Candidate Name: Alida Fisher
Phone Number: 415-279-3382
Web site: www.alidafisher.com
E-mail: alida@alidafisher.com or alidafisher@gmail.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Claire Cohen
How much do you expect to spend in this contest: $25,000
Major Endorsements: Supervisors Shamann Walton and Myrna Melgar, Former Supervisors Gordon Mar, Sandy Fewer, Norman Yee, Hillary Ronen, State Controller Malia Cohen, SF Parents PAC, SF Women's Political Committee, School Board President Phil Kim, Member Lisa Weissman-Ward, Parag Gupta, and Former School Board President Jenny Lam
Incumbent whose votes are most similar to the way you would vote: Matt Alexander, and Lisa Weissman-Ward
Incumbent who votes least similarly to the way you would vote: I respect my colleagues' different perspectives; I focus on making independent, evidence-based decisions centered on students, families, educators, and other community members.
1. What lessons did you take from the recent strike? What would you have done differently than the incumbents, if anything?
The February 2026 UESF strike was a powerful reminder of how deeply public schools and educators are woven into the fabric of San Francisco. Watching students, families, educators, labor partners, community members, and local and state leaders come together in solidarity demonstrated the profound commitment to public education and to the people who make our schools function every day. The strike showed the entire state and country that San Francisco loves its public schools and educators. Our community believes that investing in students, classrooms, and school-based supports is not optional; it is essential.
The strike also highlighted the importance of protecting the social safety net within schools, including Wellness Centers, social workers, and wraparound supports that many students and families rely upon every day. The way the city collectively lifted and highlighted this work reaffirmed why I continue to live and serve in San Francisco.
While I was proud to stand in solidarity with educators on the Mission High School picket line and to advocate behind the scenes during negotiations and discussions with district leadership, I also recognize the importance of being visible and vocal in support of labor partners in public spaces. Our labor partners deserve the dependent healthcare benefits that they fought for, and more! District leaders, including the Board, need to work with city and state leaders to increase pay and benefits to livable SF wages.
I also believe that our agreement doesn't go far enough: our special educators have been asking for years for more manageable caseloads and support. We have yet to address their reasonable requests.
2. What is your stance on school closures for budgetary reasons?
I was initially a vocal opponent of school closures. I disagree with the manner in which we conducted our 2024 RAI process and believe we violated our own community engagement guardrails. By not fully and transparently engaging with our school communities, we lost a huge amount of trust and goodwill in the process.
I now believe we need to have a much more public, honest, and inclusive conversation about portfolio alignment. Let's be clear: closing schools won't save money. Rather, aligning our number of schools and facilities with enrollment could allow us to concentrate resources across fewer, better-resourced campuses and improve the quality of learning environments.
Our system has not adjusted to sustained enrollment decline, creating ongoing challenges for equity, staffing, and resource allocation. Enrollment has declined by significantly and is projected to continue to decrease. Currently, we have approximately 14,000 empty seats across our system. Yet SFUSD continues to operate the same number of school sites (more than 100). This creates a structural mismatch, resulting in the district operating half-empty buildings. We spend disproportionate amounts on facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative staff that could otherwise fund teacher salaries and academic programs. Many elementary campuses now operate with only a single classroom per grade level, or even split classes with multiple grades. It becomes harder to consistently offer robust academic programming, enrichment opportunities, and specialized services across all schools.
SFUSD's upcoming work to redesign its school portfolio is intended to better align the number and configuration of schools with enrollment realities. We want to create a district where every school will have a principal, assistant principal, and qualified educators, including a librarian, arts and PE instructors, and additional staff members tailored to meet student needs. Every school should have a full-time social worker and nurse, a Wellness Center with robust mental health supports, and academic interventionists that ensure all students' needs are met.
By centering student outcomes and strengthening equity, we can build a school portfolio that creates more stable, well-resourced learning environments for all students and closes our equity gap. However, no portfolio redesign will be successful without robust engagement and ultimately community buy-in. School communities, students, educators, and families must be at the forefront of these decisions.
