Proposition J would create an oversight body to evaluate local government expenditures on programs benefiting children and youths. If the oversight team discovered inappropriate or unnecessary spending, officials could withhold funds.

The measure would also redirect many tens of millions of dollars annually to those programs, potentially drawing down other parts of City Hall’s budget if officials could not increase revenue to compensate.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to put Proposition J on the November ballot. In the official proponent letter, signed by all supervisors but Aaron Peskin and Connie Chan, they say it would enhance the “transparency and efficiency” of how the city allocates money to help young people.

That would include better tracking of dollars that City Hall gave the San Francisco Unified School District through the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which voters first authorized in 2004 and renewed in 2014.

Proposition J “works off what the voters already passed about 10 years ago, but adds teeth with budget accountability tools,” said Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Proposition J’s author, at a July meeting discussing the measure.

Opposition

No opposition argument was submitted to the San Francisco Department of Elections.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the Ethics Commission had reported no official campaign spending for or against the measure.  

What it would do

In 1991, San Francisco voters first set aside city funding for programs benefiting children and youths by passing that year’s Proposition J. City voters have since approved similar measures that have increased the amounts that must go toward those programs each year.

As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in annual outlays flow to various city agencies and the school district — which is largely funded by the state — intended to pay for preschool, after-school and summer programs, tutoring, social workers and many other services.

Proposition J would create an oversight body, called the Our Children, Our Families Initiative, to track those expenditures. The mayor and the district superintendent would lead the team, which would be staffed by City Hall and district personnel. It would submit annual reports to the Board of Supervisors, which would discuss them in public hearings and use their findings to make budget decisions.

The measure would increase scrutiny of the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which pays for arts, music and sports programs, as well as those supporting early childhood education. The district would give the oversight body comprehensive proposals every five years for how it would use the fund’s dollars that originated from City Hall, and yearly reports on where that money went. If spending plans did not fall within guidelines, the mayor and Board of Supervisors could withhold the city’s contributions from the fund.

Cost

Proposition J would also revise the parameters for the Student Success Fund, which voters approved in 2022 and which gives grants to schools to boost student academic performance and social-emotional wellness. The fund’s expenditures would no longer count toward the city’s annually required spending on programs for children and youths.

This bureaucratic detail would have major financial consequences, creating a spending hole that would need to be filled. This fiscal year, officials would have to siphon up to $35 million from other parts of the city’s budget, according to an analysis by the controller’s office. Each subsequent year, for 14 years, the hole would be between $35 million and $83 million.

Staffing the oversight body would cost between $140,000 and $570,000 annually, the controller said.

Interactions with propositions D and E

This November, San Francisco voters will also consider local propositions D and E, which could eliminate many city commissions and similar bodies. Either proposition’s passage could cause the dissolution of the Our Children, Our Families Council — the advisory body that now coordinates citywide spending goals for children and youth programs but does not comprehensively review expenditures. If that happened, and Proposition J also were passed, the new oversight body would assume the responsibilities of the Our Children, Our Families Council.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition J requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition J — Increase Oversight of City Funding for Children and Youth Programs appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition A would let the San Francisco Unified School District borrow up to $790 million to upgrade, repair and retrofit its campuses and other properties, and to build a facility that would produce high-quality meals for students.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Many parent, teacher and labor groups support the bond measure, including the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, San Francisco Parent Coalition and United Educators of San Francisco. 

“Without the passage of Prop A, our school district will need to dip into instructional funding streams,” wrote Meredith Dodson, executive director of the San Francisco Parent Coalition, in a paid argument in favor of the measure. The nonprofit organization advocates for public school children.

Instead of compensating teachers, the money would pay “to replace deteriorating classrooms, address heating and cooling issues, make seismic improvements and upgrade outdate kitchens and cafeterias,” Dodson wrote.

Cost

If voters pass Proposition A, the district may sell general obligation bonds to investors and use the funds for school district improvements. The district would repay bondholders, with interest.

Proposition A would be the district’s largest bond measure in two decades. If all bonds were issued and sold, the district would ultimately repay bondholders an estimated $1.3 billion, according to an analysis by the city controller. The district would cover that cost with revenue from property taxes, at a rate of $12.95 per $100,000 of assessed property value.

But that would not cause a net increase in real estate taxes. Instead, the taxes associated with this bond would replace other taxes that would expire after investors were fully repaid for a previous bond measure.

Opposition

The Libertarian Party of San Francisco wrote the official argument against Proposition A, which advocates letting property taxes return to prior, lower levels instead of staying the same. The party said the district should “learn to responsibly live within a budget” rather than rely on money from bond measures.

However, local bond measures are the “primary financing tool used by California school districts to construct and improve school facilities,” according to a statement on the school district’s website. In many school districts, including San Francisco’s, operating budgets “do not have sufficient funds” to cover major renovations, the statement says.

