SFUSD Board Concedes College-Readiness Goal Is Off Track, Eyes Reset

Governing Board • San Francisco Unified School DistrictOctober 27, 2026

Sources:

Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.

San Francisco Unified's leadership told its own board on Oct. 27, 2026, that the district will not hit its signature college-and-career readiness target on its current course. Superintendent Hsu rated progress "significantly off track," and the board answered its monitoring questions with thumbs-down votes. Those signals point to a reset of Goal 3 targets and metrics ahead of budget season.

59.2% of the class of 2026 college and career prepared, short of the 70% goal for 2028
Board signals Goal 3 reset: superintendent says the 2028 target needs adjusting
Math curriculum headed for replacement after an audit flags unequal instruction quality
Tech in Check parents and teachers demand YouTube block on student Chromebooks now
Staffing and capacity questions loom as resourcing decisions near, ahead of budget season

District Rates Itself Significantly Off Track

Why it matters: About 4 in 10 seniors are not considered college and career prepared, and the gaps are widest for some of the district's most vulnerable student groups. Goal 3 is also one of the measures the board uses to hold the superintendent accountable.

Where things stand: The 2026 California School Dashboard College and Career Indicator (CCI) is the state's measure of whether graduates are prepared for postsecondary paths. It shows 59.2% of SFUSD students prepared, down 0.5 point from 59.7%. The state labeled that "maintained," and SFUSD moved from yellow to green on the dashboard. District staff did not take the credit.

"We have decided to rate our progress towards this goal as significantly off track," said Superintendent Hsu.

Several student groups posted gains: unhoused students (+11), students of two or more races (+4) and white students (+3). Others declined: foster youth (-12), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students (-6), multilingual learners (-4), Hispanic/Latino students (-2), and Black/African American and Asian students (-1). On the interim goals, the early-warning indicator (EWI) missed its target. Tenth-grade on-track rates met theirs, and high school math is strengthening.

The metrics fight: Much of the 2.5-hour workshop turned on whether the board is measuring the right things. Commissioner Matt Alexander, who facilitated, told staff that if an interim goal isn't predictive, they should "pick a new one that actually measures the hard work that you're doing."

Deputy Superintendent John Davis said EWI is valuable for tracking graduation but "not necessarily sufficient" for college readiness. "I feel real tension in just throwing EWI away," Davis said.

Commissioner Parag Gupta asked whether SFUSD could benchmark against other districts. Staff noted that CCI is a statewide indicator. Commissioner Supryia Ray pointed to the gap between earning a diploma and being prepared: "I think probably most parents understand their kids' high school experience to be something that is preparing them for college or career."

The other side: Public commenters said the district is moving too slowly. Jeff Lucas, a public commenter, asked whether the problem lies in the strategy or its implementation, and argued results should not wait until 2028. Elliot of the San Francisco Parent Coalition said there has been virtually no progress, citing 7 in 10 African American and nearly 2 in 3 Latino students not college and career ready.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The board answered the three monitoring questions by a show of thumbs, and no tally was announced. Board President Phil Kim stated "no" on the first two questions. Alexander said he would vote no on the third. "I don't think we have a strategy and plan yet," Alexander said, explaining that his vote did not reflect a lack of faith in staff.

What's next: "We need to adjust the target that we're supposed to reach by 2028," Hsu said. Staff will also re-evaluate the interim goals. Kim announced a review of the board's vision, values, goals and guardrails starting in January.

Math Overhaul and the Capacity Question

Why it matters: The high school math overhaul is the district's largest planned instructional change for high schools. Whether schools have the staff to carry it out is now a budget question.

Where things stand: Assistant Superintendent Devin Krugman walked the board through a curriculum audit and instructional diagnostic. It drew on about 40 classroom observations, 190 assignments and nearly 3,000 student surveys. "The current curriculum does require replacement through an adoption process," Krugman said. About 35 teachers have signed up for the evaluation committee that will review new materials.

