The $113 million budget deficit now facing the San Francisco Unified School District reflects many years of bad decisions — and bad assumptions. Perhaps the most common one is that all budget cuts hurt kids.
Go to any school board meeting, and you’ll hear: “Keep cuts away from kids.”
That’s the wrong way to think about it. What matters is not how close the spending is to students, but how effectively the spending improves student outcomes. In some cases, SFUSD can spend less in the classroom while simultaneously improving student outcomes.
Consider SFUSD’s lack of progress in one of its three core goals: improving math proficiency among eighth graders. Not only does SFUSD remain significantly off track from its goals, but overall math proficiency among eighth graders has deteriorated in the last few years.
During a January presentation at which SFUSD reported on its lack of progress on improving math proficiency among that age group, several ongoing interventions were described: new curriculum, teacher coaching, and digital tutoring. While these ideas may be sensible, they exemplify what SFUSD does too often: spend money on new things.
Meanwhile, SFUSD is ignoring the most logical way it could improve math proficiency: spending more time on instruction.
The California Department of Education recommends that middle school students receive at least 250-300 minutes per week of mathematics instruction, and at least 30 additional minutes each day for students who need intervention. SFUSD does not meet even this minimum standard.
Last year, when SFUSD adopted the policy of making algebra available in eighth grade, it said it would “plan with all middle schools to increase instructional time in core subjects, including math, to at least 205 minutes per week in middle school.” This is unacceptable. SFUSD should commit to providing students in every middle school at least the amount of instructional time the CDE recommends.
It is true that a gain in time for math means a loss for other things. But a budget is where we commit to our priorities. SFUSD should take time and money away from noncore school activities like advisory, physical education, and electives, to provide as much time as kids need to learn math. And SFUSD might even increase its savings if it were simultaneously willing to tolerate larger math class sizes — not desirable, but perhaps necessary given our budget crunch.
This is just one way SFUSD could save money without hurting student outcomes — by making smarter decisions. To find other ways, SFUSD should change its dysfunctional culture of always trying to reinvent the wheel instead of doing what has been proved to work elsewhere.
For instance, when SFUSD decided to reintroduce algebra to the eighth grade last February, it chose to adopt a wildly confusing pilot program with schools testing different ways of sequencing and structuring their math offerings to incorporate algebra. Why add all this overhead and complexity?
Instead, SFUSD could have adopted the approach used by Long Beach, a district SFUSD regularly views as a model of equity and effectiveness. Long Beach teaches the “Math 6-8” curriculum in grades six and seven and algebra in eighth grade; they provide an alternative pathway for kids who need all three grades to learn Math 6-8, plus the opportunity for kids to speed back up if they are able. We should simply adopt a model that works well in the district we most admire.
The same philosophy of resource prioritization should be adopted within the central office. Why does SFUSD spend money developing a bespoke curriculum when it could adopt existing curricula off the shelf? SFUSD’s previous efforts to develop its own math curriculum were shown to be unsuccessful. Replicating what works across the board could both save money and improve student outcomes.
SFUSD should aggressively seek opportunities to save resources everywhere. Rejecting the false slogan of “keep cuts away from kids” does not mean accepting the opposite and equally false slogan of “make cuts close to kids.” Instead, it means making budgeting and spending decisions that are outcome-oriented, evidence-based, and authentic to our values.
We can save money and improve student outcomes if we have the courage to cut what shouldn’t have been spent in the first place.
Patrick Wolff is vice chair of the SFUSD citizens’ bond oversight committee, a chess grandmaster, and parent of two children who attended SF public schools.