The San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents landlords and property owners, also opposes Proposition A, arguing that the district shouldn’t be trusted with this money after its previous handling of bond revenue. In 2016, voters approved a $744 million bond for the district, which “did not publish audited financial statements for its bond program for years and even refused to convene a legally required bond oversight committee,” the association said in a letter urging people to vote against this year’s measure.

From 2019 to 2021, that oversight committee “had a lapse in membership and meetings,” said school district spokesperson Laura Dudnick. That was partly due to vacancies on the committee and its support staff, as well as challenges filling those positions during the pandemic, Dudnick said. In 2021, the district reconvened the committee, with new leadership for the program managing the expenditures of the 2016 bond revenue. Since then, the committee has met regularly and the program’s staff have caught up on financial and other reports, which are available online.

What it would do

Proposition A would fund school modernization and basic upgrades, including improvements to bathrooms, electrical systems, roofing and windows.

The ballot measure’s language does not specify what projects it would pay for or their estimated costs, unlike the 2016 bond measure. If voters pass Proposition A in November, then by early 2025 the district will announce the sites that the bond revenue would fund, according to the district’s website.

Some details about the bond’s target projects surfaced at a May meeting of the Board of Education, which manages and crafts policy for the district. Licinia Iberri, bond program manager, explained that money from Proposition A would fund continued modernization of three schools and support major renovations at a large high school, including safety upgrades and better access for people with physical disabilities. The district has not decided whether the target high school will be Balboa High, Galileo Academy of Science & Technology, International High or Mission High.

The measure would also fund construction of a $255 million food hub, Iberri said, to provide fresh meals and locally grown produce to all students in the district. And all schools would get enhanced security systems.

Proposition A includes restrictions and oversight mechanisms. Funds could not be used to pay for teacher salaries or administrative costs, other than the wages of staffers who worked on the bond project. The Board of Education and an independent citizens’ oversight committee would audit bond revenue expenditures annually.

Campaign Finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on Prop A” campaign committee had raised $266,000, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission. The vast majority of that money came from Phil Halperin, president of the California-based Silver Giving Foundation, a grant-giving organization that funds educational opportunities for children.

No group opposing Proposition A had reported fundraising activity to the city.

History and context

The state funds school districts largely based on student enrollment, which has been declining for years in San Francisco, causing an ongoing budget crisis. The district faces the risk of a state takeover, which would entail filing for bankruptcy and possibly replacing leadership with state-appointed officials in exchange for a loan. In an effort to reduce its expenses and avoid that outcome, the district will close or merge campuses, which it is expected to identify this year.

Schools slated to close will not receive bond funds, Iberri said at the May meeting.

Votes needed to pass

As a local bond measure, Proposition A requires at least 55% “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

The post Proposition A — Bonds to Improve SF Schools appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

At the beginning of “Fiddler on the Roof,” when Tevye is introducing the audience to the denizens of Anatevka, a student asks the rabbi if there’s a proper blessing for the czar.

“A blessing for the czar?” asks the bemused rabbi. “May God bless and keep the czar … far away from us!” 

It’s a throwaway line. On the other hand, it’s the one I think about the most. Every morning at drop-off when I watch all the kids run through the gate of their public school, it hits me: 

May God bless and keep the San Francisco Unified School District central office … far away from us!

Well, Mann Tracht, Un Gott Lacht — Man Plans and God Laughs. Like every SFUSD parent, I was recently asked to fill out a survey on the pending closures/mergers of schools. This is not far away from us: On the draft agenda for the July 16 Board of Education meeting one could find a proposed $1.75 million contract for the massive infrastructure consulting firm AECOM to handle “Resource Alignment logistics management.”

Well that’s some amazing language there. “Resource alignment logistics” means what you think it means: The district is proposing to bring in an infrastructure specialist to oversee closures and consolidations. It’s all a bit on the nose, isn’t it? The financially strapped school district, which has been instructed in no uncertain terms to stop throwing money at high-priced contractors, was proposing that it bring in a high-priced contractor to oversee the liquidation and consolidation of its own assets. 

Nobody is laughing now.

This item was summarily yanked off the July 16 agenda. But it, or some version of it, will be back. School closures and mergers are coming — whether you like it or not, to borrow a phrase from Gavin Newsom. These are not good times for the district: It’s hemorrhaging students, it must now amend for years of spending beyond its means, and further fiscal missteps could trigger a state takeover. No one should want this: The state will make cuts with the brutality of a Civil War battlefield medic.

Staving off a state takeover is paramount. It’s not everything, it’s the only thing. There is no other hand. 

The district is in a difficult place, and that calls for difficult measures. Everyone gets that. But parents — and everyone else — might be surprised to learn that the district does not expect to save much money via school closures. And while the district has pressing and immediate financial concerns — and is budgeting accordingly — school closures won’t save money in the short-term. 

As that $1.75 million proposed contract indicates, it may cost money in the short-term.

With the possible exception of the military and law enforcement, nobody indulges in the use of acronyms like a public school district. So let’s talk about the DAC meeting regarding RAI.

Or the District Advisory Council discussing the Resource Alignment Initiative — you know, closures and mergers. 