3. What is your stance on pandemic safety in the schools? Under what circumstances might you support instating a mask or vaccine mandate, or canceling in-person classe? What would be the main basis on which you make this decision? (e.g., would it be based on your gut feelings, or whose advice would you listen to?)
I believe SFUSD should prioritize safe, in-person learning while recognizing that virtual learning can be an important option for students who cannot safely attend school in person, including immunocompromised students. The SFUSD High School Task Force also recommended expanding virtual learning opportunities to synchronize schedules and provide aligned course instruction across schools.
SFUSD schools should continue following California's vaccination requirements and public-health guidance. I would consider additional measures, such as masking or temporary changes to in-person instruction, when public-health data indicate a significant risk to students or staff. We have also seen that temporary closures may be necessary for environmental emergencies, such as hazardous air quality from wildfires.
These decisions should never be based on gut feelings. I would rely on guidance from public-health experts, state and local health authorities, epidemiological data, school-level conditions, and the best available evidence. My priority would be protecting health while minimizing disruption to learning and ensuring students who cannot safely attend school still have meaningful access to education.
4. How (if at all) would you like to see AI used in the classroom and implemented in the curriculum?
Technology can and should be a tool that enhances teaching and learning, not a substitute for great educators, meaningful relationships, or sound judgment. Every decision about technology in our schools should be guided by two questions: Who benefits? Does it improve student outcomes while promoting equity, safety, and well-being?
The Board is launching an Ad Hoc Committee on Tech Usage this year to develop updated tech policies for our district. The goal is to develop and adopt clear standards for transparency, accountability, privacy protections, and ongoing monitoring so that families and educators understand when and how AI and other tech is being used, what data is being collected, and how student information is protected. For example, I have continuously questioned the effectiveness of our AI-based reading screener, Amira. The anecdotal information that has been shared with me by parents and educators makes me question its reliability and impact on student outcomes. I will push for more data around Amira and similar AI instructional tools this school year.
While AI presents exciting opportunities, it also comes with huge risks and many uncertainties that require thoughtful governance. There is growing evidence that tech tools have negative long term learning consequences. AI tools should be evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, and used intentionally to support high-quality instruction. They should assist educators, not replace them, and human oversight must remain central to decisions that affect students. Tools must ease administrative burden to educators and administrators, not add to it.
We must regularly assess for bias, evaluate outcomes across student groups, and be willing to adjust or discontinue tools that are not serving students equitably.
5. Do you have practical ideas on how SFUSD can be adequately funded?
Declining enrollment is a state-wide issue, and particularly problematic when our school revenues are determined by the number of students attending our school. And, regardless of enrollment trends, public school funding was decimated by Prop 13 and has never recovered. Our schools are underfunded, period. My biggest reform priority, which I have worked with community to address for more than a decade, is to increase funding for our schools. The work continues.
I pledge to continue my work to increase educator pay. I have stood alongside educators, community members, and city leaders for years working towards the passage of The Living Wage for Educators Act, the Student Success Fund, and many other bond measures and parcel taxes. I pledge to work towards passage of the next version of QTEA. I have advocated alongside UESF and others for many years to demand that the City allocate all ERAF funding to public education. Even after the passage of the Student Success Fund, a mere fraction of ERAF funding is actually allocated to the school district. As an SFUSD delegate to the California School Boards Association (CSBA), I continue to advocate for increased school district budgets by fighting for higher COLA allocations year over year and reinstatement of the money that the governor has stolen from Prop 98 through his budget maneuver. I am working with legislative action committees at the CSBA- and SELPA-level to increase school funding, particularly special education funding, without strings attached. Many of the bills before the State legislature this year that would increase education funding were written as one-time grants or pilot programs that come with restricted funds rather than ongoing increases to public education revenues. We need more funding, and we need the local control and autonomy to spend it on priorities identified by our community.
6. How are you currently involved in the SFUSD -- or how were you involved in the past?
I am currently serving as a member of the San Francisco Board of Education. I've participated in school site governance (PTAs, SSCs, PTA boards) for 20+ years and District-level oversight (African American Parent Advisory Committee, Charter School Oversight Committee, Equity Studies Task Force, LCAP Task Force, and past Chair of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education) for more than a decade.
