The San Francisco school board voted on Tuesday to guarantee all elementary-school children will attend their neighborhood school, replacing the district’s controversial lottery system after years of debate.
The change will be enacted by fall 2028.
Phil Kim, Jaime Huling, Matt Alexander, Lisa Weissman-Ward and Parag Gupta voted for the neighborhood school system, which would still let families apply to some schools with specific programs, like language immersion, K-8 classes and special education.
Alida Fisher and Supriya Ray voted against the policy.
Superintendent Maria Su, before the vote, openly endorsed the change, which she had repeatedly called “bold.”
Many families have blasted the San Francisco Unified School District’s lottery system, which assigns students to their elementary schools in a lottery — but based on preferences — since the system was overhauled in 2011. They say it leaves them confused and frustrated.
The school board and district have been trying to develop a new system since 2018.
When developing the options, the district suggested that any new policy should be framed by “proximity, predictability, diversity, and choice” — though school board commissioners didn’t fully agree on “choice.”
Vice President Huling said that unrestricted school choice creates a lot of “adversity” in the district, and that the focus should instead be on ensuring schools have more resources. Parents often try to get their children into schools with higher test scores or better-funded schools.
But many families care a lot about choice. In surveys conducted by the district in September and October, respondents expressed concern about neighborhood schools. One said the approach “boxes you in the most.”
Many audience members on Tuesday evening carried signs that read, “Listen to parents: Choose Option B,” which would have guarantee placement in a neighborhood school but let families apply to any other school in the district.
Tuesday’s vote came after several study sessions. At previous sessions, commissioners suggested the district needed more community outreach before a decision. Superintendent Su said the district wanted to set the framework and policy at the Oct. 13 meeting and would continue family engagement after that.
“I fully recognize that there’s a lot of fear and a lot of concern that we’re making significant changes without having these conversations already in place,” Su said. “But I want to again remind our community that we will be talking to communities about key pieces of this work.”
On Tuesday, during public comment, advocates who wanted more community involvement passed out pacifiers and hung up AI-generated photos of commissioners crying.
“I ask you to pause this process and listen to families that are going through this,” said Rosa, mother of a student at Denman Middle School. “Do not impose something without listening to our experiences and worries.”
Elaysia, a student at Ida B. Wells High School, said, “We don’t need transparency. We need communication … The board isn’t the ones impacted by the decisions they’re making.”
The room cheered.
“Stop trying to pacify us,” Elaysia added, draping a pacifier across the podium.
The superintendent’s endorsement of the neighborhood school option dismayed many, as did her pledge to equitably resource all neighborhood schools, something that SFUSD staff has said could take five to 10 years.
SF Parents Coalition executive director Rebecca Kee was among those advocating for more parent choice. “We as parents know our child’s strengths and the areas they need support and the needs of our family, whether that’s a location issue for our commutes, or a language we want our child to learn,” Kee said.
Commissioner Alexander said he appreciated Su for giving them a “North Star,” and said the options before the board were not too different. “I think there’s some very legitimate issues that we can take on regardless of which option we pick because they are on a spectrum,” he said.
Commissioner Fisher, though, said she struggled with the push toward neighborhood schools, after hearing parents advocate for the more flexible Option B.
“I appreciate this commitment aspirationally,” she said. “I, both as a parent and as a commissioner, struggle to see a buy-in.” And, Fisher added, “Neighborhood schools, by definition, will be segregated schools.”
Su pushed on. “Option B will keep the status quo,” Su said. Neighborhood schools, she said, “will require the district to be very intentional with how we resource our schools, and put the responsibility squarely on [the district] so that every single neighborhood school is worth choosing.”
The district has set three more public study sessions ahead of the final April 13, 2027 board vote to formally adopt the new policy. Over the next few months, SFUSD and the board will finalize details, including how applicants for specific citywide school programs will be selected.
“Neighborhood schools” is just segregation by another name. It’s shameful rich parents have so much control. But I suppose if the board had voted the other way, we’d all have to suffer through a year of billionaire backed “school board recalls” like we did in 2022. They’ll buy what they want one way or another. I’m so sick of rich people.
Resources aren’t the only reason parents choose a school. There is huge variety among SFUSD elementary schools in start time. What if you are assigned a school whose start time doesn’t work for your family? SFUSD needs to standardize start times to make this work.
I don’t know what the right answer is, or if there is one, but this is pretty clearly trying to keep “good schools” restricted to those who live in the neighborhood. Great if you can afford it!
It’s good this went down before November 3rd as people will know who reflects their interests when they vote for members of the school board.
Nearly every major American city has school choice allowing families to go to schools in other neighborhoods based on a lottery: NYC, Boston, LA, San Diego, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia are only some examples.
With this change, SF will be more restrictive than all of these cities. This is suburban mindset once again applied to a dense city. It will drive families away and result in further enrollment drops at SFUSD.
Removing choice is not bold. It’s hubris.
Mahdi, no, an end to the City’s de facto school busing policy will attract more students back to SFUSD. At the moment parents in many parts of the City will send their kids to a private school in their neighborhood rather than have them bussed across town. But if they are guaranteed a school within walking distance they will take it rather than going private. It will also remove thousands of cars off our streets during the current school rush hour.
I’m not bothering to look up other cities but I happen to know you’re wrong about Seattle. You get 2-3 choices in your neighborhood-based zone and that’s it.
I never know what drives people to make ridiculous sky-is-falling statements without any evidence. In this case, there’s really no evidence to be found….because this particular model of assignment has never been tried (despite some older folks saying this is the ‘old system,’ it’s really not, because there were nowhere near as many alternative choices as there are now), and the Board of Education/Enrollment Center has yet to even come up with specifics of the policy. So anyway, the way I understand it, everyone has guaranteed access to their neighborhood school *no matter when they apply*–anyone who thinks this is ‘segregation’ does not understand what that term means. This means that any family can go rent an apartment in the Sunset next year or through the end of January 2028 and enroll their kid at a school in the Sunset to start in August 2028. So explain to me–how is that segregation? And isn’t this a better way, to pressure *all neighborhoods* in the city to build affordable, family-appropriate housing? And there’s the false rumor perpetuated by the media that this action by the BoE ‘ends the lottery’–the hell you say! Families can still choose among **twenty-five** ‘citywide’ (non-neighborhood) schools: language programs, K-8 or TK-8 schools (some of which are partially or entirely language immersion), and even a public Montessori school. Actually 26 as of 2027 because there will be a new Mandarin immersion TK-8. So that all taken into account, there still will be families that dubiously ‘want the best for their kid’ and will make them commute eight miles a day round trip. But hopefully the new policy will bring many more families to their senses–the less time they spend commuting, the more energy they have to volunteer and advocate for their kids. I know the school district isn’t perfect, but there are countless people…supposedly liberal-minded, educated people…who are convinced a school is ‘bad’ because it might not have a PTA/PTO or because there’s a housing project nearby or there are a number of English learners (or all of the above). If they take a look at many of those schools, though, they’ll find amazing, talented, dedicated teachers and all the ‘extras’ including aftercare well funded, all thanks to generous state grants. Just ask parents at Willie Brown Middle School–they know this. (WBMS now has a PTSA, because wealthier parents started sending their kids there five years ago.)
“Let’s keep the poor kids out of our neighborhoods and back to underfunded schools.”
Thats all this is.
Picking off the most unpopular and least effective progressive policies one by one. Now let’s get homeless industrial complex spending back to 2011 levels too.
Wonder what impact that will have on Sanchez Elementary. The school doesn’t look like the neighborhood at all
bad news for private schools