During the May 6 meeting of this body, the district’s enrollment director purportedly said that school closures “would not save a lot of money, but are about making the most of the district’s resources.” When asked, minutes later, what the specific cost savings of closing schools would be for the district, the purported answer was “not much.” 

We have to use the “purported” here because, while this meeting was recorded, the first 30 to 45 minutes were, inexplicably, not included on that recording. But we have spoken to half a dozen attendees or participants at the meeting who attest that this indeed happened. 

The San Francisco Unified School District isn’t shouting from the rooftops that school closures won’t save much money and won’t save money quickly. But, when asked, it admits — eventually — that this is the case. 

“The primary goal of closing, merging or co-locating schools is to use the district’s limited resources to create strong and supportive learning environments for every student and educator,” writes a district spokesperson. “The Resource Alignment Initiative allows us to organize our investments better. It’s about making structural changes to the system that allow us to use our resources more wisely so that we alleviate this strain across the system.”

Fine, but my direct questions were “How much money does the district anticipate it will save via school closures/mergers/resource alignment? Will the district save money?” 

So I asked the district if it’d be accurate to say the following: 

The monetary savings are not projected to be significant, especially in the short-term, and this is not the driving motivation for this move; 

There is presently no estimate or goal of how much monetary savings will be derived from closures/mergers/consolidation.

I was told that, yes, these are both accurate.

You’re not going to believe this, but the district is saying that the primary goal of the Resource Alignment Initiative is resource alignment.

This argument is not without merit. The district has lost thousands of students, and many of its schools are underenrolled. At the same time, around a sixth of the school’s classrooms at the beginning of the recently concluded academic year were staffed by substitute teachers or teachers yanked out of special assignment. 

The district, in short, doesn’t have enough butter for its bread. The posited solution is to have less bread. Like the SFUSD representative said on May 6, this is about making the most of the district’s resources.

The case the district is making is that these consolidations will actually be more equitable and more economic. The real budget killer for SFUSD are underenrolled classrooms — which require just as many teachers (or substitute teachers) as fully enrolled classrooms. Also, the state of California has stressed a need to consolidate, and if the district doesn’t do it the state will break out the bonesaw and start doing amputations. So there’s that. 

These are not terrible arguments, but public school families, who suffered through remote learning and are now faced with the grim prospect of having their children’s school experience further traumatized by a closure, can only take so much. For parents confronted with the district’s cloying and esoteric survey about “resource alignment,” it’s jarring to learn that this sacrifice that they are being asked to potentially make for the greater good isn’t a cost-saving move necessitated by the district’s dire finances. 

Frankly, it feels like a bait-and-switch.  

The surveys, maddeningly, asked parents to imagine that they had 12 coins, and could divide them into buckets marked “equity,” “access” and “excellence.” 

God help me, I was reminded of a story my mother used to tell about her student instructor days at Pershing Junior High in Brooklyn when a teacher began a lesson by saying “Suppose we go to a Persian bazaar to buy a chicken…” 

An oversized student in the back row stood up, slowly ambled to the front of the room and said, in a calm voice, “I ain’t going to no motherfucking bazaar and I ain’t buying no motherfucking chicken.”

You know what? Me neither. It is maddeningly unclear how this coins-in-buckets crap will be translated into what schools to spare or cut — and why are we pitting excellence, access and equity against each other? In any event, most every parent was left to ponder how to navigate this nonsensical format to impart the simple message of don’t close my kids’ school.

So, the district’s arguments about cutting and merging schools are not baseless. But parents are in no mood to hear them, especially after this muddled messaging. Hastily undertaking this critical process via a method that comes off as both inane and opaque — and doing it during the depths of the summer — comes off as insulting. And, sadly, there are more problems here. 

The district is working on a long overdue zone-based enrollment plan to replace the excruciating school roulette system that has plagued the existence of public school families for all too long. That’s for the best: But does it make sense to make decisions on what schools to cut before the enactment of a system that might totally shake up which schools children are assigned to? 

No, it does not. But it does add stress and misery to the lives of public school families. This may indeed be a sacrifice some children and families make to greater serve the needs of the district writ large. But, rest assured, the pushback will be intense. And, following that intense pushback, no one is mandated to take one for the team: As ever, families with options will take them and families with money will spend it. If conditions worsen, parents with the ability to pull their children from public school will do so — further shrinking the district’s dwindling enrollment, reducing payments from the state and leaving the burden, once more, on the least advantaged families and children.  

Well, that’s hardly equitable. And, in San Francisco, the demographics work out how you’d think they’d work out: About 38 percent of city residents are white, but only 13.7 percent of public school children are.   

It’s always better to have options. It’s always better to have money. And if you can’t keep the czar far away from from us — you better keep us far away from the czar.

The post Will SF Public School Closures Save Money? Not Much. And Not Quickly appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

When enrolling for classes for the upcoming school year, some Bay Area students will find a new, unique course option that promises a deep dive into the history and contributions of African Americans across the globe.

