San Francisco Unified School District board members learned about a new timeline for school closures and enrollment changes the same way everyone else did: by reading about it in the San Francisco Chronicle.

SFUSD’s chief of staff, Marin Trujillo, informed board members in an email April 30 of the plan and that the district had been working with the Chronicle to place a story about (opens in new tab) it. The district was “not planning to issue a press release,” Trujillo wrote in the email, which was obtained by The Standard. Instead, it wanted to “ strategically place a story to alleviate misinformation.”

“Given the sensitive nature of the topics, we are preparing coordinated districtwide communications,” Trujillo wrote. He asked board members to let him know if they had any questions before the story was published.

They didn’t get much time to ask. Just three hours later, at 5:28 p.m., the district emailed parents outlining the plan (opens in new tab) to delay school closures until 2029-30 — and the Chronicle story went live around that time. Some board members hadn’t even seen Trujillo’s email.

Board members considered the decision to release the timeline to the public a “slap in the face” and wondered if it was deliberate, according to sources.

While the board and district staff had been discussing school reorganization behind the scenes for weeks, sources say, board members were not aware of the nature of the school closure timeline and were given no opportunity to sign off on the Chronicle story and email to parents.

The incident has sharpened tensions between Superintendent Maria Su and several board members, according to sources close to the district. It also reopened some wounds. A similar breakdown in communication contributed to the resignation of Su’s predecessor, Matt Wayne, in 2024. When the district that October publicly released a list of 13 schools considered suitable for closure, board members and city officials were blindsided.

SFUSD spokesperson Laura Dudnick pushed back on the notion that board members were caught off guard by the Chronicle story, saying the district staff “has informed the Board of Education of the progress through briefings, presentations, meetings, and individual conversations.” Dudnick said the timeline remains a draft and will be reviewed at Tuesday’s board meeting.

Meredith Dodson, the director of SF Parents community group, believes that board members are more frustrated about the details of the timeline than the lack of communication from district staff.

“There is plenty of time to change the plan to their liking,” Dodson said. “I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.”

While the Chronicle headline (opens in new tab) — “SFUSD sets new plan” — suggested the timeline was settled, district staff have said changes are possible.

When Su’s contract was extended last year, the board discussed a resolution requiring her to present proposals for a reorganization plan as early as August 2026, for implementation in the 2027-28 school year. The new timeline effectively delays that process by two years, shifting the reorganization strategy toward redesigning the district’s controversial “lottery” system first and delaying any site closures until the end of the decade.

The enrollment system overhaul has been years in the making. A system intended to give families more predictability and guaranteed admission to a nearby school was originally slated to launch by  2026-27 after a decade of studies and community outreach. Under the new timeline, the redesigned enrollment policy will not be addressed until 2027-28 and would take effect in 2028-29. Only after that would school closures be considered. Su’s contract expires at the end of the 2027-28 school year.

The reorganization will come as SFUSD continues to grapple with a significant enrollment decline. The district estimates that enrollment will decline by 4,600 students by 2032, leaving some schools half-empty and underfunded, while those with high demand continue to turn away students.

SFUSD is staring down years of contentious votes on school closures, a fraught enrollment overhaul, and the need to rebuild public trust at a moment when there is little to spare. None of that will be possible if the superintendent and the board can’t figure out how to work together. Recent history suggests that getting there may be easier said than done.