Kim pressed on how the district will know whether instruction actually improves. "Should we not be tracking teacher practice and where it is now," Kim asked. Staff said the audit serves as the baseline, and new learning-walk indicators begin in 2026-27. Learning walks are structured classroom observations by administrators.

One commissioner cited audit data showing that classrooms with higher concentrations of students of color are 53% more likely to experience low-quality instruction. Davis said staff are considering adding equity-related indicators.

From the schoolhouse: Two principals described what is working on the ground. Principal Amy Abaro of John O'Connell High School said that in a success-coaching pilot, "about 94% of student participants made progress on their goals."

Principal Nicholas Chan of San Francisco International High School flagged a structural problem with the metrics for newcomer students. "Anyone who comes in after the first semester of 9th grade is automatically going to be off track," Chan said.

The other side: Commissioner Alida Fisher questioned whether schools can absorb the work at all, noting that administrators are already covering clerical duties. "Are our allocations baseline sufficient to get to the point where we can do this strategic work," Fisher asked.

Hsu pointed to an evaluation of high school needs, additional executive directors, a small-group initiative with a centrally staffed administrator, and work on the principal role. Staff also cited competitive salaries and benefits as retention tools. Davis said the resource needs are real, but he called the items on the final slide "considerations," not commitments. Another commissioner raised program losses from cuts and consolidations. Staff acknowledged this is hard work ahead of the budget.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No funding was committed at the meeting. Principals, counselors and math teachers stand to gain support if the plan is resourced. If it is not, they face added workload.

What's next: Staff said resourcing decisions will come in the next two to three months, ahead of budget season.

Parents Push to Block YouTube Now

Why it matters: An organized parent-teacher group is pressing the board to act on classroom technology before its new ad hoc policy committee finishes its work.

Where things stand: A Tech in Check speaker said the group has 365 members, is active in 61 public schools and has gathered more than 1,150 petition signatures. The group asked the district to disable YouTube on student devices immediately.

Kirsten, a Tech in Check member, cited district data showing 78% of students logged YouTube active time of 1,188 minutes, about 19 hours, in 2025-26. She thanked Hsu and Kim for creating the ad hoc committee but urged the board to "take bold, immediate action to block YouTube on student Chromebooks."

Classroom educators echoed the concern:

Diana Hall, a former SFUSD substitute, described first graders left on laptops watching YouTube and high schoolers on phones. "I believe tech in schools is ruining kids' education," Hall said.
A teacher and parent contrasted interactive first-grade reading with 40 minutes of device time, including the Amira AI tutor and Epic. She asked for research-based technology guidelines.
A teacher speaking online said AI-based assessments of young students misread accents and do not inform instruction. She urged a return to human-administered assessment.
Karen Osher, a retired instructional coach, said she is not anti-tech. She asked that families, teachers and students sit on the planned technology policy committee.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Under public comment rules, the board did not respond. Speakers framed the issue as one of instructional quality and child safety, and they linked it to the same learning gaps the board spent the evening dissecting.

What's next: The ad hoc technology committee is the formal venue. Advocates want interim action first.

Consent calendar: Items E1–E54 approved (For: 6, Against: 0; Kim recused). The calendar includes the State Seal of Civic Engagement for 2027-28, backed by Morgan Kim of Generation Citizens West Region.
Staffing and discipline: PIPs and waivers, local assignment options and five stipulated expulsion agreements each passed (For: 7, Against: 0, Absent: 0).
Closed session: Settlements of $54,800 and $72,230 approved, along with a new due process complaint and a litigation step (7 ayes each).
Student assignment: Eric Honda of Integrated Schools urged, "Please don't make segregation worse under Option C, at least try to keep it the same."
Special education: Teresa Laddish, a parent, described an assault and misgendering of her autistic transgender seventh grader, and an IEP she believes is not followed.

Looking ahead: Watch for revised Goal 3 targets and interim metrics, resourcing decisions over the next two to three months, and the board's governance-framework review beginning in January.

Get alerts for this commission