A half dozen high schools will offer Advanced Placement African American Studies in 2024-2025. This is the first year the course will be available to all U.S. schools following a two-year pilot program by the College Board.

In 2022, the College Board, a nonprofit organization that is responsible for the AP course system, initiated a pilot program for AP African American Studies in 60 schools, followed by expansion to 700 schools nationwide in 2023.

Lowell High School in San Francisco is offering the class for the first time in the coming school year.

The Acalanes Union High School District in Contra Costa County will offer the course at Acalanes, Miramonte, Campolindo and Las Lomas high schools.

“I just think African American Studies hasn’t historically had a big place in the curriculum. I hope that it will kind of open up our students’ minds to recognize the kind of contribution of the African American population in this country,” said the district’s Superintendent John Nickerson.

In anticipation of the introduction of AP African American Studies in the Acalanes Union High School District for the 2024-25 school year, administrators, students and community members engaged in discussions regarding the potential impacts of the course within Bay Area school communities. During those discussions, there was only minor disapproval.

“The pushback was not really about the content of the course. There was nobody pushing back saying we don’t need African American Studies,” Nickerson said. But “there are some pushbacks that we don’t need another Advanced Placement course. And then there’s always pushback where teachers fear that because a new popular elective is introduced, other electives will fall off and may be the courses that they’re teaching.”

Another debate was the proposition of introducing African American Studies as a separate course, rather than integrating the course content into mandatory history classes, including U.S. history and world history. While some express concerns that teachers may omit certain information under the assumption it will be taught in AP African American Studies, many believe that a focused space for African American history will benefit students.

“I think one of the biggest problems in American conversations surrounding anti-racism, justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, bias, anti-bias is that we go way too broad and it’s impossible to have the prolonged, specific, useful conversations that we need to have,” said Zachary Reese, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and former African American psychology professor at the University of San Francisco. “And that’s what I really like about the creation of this kind of course. Yes, it does create a separate space and other people might feel less a sense of responsibility, but also it creates a really neatly focused space to work on a specific problem and highlight a specific group of people and celebrate a specific group of triumphs.”

AP African American Studies spans four historical periods from approximately 900 BCE to the 2000s. It is an interdisciplinary course in which students will analyze primary sources, engage in historical discourse, and write about their learnings.

Other Bay Area schools offer course

Bishop O’Dowd High School in Oakland was part of the College Board’s pilot program and continues to offer the class. “The first pilot year I had 65 students; this year I have 68; three sections each year,” said Bishop O’Dowd AP African American Studies teacher Tony Green. “The class is popular because the class is far different than those based purely on western civilization. We cover African history, African influence on European history, and the influence of African culture on the diaspora since the beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1433.”

Diverging from traditional AP courses, AP African American Studies invites students to delve deeper into a topic of their choice through the Individual Student Project. This component allows students to develop an argument regarding a chosen topic or event and present their findings to the class.

“Since it’s a project-based course, it gives students a lot of opportunity to find out what they’re really interested and curious about learning more about,” said Acalanes High School English teacher James Muñoz, who participated in the pre-course preparation discussions. “I actually think that this course is a transformational course because it doesn’t just exist within the College Board framework. It actually invites students to be more proactive in their communities.”

Class discussions play a pivotal role in unpacking course material in AP African American Studies. Some believe it may help foster a deeper understanding and personal connection to the content.

“We all have some experience being racialized people and that makes it so the content is like easy to wrap your mind around, easy to relate to. And the benefit of relating to content is that we pay more attention to it, we are more likely to remember it and we’re more likely to integrate it in our daily life. So, I think discussion and personal reflection is super key in this class,” Reese said.

Educators say AP African American Studies brings students the opportunity to learn about experiences and histories that may differ from their own, broadening their understanding of identity and societal dynamics. Engaging with diverse perspectives in the classroom can better equip students to navigate discussions about race and racial inequality with more confidence, they maintain.

It ‘encourages people to look outward’

“The Bay Area is really unique in that we have a lot of racial, ethnic, cultural diversity, but we’re super spread out. We’re super segregated as peoples. And I think this can lead to this effect where people know about their own racial, ethnic and cultural experiences but surprisingly little about others.” Reese said. “And I think this class is one that encourages people to look outward, even if they are Black or African American, to think a little bit more broadly about what it means to be a racialized person living in the United States and to sort of critique some of our preconceptions and open ourselves up to other people’s experiences.”

Some students say they value having a focused space where they can explore history in unique ways, different from the conventional approach found in other history classes.

“African American injustices are often taught as a small subtopic of the history curriculum, so a whole class dedicated to it could help the Acalanes community learn about new ideas and topics. Acalanes in particular has a very small percentage of African Americans on campus, and this class could allow people a more detailed view and a deeper understanding of [those] students on campus,” Acalanes 11th grader Kate Roberts said. Roberts took an Ethnic Studies class and is considering AP African Americans Studies.

