Despite the best efforts of Twitter pundits and the national media to shoehorn a meta narrative onto San Francisco’s school board recall, Tuesday’s vote was not, in fact, a broader referendum on progressive politics or mask mandates or the ills of a hyper abundance of wokeness.
It’s easy to drool over the story line that the most progressive city in America just ousted three progressive school board members. But disagreements over politics had little to do with San Francisco parents’ decision to push for the first local recall in 39 years. Many, in fact, agreed with the broader goals of the three ousted board members. There were disagreements over methodology, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a recall supporter who didn’t speak openly about wanting to close the racial achievement gaps in academic performance that recalled commissioners Alison Collins, Gabriela López and Faauuga Moliga said they prioritized. In their endorsement interview with The Chronicle, Yes on Recall organizers Siva Raj and Autumn Looijen even spoke about the benefits of school renamings when executed with care and thoughtfulness.
But holding progressive beliefs alone is no substitute for the job of governing.
San Francisco’s school district faces a $125 million budget deficit thanks to the mismanagement of the board. And those racial achievement gaps? They grew markedly worse as a result of the board’s inability and unwillingness to reopen schools in a timely way.
Care and thoughtfulness, meanwhile, were as difficult to find as an open classroom for most of this board’s recent tenure.
Mayor London Breed is now charged with appointing replacements for the three ousted members. And the task before her has nothing to do with finding commissioners whose politics match the fluctuating sensibilities of the moment (or her own). She needs people who can clean up the daunting financial and managerial mess this board has left behind — and who can help students overcome what many fear is insurmountable learning loss stemming from school closures.
Perhaps the most pressing question board members will have to navigate is who will replace San Francisco schools Superintendent Vince Matthews, who currently runs the district’s day-to-day affairs, when he steps away from the job on June 30. Matthews all but said he is unwilling to continue working with the board — and only stayed in the position as long as he has after forcing members to contractually obligate themselves to “treating everyone with civility and respect” and to performing basic due diligence in preparing for meetings.
Suffice it to say, that this kind of contract was necessary does not bode well for the prospect of finding a willing replacement for Matthews. And while Collins and López were arguably the most disruptive forces on the board, the four commissioners who remain don’t inspire much confidence either.
Special Election Resources
Those remaining members and Mayor Breed can help gain that confidence back by committing to hiring an interim superintendent instead of immediately seeking a full-time hire. We’re only months away from another contentious school board election. San Francisco schools need someone in the superintendent’s role who can stem the district’s bleeding free of fear from electoral politics. Next year, with the district hopefully on more solid footing — and with a board that won’t be facing an imminent election — it should be easier to find a qualified long-term candidate to fill Matthews’ shoes.
San Franciscans demanded this week that governance take precedence over politics. Outside pundits may not get that yet. Let’s hope our leadership does.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism