Neighborhood Schools & Student Assignment

Predictability, proximity, and strong schools in every neighborhood — without repeating the mistakes of the past

“Families should not need a PhD in lottery strategy just to enroll their child. At the same time, we cannot solve enrollment decline and empty seats by creating new imbalances or weakening the schools that need the most support. We need a smarter path.”
— Laurance Lee

The Reality in 2026

San Francisco’s student assignment system (the “lottery”) has frustrated families for more than a decade.

  • It is unpredictable and stressful.
  • It contributes to enrollment decline and private-school flight.
  • Thousands of empty seats exist while some schools are overcrowded.
  • A zone-based (“neighborhood”) policy was approved by the Board in December 2020 — and has been delayed repeatedly. It will not be used for the 2026-27 school year.

Superintendent Maria Su’s current timeline (announced spring 2026):

  • New student assignment proposal to the Board by April 2027
  • Implementation targeted for fall 2028
  • Any school closures or mergers would follow later (potentially 2029–2030)

We are still living with the old citywide-choice system while the district tries (again) to design something better.

A History of Good Intentions and Hard Failures

  • Decades of citywide choice were meant to promote integration and opportunity. Results have been mixed at best: persistent racial and socioeconomic isolation in many schools, massive parent stress, and declining enrollment.
  • The 2020 zone-based policy aimed for three goals: diversity, proximity, and predictability. Implementation delays and political fights have kept it on the shelf.
  • Past school-closure attempts (especially 2024) were chaotic, poorly communicated, and deeply damaging to trust. They contributed to leadership turnover and community anger.
  • Under-enrolled schools drain resources. Over-reliance on busing and complicated tiebreakers has not delivered the strong neighborhood options many families want.

Doing nothing is not an option. Doing it wrong would be worse.

Potential Pitfalls We Must Avoid

If we rush or design poorly, we risk:

  • Greater imbalance — Concentrating the highest-need students in the same schools (especially in the southeast) while more-resourced neighborhoods pull further ahead.
  • Reduced attendance — Longer or more complicated commutes, or assignments that feel unfair, can increase chronic absenteeism.
  • Accelerated closures of the wrong schools — Weak or under-enrolled schools in high-need areas could be closed first, further eroding trust and opportunity.
  • Loss of specialized programs — Dual-language, arts, and other citywide magnets could be weakened if everything becomes strictly neighborhood-bound.
  • Another decade of delay and fighting — Endless process without clear criteria or honest data.

What I Believe

  1. Every neighborhood deserves strong schools. Proximity and predictability matter deeply to families.
  2. Diversity and equity still matter. A new assignment system must not re-create or worsen segregation.
  3. Choice has value — especially for specialized programs (Mandarin Immersion, arts, language pathways, etc.) and for families who need options beyond their immediate neighborhood.
  4. Empty seats and declining enrollment are unsustainable. We will eventually need portfolio decisions (closures, mergers, co-locations, or program consolidations). Those decisions must come after a clearer assignment system is in place and with honest community engagement — not as a surprise.
  5. Data and transparency first. Any new system needs public simulations, clear metrics, and regular reporting on who gets what and how schools are performing.

My Approach if Elected

  • Demand a clear, public timeline and decision criteria from the Superintendent and staff — no more indefinite delays.
  • Insist on robust community engagement that includes the voices of families in high-need neighborhoods, not just the loudest or best-organized.
  • Support a hybrid approach that increases neighborhood priority and predictability while protecting meaningful choice and specialized programs.
  • Tie any future portfolio changes (closures/mergers) to the new assignment system and to measurable improvements in school quality — never as a pure budget exercise.
  • Require simple public dashboards so families can see assignment outcomes, waitlist realities, and school performance by neighborhood.
  • Protect the progress we have made on algebra access, dual-language expansion, and early literacy while we fix enrollment.

Success Looks Like

  • Families can reasonably predict and plan around school assignment.
  • Every part of the city has improving, well-resourced neighborhood options.
  • Specialized programs continue to thrive and remain accessible.
  • Enrollment stabilizes or grows because families trust the system again.
  • Any necessary portfolio changes are done transparently, equitably, and with real support for affected students and staff.

Citations & Sources

About these deep dives
I have spent years writing about SFUSD budgets, facilities, and student outcomes in local media (Examiner, Beyond Chron, and others). These pages continue that work. They are researched and written by me, accelerated with AI tools, and reviewed by experienced educators. I believe voters deserve the full picture, the data, and a clear plan — not slogans.

Full Platform  |  My Record  |  Get the Lee Letter  |  Download Booklet  |  Volunteer  |  Donate