Superintendent Nickerson estimates that each AUHSD campus (excluding the Acalanes Center for Independent Study) will have two sections of AP African American Studies. While the new course may deter students from other elective options, the AP label may help increase the course’s popularity over the next couple of years.

“I think that the course being AP might actually increase student enrollments because when picking classes, students want to show rigor on their applications; so, if they have the option to choose a new, interesting class, that still gives them a grade bump, I believe more students will take it over a non-AP course,” said Acalanes High School 11th grader Sophie Chinn.

AP courses are often more rigorous than regular high school classes, as they are undergraduate-university level. High school students enrolled in AP classes can earn college credit and placement if they pass a culminating AP Exam.

Some at Acalanes also believe that AP African American Studies could positively affect their school community in ways that transcend the classroom.

“I think that if everyone at Acalanes took some sort of cultural studies class it could change our culture. Acalanes is not particularly diverse when it comes to race, so many of us don’t understand how race disparities play into school communities,” Roberts said. “I think that we would be able to recognize many issues that circulate on campus, and everyone would have a greater knowledge on how to solve issues. People may have more open and accepting minds as well, which would be very beneficial for our community.”

Acalanes High School Principal Eric Shawn added, “The skills that [students] develop by learning diverse perspectives and histories and contributions, and the way that they study, will expand their and our knowledge of what is possible.”

Go here to learn more about the AP African American Studies course.

Haley Chelemedos is an 11th grader at Acalanes High School in Lafayette.

The post More Bay Area High Schools to Offer AP African American Studies This Fall appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition G is a non-binding policy statement urging the San Francisco Unified School District to offer Algebra 1 courses to middle school students by the eighth grade and develop a coherent math curriculum for all grade levels, especially in elementary and middle school.

The measure is advisory only, meaning that the district, a public agency that operates separately from the city, isn’t obligated to implement its terms. It needs more than 50% affirmative votes to pass. And if approved by voters, it won’t require any action from the city nor incur any government cost.

Separately, the district has established a timeline to bring back the course in middle school. The new policy could be implemented as early as the next school year if the school board approves recommendations before the March 5, 2024, election.

San Francisco public schools replaced middle school algebra with Math 8, which covers similar concepts, such as linear equations, roots and exponents, after the district shifted to a new math policy in 2014. The change was an effort to reduce the number of Black, Latinx and low-income students who were failing Algebra 1.

Algebra 1 is considered a critical gateway to advanced math, as it is a prerequisite for courses like Advanced Placement Calculus and AP Statistics. Removing it from middle school avoids placing some students into more advanced tracks and creates “heterogeneous classrooms” throughout middle school.

The algebra debate in San Francisco resurfaced in 2021, following a recommendation by the state to change the math course sequence for all school districts statewide. The proposed framework was later revised and adopted in July 2023, indicating that California schools are encouraged, but not required, to delay offering Algebra 1 until ninth grade.

San Franciscans took a second look at the local program following the state’s proposed framework. In March 2023, parents sued the district, saying its math policy was holding students back. A Stanford analysis released that month revealed that while more students were taking precalculus under this policy, there were still notable racial disparities in the enrollment of advanced math courses. In response to these findings, the district reconsidered its policy and proposed a plan to reintroduce algebra in middle school.

San Francisco supervisors, despite not having authority over public school curriculum, are actively engaged in the algebra debate. Nearly half of them want San Francisco voters to weigh in on the March ballot. Supervisor Joel Engardio, the measure’s sponsor, sees it as a way to let voters have a say on the issue.

But Supervisor Shamann Walton warned at a Board of Supervisor meeting that even if the measure passes, it might not lead to tangible action. “I don’t like misleading the voters by making them think that we’re putting something on the ballot that has any teeth or that actually does anything, because this measure does not do anything,” he said.

Proponents of the measure say the existing math policy, while well-intentioned, hinders students capable of excelling in higher-level math and offers inadequate support to those who are struggling.

They argue that far from its original purpose of being more equitable, the policy hurts disadvantaged students. “Kids who stayed had to double up on math courses or pay for private classes to ensure they reach calculus by senior year,” they wrote in statements submitted to the city. Organizations like Neighbors for a Better San Francisco and SF Guardians, formerly known as Recall the School Board support this measure and paid to run dozens of support statements. The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee also endorsed it.

No official opposition remarks were submitted.

A “yes” vote on Proposition G means you support the non-binding policy statement urging the district to offer Algebra 1 courses for middle school students by the eighth grade.

A “no” vote on Proposition G means you do not support the non-binding policy statement urging the district to offer Algebra 1 courses for middle school students by the eighth grade.

