AP Photo/Eric Risberg
People fill the main entryway of George Washington High School to view the controversial 13-panel, 1,600-square foot mural, the "Life of Washington," during an open house for the public in San Francisco on Aug. 1, 2019.

Fending off a cascade of criticisms, the threat of a lawsuit and a possible recall campaign, the president of the San Francisco school board has put on hold the board’s decision made just a few weeks ago to rename 44 public schools, including those named after George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Dianne Feinstein.

In an op-ed article in the San Francisco Chronicle, board President Gabriela López said she takes responsibility for “mistakes that were made in the renaming process,” without detailing what those mistakes were, and now wants “to provide more opportunities for community input.” She said the renaming controversy has turned into a “distracting public debate” that has taken away attention way from her number one priority — to reopen the city’s public schools for in-person instruction safely, and as soon as possible.

The board’s decision to rename its schools, made on Jan. 27 by a 6-1 vote, is just one of a number of controversies and challenges the board is facing. Those include intense criticism for its failure to reopen schools for in-person instruction, even though from a health perspective San Francisco has experienced lower levels of the Covid-19 virus than perhaps any other urban city and county in the state for extended periods of time. On that front, it also faces a legal challenge by city attorney Dennis Herrera, who filed a lawsuit against the board and the district’s superintendent to force it to open its schools.

It is also dealing with an intense and emotional debate over its decision to open up admission to Lowell High School, the city’s most selective and high-achieving school, and to eliminate a century-old system of admitting students based on academic performance.

López was elected to the board in 2018 at the age of 28, the youngest person ever elected to the San Francisco school board. She now faces the possibility of having to fight a recall campaign that has just been launched against her and two other board members by parents angry that schools are not being opened. A political action committee has been formed, and it began circulating a petition on Friday. So far 1,200 signatures have been gathered, according to this San Francisco Chronicle report — but with still a long way to go to collect the 70,000 signatures it still needs.

López indicated that she would not comment on the matter again until San Francisco schools are reopened, without defining what level of reopening she was referring to. “We will not be taking valuable time from our board agendas to further discuss this, as we need to prioritize reopening,” she said. All meetings regarding renaming will be canceled, and plans to rename schools will be revised “to run a more deliberative process” that would include historians from local universities.

At the same time, López did not indicate that she would back down from renaming some or all the schools on the list it approved less than a month ago. Rather, she said, the board would be “working with educators at all levels to involve and educate our school communities about the renaming process … We are realizing, especially now, it will take time and energy to get that right.”

In an extended interview on the topic in the New Yorker magazine last month, she said the renaming should be viewed “as an opportunity to uplift other people, other movements, other names that are normally not seen.” “Very simply…I don’t think it’s appropriate to have symbols of racism and white-supremacy culture,” she said, referring to the offending school names.

López’ backtracking on the renaming issue has echoes of a decision made in August 2019 by the board to destroy a Depression-era mural at George Washington High, which is one of the schools on the renaming list. The mural included images of slaves on George Washington’s plantation, and a life-size representation of the dead body of a Native American.

In the face of yet another controversy, then-school board President Steven Cook reversed course after getting what he described as “much more input from the public.” He proposed that instead of destroying the mural, which he had voted to do just weeks earlier, it should be covered up — albeit at a potential cost of nearly $1 million. That’s what the board then voted to do. “I think we all agree that the mural depicts a history of the country that’s hard to see,” he said.

Nearly 18 months later, the mural remains uncovered, as has been the case during the 80-plus years since it was painted.

To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.

Share Article

Comments (2)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Jennifer Bestor 7 months ago7 months ago

    Perhaps the school board might turn its attention to the $287,494,397 of "unused" education property tax collected this year in San Francisco? This has been turned over to the city as "excess" to school needs, according to the CDE. Wouldn't opening the schools might be easier with $4,000 more per SFUSD student (and $2,200 more per CCSF student)? These funds are under control of the legislature – a simple majority vote to … Read More

    Perhaps the school board might turn its attention to the $287,494,397 of “unused” education property tax collected this year in San Francisco? This has been turned over to the city as “excess” to school needs, according to the CDE. Wouldn’t opening the schools might be easier with $4,000 more per SFUSD student (and $2,200 more per CCSF student)? These funds are under control of the legislature – a simple majority vote to incorporate regional living costs into the school funding formula would recapture them for education in SF.

    This “excess” is an artifact of the school funding formula introduced in 2013. Applying flat per-student funding entitlements across the entire state severely handicaps high-cost areas. Meanwhile, local property tax receipts reflect local costs and have climbed steadily.

    In San Francisco, they outstripped the new formula just two years after it was instituted. Officials didn’t even notice this for a few years. They assumed that the 1993 return of a 25% slice of total tax that the city took from schools a year after Proposition 13 was permanent. But, if the state doesn’t call for it, the city gets to keep it. When they discovered the “excess” in November 2018, the “windfall” already exceeded $200 million a year. It has only grown since then – while SF schools have collapsed.

    Phil Ting, representing SF in the CA Assembly and chairman of the budget committee is perfectly placed to fix this in the Education Trailer Bill.

    Source: 2020-2021 P-1 published on the CDE website under principal apportionments. This amount is found on line C-1 of the exhibit “SELPA Special Education Local Revenue,” under the SELPA pull-down menu.
    https://ias.cde.ca.gov/apportionment/ias.aspx?schoolyearid=2020&RptType=P1&CertType=Non