An aggressive approach to enhance San Francisco’s public colleges

San Francisco is America’s creative city. We think differently, push the envelope and always ask ourselves, “How can we do better?” Independent companies like Levi Strauss and Salesforce have been redefining industries for more than a century, while non-profit organizations like the Sierra Club and Kiva have initiated social movements and have changed our national discourse.

However, one vital sector – public education – has never tapped into and benefited from this rich legacy. Now is the time to change that.

San Francisco public schools are in crisis. They have lost thousands of students in the past few years and face a looming budget deficit of $ 125 million. Among the 15 most populous American cities, San Francisco was the only one to fail to return middle or high school students to some level of in-person tuition in the 2020-21 school year.

We could improve our schools with some modest changes. The three removed school board members could be replaced with more responsible and effective members appointed by the mayor. A change in the statutes to appoint rather than elect the school board would also likely result in members becoming more focused on running good schools than on political behavior.

But now that so many are dissatisfied, it is time to think bigger. Now is the time to ask, “How can we make our schools not just a little better, but a lot better?” We are proposing a new path for our school system based on what some educationalists call the “portfolio model”.

Today, the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education performs two functions: it determines which schools are made available to families, and it operates those schools. This results in a fundamental conflict of interest. Since the board of directors “owns” the system through its hiring and budget control, it has an incentive to defend or hide poor performance.

It’s hard to create and run great schools. Success requires effective and consistent leadership, excellent teaching, coherent curricula, and trust between teachers, parents, and administrators. SFUSD, as it is currently conceived, is not designed to be successful in that sense. Rather, the school board members focus on pleasing the stakeholders they have elected, including teacher unions and political activists. Children and families suffer from inadequate support from educators and from large inequalities.

In the portfolio model, the function of determining which schools can operate in the municipality is separated from the function of running schools. A newly elected body called the Civic Education Council (CEC) is responsible for the first function, while the second function is entrusted to the schools themselves or to non-profit organizations that want to run schools.

In this model, each school functions like a charter school with full control over the program, curriculum, staff and budget. The CEC is responsible for determining which nonprofits can operate which schools based on an ongoing study of community needs and school performance. The CEC may consider parent and student satisfaction levels, as well as data such as test scores and graduation rates. In addition, the CEC would operate an open school voting system and provide other services requested by schools.

For example, in New Orleans, where the portfolio model takes precedence, nonprofits operate 76 schools. Some operators are affiliated with national organizations such as the Knowledge is Power program, but most are domestic. Two thirds of the schools are part of a network. All are led by boards of directors, which are mostly local residents and must represent the city’s population.

Here in San Francisco, almost all schools under the CEC would initially be part of SFUSD, but new operators would join the fight over time. Teachers and administrators at SFUSD schools could partner with local citizen and business leaders to create nonprofits and apply for schools. Reputable charter schools, such as the New School of San Francisco, could propose adding new schools and thereby becoming a local network. Innovative private schools like Alta Vista School could apply to run a public school.

The transition would take over perhaps a decade as the district schools gradually become independent non-profit organizations or school networks. San Francisco, filled with innovators, would likely see dozen of compelling proposals from various operators.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the needs of different students, families and communities. The portfolio model organically creates a menu of successful school concepts that reacts to practice and not to the dictates of an individual district office.

Of course, not all of these new schools would be effective. In the event of poor school performance, the CEC would step in to find a new, better operator for this school. The CEC could also advocate issues that are important to all school operators, such as increasing funding.

San Francisco public schools can offer opportunities and the envy of cities around the world. We already have what it takes to make this possible: the creative, entrepreneurial spirit of the San Franciscans. We have already used this to create art, start businesses and develop innovative technologies. Now let’s use it for the benefit of our children.

Bill Jackson and Jay Donde are founding members of the San Francisco Briones Society, a forum for center-right conservatives, independents, and moderates.