The post Proposition G — Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition O, also called the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Act, is a proposed parcel tax to generate funding for a variety of services and programs at the City College of San Francisco. This proposed tax would begin in 2023 and continue through 2043, generating an estimated $37 million annually — though that number would increase over time as the tax is adjusted for inflation. Beyond the cost of administering the tax, revenue from the tax will be put into a special fund to be split four ways for the following purposes:

• 25% for services that support basic student needs, enrollment, retention and job placement
• 25% for skills-focused programs such as English tutoring or technological proficiency
• 25% for workforce development programs
• 25% for equity programs that support the success and leadership development of historically underrepresented students

City College must also submit an annual spending plan to the mayor and Board of Supervisors to receive revenue from the tax, in addition to undergoing annual audits for the first five years of the tax and periodic audits after that. An oversight committee will be created to make sure investments are being used properly. This measure requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

Individuals aged 65 and over who own and reside in their properties will not be taxed. Neither will certain nonprofits that are already exempt from property taxes.

Rates for the first year of the tax would be based upon the size and type of property. Single-family residential units would pay $150, while residential properties with two or more units would be taxed $75 per unit. Non-residential properties would be charged based upon square footage, ranging from $150 for those under 5,000 square feet up $4,000 for those greater than 100,000 square feet. Mixed-use parcels will have a separate calculation depending on their uses.

The cost to maintain a database to correctly tax each property and apply exemptions would be around $6 million on a one-time basis and an additional $3 million annually according to the city controller, exceeding a rule in the measure that allows for only 1% of funds to go toward administrative costs.

San Francisco property owners already pay an annual flat tax of $99 per parcel to help pay for teachers, counselors and libraries at City College, which is set to expire in 2032. The college has struggled financially in recent years after losing tens of thousands of students in the wake of an accreditation crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, along with a decline in funds that comes with lower student enrollment.

The college was declared at risk of financial insolvency and a state takeover in 2021 after the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team said the school has not cut expenditures on pace with declining enrollment. In order to balance a $7 million budget shortfall, the City College Board of Trustees made the controversial decision to lay off 38 full-time faculty members and dozens of part-time teachers, in addition to considering the elimination of an estimated 300 courses.

Today, the school says it has balanced its budget, eliminated structural deficits, and created a projected 5% increase in cash reserves for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 budgets in preparation for the next accreditation cycle, which starts this spring.

Though state law limits the amount of revenue that can be spent each year, San Francisco voters can approve increases to the limit for up to four years. If passed, this measure would increase the spending limit for four years.  

Proponents of Proposition O argue that class cuts and losses in enrollment beginning in 2019 and compounded by the pandemic are denying education to the city’s most vulnerable, and that the tax is needed “to guarantee San Franciscans aren’t left behind.” They also pointed to the free classes offered to San Francisco residents through Free City and workforce training courses as evidence of the school’s utility for the city’s diverse communities. Supporters include City College’s faculty and staff unions (AFT 2121 and SEIU 2021), the San Francisco Democratic Party, Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton, United Educators of San Francisco, the San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club and Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth.

Opponents of the tax such as the San Francisco Apartment Association and the San Francisco Taxpayers Association argue that the city needs to “stop approving blank check funding for a failing organization.” Mayor London Breed, District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin and District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani pointed to the college’s turnover in chancellors (CCSF has had nine chancellors in the past eight years), the $1.3 billion in public bonds that voters have already approved in the past 20 years, and the high administrative cost of the tax, calling on voters to “hold [trustees and administrators] accountable” by not passing another bond.

The post Proposition O — Additional Parcel Tax for City College appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition G is a charter amendment to establish a Student Success Fund that would be operated by the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families for 15 years. The purpose is to provide grants of up to $1 million annually to San Francisco Unified School District schools, Pre-K through 12th grade, to improve academic achievement and social/emotional wellness of students. This would be paid for using a designated amount from the city’s excess property tax revenue and is separate from existing funding. It requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

The measure outlines a community school framework as a model for students, families, educators and community partners to work with school administrators to design programs to help students who are struggling. Programs could include academic support, social/emotional interventions, strategies to address persistent poverty and trauma, or support for families to secure stability.

Grants up to $1 million would be awarded from the Student Success Fund to individual schools for hiring more educators, nurses, tutors, literacy and math specialists, academic coaches, social workers, specialized curriculum, school psychologists and other support staff. The fund could also be used for community-based organizations or city departments to provide after school programs, therapeutic arts and culture programs or summer school. The grants are not to be used for funding core staffing.

To receive grants from this fund, a school would need to:

• have a school site council that endorses the school’s grant proposal and commits to supporting the implementation of the program and staffing.
• have a full-time community school coordinator who will work with the principal to implement the new programs. The fund can be used to pay for this position.
• agree to coordinate with city departments and district administration to ensure the new programs best serve the students and their families, and will relay to the Department of Children Youth and Their Families how the new programs integrate with other community programs within the school.

“Technical Assistance” grants are available to schools that need additional support in applying for the “Student Success” grants and implementing programs. “District Innovation” grants are also available to the school district to help launch these programs at one or more schools. The district must also hire a full-time coordinator to facilitate the program-design process and support various school coordinators.

The funding will come from excess property taxes. A portion of property tax revenue in San Francisco goes to California’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund to support schools statewide. When the amount contributed to the fund is more than the minimum cost of funding local schools, excess revenue is returned to the contributing city or county. San Francisco usually receives money through this process. The Student Success Fund would draw from the excess funds with calculations made by the city controller based on estimated source availability.

