Fate of the school district remains uncertain after weekend upheavals

Dramatic actions over the past two weekends raise more questions for our public schools than provide stability. City Hall has now stepped in to help on budget and administrative matters but whether school closures are back on track and how voters will react to this situation remain to be seen. If school board President Matt Alexander’s dramatic call of a Sunday morning emergency board meeting to evaluate the performance of Superintendent Matt Wayne was meant to restore needed faith, it ended with a significant departure from the open meeting provisions of the Brown Act. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the school board will hear the district’s plan for “grading for equity” as one way to improve student educational attainment.

For months, public school parents waited with anticipation and dread for the planned public release on Wednesday, Sept. 18 of the list of schools to be closed or consolidated at the end of the 2024–25 school year. Instead, the district announced, on a Saturday, that it was revising the timeline — no Wednesday announcement but no new timeline, either — presumably because school board members were dissatisfied with its explanations of the financial savings or costs, plans to assist affected families, and the impact on school equity.

The unease over closure plans and other highly publicized administrative failings including educator job offers made and rescinded prompted a delegation of school board members to seek help from Mayor London Breed. As a result, the mayor announced on Sunday that help would be provided in the form of city management expertise on payroll and other issues, release of already targeted funds for the school district, and advice from outside educational leaders who have guided school district organizational reforms elsewhere.

Aid, however, did not come before yet another Saturday dramatic announcement when school board President Matt Alexander called a Sunday 9 a.m. emergency meeting of the board to discuss, in closed session, the superintendent’s performance review. This matter had long been scheduled for the regular Tuesday board meeting so the urgency and drama for a Sunday emergency meeting raised expectations and fears that the board was ready to fire the superintendent. The superintendent’s executive team attended the public portion of the meeting but the superintendent was not present.

It is not clear what transpired in the closed session. California Government Code Section 54957.7 allows for closed session meetings as long as a description of the topic to be discussed is made public, the discussions are only on that topic, and the board returns to public session to report on any actions taken. President Alexander did not abide by at least some of these requirements. The extent of the departure from the requirements is unknown because Alexander told audience members the board would not reconvene after the closed session but instead issue a statement. Hours later, a statement from Alexander and the superintendent announced the superintendent’s future priorities, referenced the mayor’s intervention assistance and, ironically, committed the district to “communicate in a timely, transparent and accessible manner when information becomes available.” However laudable the statement and commitment, they do not rise to the level of meeting the legal requirement that “The announcements required to be made in open session pursuant to this section may be made at the location announced in the agenda for the closed session, as long as the public is allowed to be present at that location for the purpose of hearing the announcements.” The Alexander-Wayne statement after the meeting suggests that the Board of Education went beyond the allowed announced scope of topics and reached agreements with the superintendent and/or the mayor without taking any votes. Whether or not a departure from the Brown Act constitutes a violation, Alexander’s emergency meeting and its aftermath do not enhance the transparency and trust promised and needed by the Board of Education.

The Alexander-Wayne statement after the meeting suggests that the Board of Education went beyond the allowed announced scope of topics and reached agreements with the superintendent and/or the mayor without taking any votes.

On Tuesday, the board will hear a district report on how it can reach student achievement goals that are currently not being met. Despite high school graduation rates hovering near 90 percent, the percentage of 12th graders who are considered college and career ready is 58 percent and below the district’s target of reaching 70 percent readiness by 2027. Similarly, the percentage of 10th graders on track to graduate is dropping while the district’s target goal is rising. To improve these and other metrics, the district plans to increase student attendance and improve grades. One proposal is to improve instruction by training teachers to “grade for equity.” This policy, as used in other school districts, focuses on student mastery of subject matter at the end of the school year without counting tests, quizzes, homework, or participation along the way. The district believes this type of assessment of students will especially benefit those who have a history of low grades or chronic absences.

For now, a press report indicates that school board President Alexander has extended Superintendent Wayne’s performance evaluation to the end of 2024. Now with extra coaching and help from City Hall and outside educational experts, Superintendent Wayne will get his report card in December. Board President Alexander, Mayor Breed, and the school bond measure get their report card from voters on November’s Election Day.

The post Fate of the school district remains uncertain after weekend upheavals appeared first on The Voice of San Francisco .