultant had ties to charter schools. Ultimately, school reopenings were delayed for months.
Some board members also abused their authority by attempting to direct staff work. That’s the superintendent’s job, not theirs.
Board members have a difficult but essential job. They educate the public on educational issues, decisions and policies, and use their platforms as elected officials to build community bridges, showcase progress and attract state, federal and private resources.
Whether or not you agreed with the decision to recall the three school board members, the reality is that the district’s budget is awash in red ink and student enrollment is declining. It is safe to say that the board could improve on its management style and efforts to build local support.
In the coming weeks, the four remaining board members and the three new appointees Mayor London Breed will select to replace the recalled commissioners will have an opportunity to make a fresh start. They will pick a new superintendent to replace Matthews, and can, if they choose, renew the board’s commitment to governance. Doing so is far less likely than political grandstanding to get them media attention or name recognition. Yet that is the job.
The board is elected to be accountable for the performance of public schools. This requires regularly monitoring the educational, administrative and financial performance of the district. Voters, parents and other stakeholders should pay close attention to their actions, and the priorities they set for the school district. Continued governance failures will have a devastating effect on the district’s functioning — and on our children’s futures.
Rachel Norton was elected to three terms on the San Francisco Board of Education, serving as vice president and president and chairing the rules, budget and student assignment committees at various times. She left office in January 2021.