The Student Success Fund would receive $11 million in the first year, $35 million in the second year, $45 million in the third year and $60 million in the fourth year. Funding allocated in subsequent years would be based on preceding years adjusted for changes in the city’s discretionary revenues, and funding growth would not exceed 3% annually.

If the Student Success Fund were to have money left over at the end of the fiscal year, up to $40 million would be put in a reserve account for use in future years, and the rest would go to the general fund. The Board of Supervisors would also need to establish a task force to provide advice to the mayor and board regarding future sources of funding.

The Department of Children Youth and Their Families will create criteria for prioritizing grants to schools that have a low academic achievement, and/or have a high number of vulnerable students (e.g. English language learners, foster youth, students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, homeless students and students who are otherwise vulnerable or underserved). They will also, in conjunction with the school district, define ways to measure outcomes showing the effectiveness of these grants. The schools and district will need to provide the data showing these outcomes.

The city can use up to 3.5% of the Student Success Fund for administrative purposes. The school district can also use up to 3.5% from each grant for administrative purposes.

Supporters say the fund will not raise taxes and will increase student well-being using research-based reforms. Opponents say that funds will be reallocated from priorities like police and public transit.

The measure requires a simple majority to pass. If the measure doesn’t pass, excess money from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund will continue to return to the general fund.

The city controller’s analysis says that there would be significant impact on the cost of government as Proposition G would be reallocating funds that would otherwise be available in the general fund.

The post Proposition G — Student Success Fund – Grants to the San Francisco Unified School District appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

San Francisco residents who are not citizens but are parents may vote in school board elections, including the upcoming recall election that could remove three members of the board. The Board of Supervisors in October made this enfranchisement, originally enacted through a 2016 ballot measure and scheduled to sunset in 2022, permanent.  

Amos Lim, who manages the economic justice program at the nonprofit Chinese for Affirmative Action, said he votes in school board elections as a noncitizen because he wants to influence education policy in the district where his 14-year-old daughter is a student.  

“I always feel that a lot of times, our voices are not being heard. Because we don’t get a choice in voting for any other federal or state election,” he said. “Locally, because education affects, starting on the ground level, our kids — as a parent, I would like to be able to have some say in the education policy or who we appoint to the SFSUSD board.” 

For Lim, voting is a family affair. He and his husband began teaching their daughter the importance of voting and introducing her to sample ballots to practice on, at an early age. 

“I think we started filling out her first ballot, the sample ballot that was sent to us in the election booklet, when she was maybe 4 or 5 years old,” he said.  

Lim has long been an LGBTQ and immigration activist, and recognizes the power and limitations of direct action and trying to influence policy without the ability to vote. 

“It’s kind of been impossible to talk to any federal officials right now. I mean, you can try calling your senators and you will get a voicemail and half the time the voicemail is full,” he said. “Half the time you don’t know if they’ve listened to you or they’ve even read your emails, you just get a pro forma reply back that says, ‘Oh, thank you for contacting my office.’” 

It all comes down to voting to keep elected representatives accountable to their constituencies, he said.  

“If you don’t think that you can get through to your representative, the only tool that you have, at the end of the day, is in November when there’s an election and you make your feelings known,” he said. “But for noncitizens, for green card holders, people like me, we basically just have to cross our fingers and hope that those people who vote will vote in their best interest and in the best interest of their city and their country. So we have to kind of rely on their goodwill.” 

Lim said he understands that “citizenship has its privileges.” But noncitizen voting has a long history in the United States. According to Ron Hayduk, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University who has studied noncitizen voting, 40 states allowed those without citizenship to vote in local, state and even federal elections from 1776 to 1926. Several municipalities around the country, including New York City, are restoring that right, if only for local elections.  

In San Francisco, the process of registering and then casting a ballot as a noncitizen is different from the process for citizens. The registration form asks different questions, and it is submitted to the Department of Elections in San Francisco, not the California Secretary of State. It notes that information provided to the elections department may be made available to federal immigration authorities. It also suggests that registrants consider checking with an immigration attorney before deciding to vote, so as to ensure that nothing about voting in the local election could jeopardize future applications for citizenship. The ballots themselves include only school board contests, since most races aren’t open to noncitizen participation. Noncitizens must also re-register before every single school board election in which they intend to participate, and they must be parents.    

Lim encouraged those on the fence about participating to do so.  

“Your voice is important. Whether you agree or disagree with where the school board is bringing the learning education policy for the last few years, this is where you get to make your voices known. So, you know, make the most of it,” he said. “Don’t just complain on Facebook or Twitter or whatever social network there is out there, and do something about it, and vote.” 

A segment from our radio show and podcast, “Civic.” Listen at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays at 102.5 FM in San Francisco, or online at ksfp.fm, and subscribe on Apple, Google, Spotify or Stitcher. 

