Board of education

San Francisco voters will select three Board of Education members from a slate of 18 candidates, each voter given the option to select up to three choices. Priorities include curriculum, school assignment, and teacher affordability. With school board often being a stepping stone to higher office (two current members, Matt Haney and Shamann Walton, are running for district supervisor), other issues faced by San Francisco are also relevant.

Educator Phil Kim stands out as a reformer seeking to maximize housing on school property, invest in teacher feedback and data systems, advocate for transit and other vehicle alternatives, and explore restricted types of charter schools.

University of San Francisco law school dean John Trasviña would bring remarkable national qualifications to the office, especially a unique background in Housing and Urban Development that could help the school district navigate obstacles in building needed housing.

How candidates differ

Reading the voter information pamphlet would suggest that candidates largely want the same things: close the achievement gap, supporting teachers, strengthening relationships with parents, and ultimately improving student outcomes. They also tend to agree on more concrete topics like schools building teacher housing on district-owned land and experimenting with schools being used for nighttime homeless services.

Questionnaires from organizations like SF Democrats, United Democratic Club, and SF YIMBY reveal greater differences on topics such as charter schools, teacher assistance, class sizes, parking vs. housing on school property, housing and transportation, STEM vs. arts emphasis, and school allocation.

Kim embraces necessary change

Among the most important issue for the school district is also the core one facing the city: a housing shortage worsened by reliance on private vehicles. Teachers forced into long commutes by high rents, children moving unsafely across town, and parents taking time before work to get their kids to school are all greatly affected by this. As Kim stated: the City must move away from being built for cars, and instead build for a future of homes in every corner, accessible neighborhoods, and community-driven schools.

Kim also supported SB 827, which would have legalized apartments near transit if it passed this year, and supports protected bike lanes and improving Muni. These changes are controversial since it often takes space from cars, but they are critical for a sustainable city.

A former teacher with the KIPP charter school network, he also supports charter schools more than any other candidate, favoring free, open-enrollment, non-profit charter public schools in exchange for partnership, collaboration, and adequate accountability of improved outcomes for students. This is the practical approach: research is clear that some charter schools, particularly those under large charter management organizations like KIPP, positively impact learning.

Kim wants to invest in teacher feedback and data systems to ensure public schools are constantly improving. He also seeks to apply his current work experience as a STEM project manager at KIPP to improve San Francisco’s STEM curriculum.

Trasviña has national leadership experience

John Trasviña has the most impressive experience of candidates in the race: a Stanford-trained lawyer, he then taught, served as President Obama’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing, and is now Dean of the University of San Francisco law school.

To meet teacher housing needs, he wants to ensure each district supervisor can make a parcel available. This equity-minded approach is lacking in San Francisco, and his experience in HUD would be valuable in making it a reality.

He is highly skeptical of charter schools, saying we are a “public school nation,” but doesn’t suggest blocking all new charter schools.

Why not other candidates

Several candidates oppose all new charter schools (Gabriela López, Michelle Parker, Alison Collins, Li Miao Lovett, Faauuga Moliga, and Mia Satya). Some support class-size reduction, which while it can positively impact achievement, is an unwise use of limited funds compared to more cost-effective interventions like computer-aided instruction, cross-age tutoring, and early childhood programs.

Several candidates propose teacher-only housing benefits that either cost money that could instead fund salary increases, or replace reforms that could apply to everyone. Homeownership subsidies can be regressive, worsen the housing shortage, and reduce teachers’ financial diversification and mobility.

Some candidates expressed nativist views, recommending local hiring restrictions or priority for families who have been in San Francisco for generations.

As important as the common-sense proposals from Kim and Trasviña are the unsensible ones they don’t propose. The new reformer and experienced leader steer away from teacher-only public benefits and nativist band-aids to schooling challenges, opting for careful change.

Since this is not a ranked-choice race, a third vote would reduce the chances of the first two winning. Vote only for Kim and Trasviña for a future-looking Board of Education.