The post With Provisional Measure Now Permanent, Noncitizen Parents Can Vote in SF’s School Board Recall Election appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Vermin infestation and electrical malfunction. A copy machine in the restroom. Falling ceiling tiles. Parents, students and staff at Buena Vista Horace Mann School in the Mission testified at recent hearings about these and other chronic maintenance problems they say have plagued the school for years. Officials promised swift action, but delayed a vote on how much money to allocate toward repairs at the school by two weeks.  

“Over the years I’ve faced a lot of these problems. I’ve seen kids pee in the yard because they don’t want to go in the bathrooms,” an eighth-grade student told the Youth, Young Adults and Families Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 8. “I’m sure many students can relate to having classes interrupted by rodents running across the room. We’ve had all kinds of problems. And I think it’s just unacceptable, and that this definitely needs to change.” 

“It just feels like they don’t care about us anymore,” said another student. “The school that we have here just doesn’t feel safe anymore.” 

Allison Matamoros, a fourth-grade teacher at the school, presented slides and a video to the committee showing mold, cracked pavement and a copy machine plugged in next to a toilet with a broken seat in one of the school’s bathrooms. 

“What students and teachers are facing at BVHM is inhumane,” Matamoros said. “We’ve had to fight so hard to get basic things. And really, the main times we’ve seen facilities come and fix our building is when we’ve gone to Mission Local, or we’ve complained at school board meetings.”  

Mission Local documented conditions at the school in 2019.        

Parents, too, expressed their fear and impatience to the supervisors.  

“What are you waiting to see happen to implement an immediate solution?” asked Maria Nuñez, a parent and community advocate at the school. Nuñez addressed the supervisors in Spanish, a reflection of the school’s majority-immigrant student body.  

“All students deserve to have the same rights regardless of their culture. You have the power to decide the safety of students and teachers,” Nuñez said. “We are human beings. We have the right to be treated as such.” 

Elected officials made it clear the testimony moved them. 

“I want you to hear from me directly that I am sorry, that we have failed you. This is not right,” Supervisor Hillary Ronen told students. 

After the Oct. 8 committee hearing, Ronen promised to bring a proposal to the full Board of Supervisors that would initiate and pay for a full Department of Public Works inspection of the school campus.  

Matthew Alexander, a member of the Board of Education, also proposed diverting $55 million, rather than the district’s proposed $15 million, of the revenue from a 2016 bond measure to making repairs at Buena Vista Horace Mann. The reallocation would remove some funding from other proposed projects, including a new school planned in Mission Bay. On Tuesday night, the school board discussed that change at length. Its members seemed to lean toward reducing the reallocation to $40 million, but then put off the decision until their next meeting to allow time for the board’s legal counsel to review the phrasing of the amendment. 

The reduced figure came after discussion between board members and Dawn Kamalanathan, chief facilities officer for the school district, who said that on average, fully modernizing an existing school costs between $20 million and $40 million. She and a district spokesperson acknowledged that the conditions may seem unhygienic or appear neglected, but said the school district had corrected conditions that could threaten safety. 

“The safety and wellbeing of students and staff is our highest priority and any identified safety issues at BVHM have been addressed to meet requirements,” wrote district spokesperson Laura Dudnick. “In the immediate future, BVHM will go through a design phase for its modernization project and SFUSD will continue to make any urgent improvements that arise while the design for the full modernization is underway.” 

Kamalanathan also said that Buena Vista Horace Mann is not alone in needing maintenance. Even before the pandemic, the district’s mechanical, electrical and plumbing shops had a three-year backlog of work requests.  

“That’s not being generated by five schools or 10 schools. That is the cumulative requests of the system struggling with buildings that, again, need to be modernized or in some cases have been modernized. But we don’t have the maintenance resources even after a modernization to keep a facility smoothly running,” Kamalanathan said.  

Many of the district’s building are old, including Buena Vista Horace Mann, which has been standing for nearly a century.  

As officials continue to weigh how much of the 2016 bond money to allocate to repairs at the school, parents want transparency, said Michelle Jacques-Menegaz, coordinator for the Parent Advisory Council to the board of education. Jacques-Menegaz works for a third-party nonprofit organization in her role as coordinator for the group, which was formed to bring parent concerns to the school board.  

“If there’s not enough money in the bond to do everything, you do have to make those choices. But what we want to know is, how are those choices being made?” Jacques-Menegaz said. “Is there a rubric? What are the qualifications?” 

The Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the reallocation of bond money on Oct. 26. 

A segment from our radio show and podcast, “Civic.” Listen at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays at 102.5 FM in San Francisco, or online at ksfp.fm, and subscribe on Apple, Google, Spotify or Stitcher. 

The post Officials Vow to Fix Crumbling School: ‘We Have Failed You’ appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A segment from our radio show and podcast, “Civic.” Listen at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays at 102.5 FM in San Francisco, or online at ksfp.fm, and subscribe on Apple, Google, Spotify or Stitcher. 

The post Educators Excited, Exhausted, as School Resumes in Person appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.