As a special education advocate, I understand and continue to highlight and reinforce the importance of early intervention, inclusive practices, wraparound supports, and recruiting and retaining excellent educators. My experience has also given me firsthand insight into how operational decisions, staffing models, enrollment policies, and budget choices affect students who have historically been underserved. Strong governance means listening to families, understanding how district systems function in practice, and ensuring every decision is informed by both data and lived experience.
Before joining the Board, I spent years advocating for students and families through district committees and working groups. I built coalitions with educators, district leaders, and elected officials to strengthen our schools and improve student outcomes. During my term as commissioner, the Board has:
-Adopted a balanced 2025-26 budget while advancing a multi-year fiscal stabilization plan, moving SFUSD from negative to qualified certification and positioning the district for positive certification next school year;
-Adopted new curriculum in English language arts, math, social studies, history, and ethnic studies, providing educators with stronger instructional tools and creating greater stability and coherence across the district;
-Modernized outdated financial and HR systems through the implementation of Frontline and Red Rover, improving operational effectiveness and helping ensure employees are paid accurately and on time;
-Reached bargaining agreements with all labor partners; and
-Successfully implemented a major districtwide Transitional Kindergarten expansion, increasing access to early learning opportunities for families across San Francisco.
7. How do you feel about the current school assignment system (including at Lowell)? Would you make changes, and if so, which ones?
Our current enrollment system isn't working. The urgency of our work is reflected in our enrollment trends. Today, only 64.3% of San Francisco's school-aged children attend SFUSD schools. At the same time, only 27% of K-5 students attend their home attendance area school.
Streamlining enrollment must therefore go hand-in-hand with building trust in the district's ability to provide high-quality programs and equitable access across all schools and neighborhoods. How do we ensure every school offers a high-quality educational experience? How do we guarantee equitable access to language pathways, special education services, STEM programs, and inclusive learning environments across all enrollment zones? How do we invest in under-enrolled schools so that families see them as strong and desirable options?
The work to revisit student assignment creates an important opportunity to take a more asset-based and community-centered approach. Rather than viewing under-enrolled schools as liabilities, SFUSD must invest in the programs and supports families consistently say they value, including language pathways, STEM opportunities, inclusion models, arts programming, and wraparound supports. We know that when schools are thoughtfully resourced and aligned with community priorities, families are more likely to choose and remain in those schools.
Ultimately, streamlining enrollment is about more than simplifying paperwork or assignment algorithms. It is about creating a system that families can understand, trust, and access equitably. A successful enrollment system reduces barriers, increases transparency, strengthens neighborhood community schools, and ensures that every student has access to high-quality educational opportunities throughout the district.
Regarding high school assignments, I don't believe that an enrollment system can ever drive merit or high achievement; it's the students, educators, resources, programs, and support at a school that impact student success. In the 2025â€"26 school year, Lowell offered 33 AP courses, compared with 22 at Lincoln. With roughly 2,700 students at Lowell and just over 2,000 at Lincoln, Lowell offers substantially greater access to Advanced Placement coursework. We need to offer more AP and Honors classes at all high schools, more CTE pathways, more clubs and extracurricular activities, and more sports. All high schools should have robust visual and performing arts programs like Ruth Asawa SOTA.
As John F. Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats. Let's change the narrative and focus from
watering down our schools to lifting all students to reach their full potential. And let's make sure
we prioritize funding towards adding City College dual enrollment courses, AP and Honors classes, CTE pathways, sports, extracurricular programs, and robust performing arts at ALL schools!
8. Some of our schools receive significant funding from parent
fundraising. Are you concerned about the inequality in fundraising
between schools in rich and poor neighborhoods, and if so,
what ideas do you have to make things more equitable?
Absolutely. When wealth is concentrated in particular communities, parent fundraising can widen the opportunity gap between schools. It also fails to account for the legacy of school segregation and the racial and economic isolation that still exists in San Francisco neighborhoods. We cannot expect schools serving communities with fewer financial resources to compete on equal terms with schools where families have greater capacity to give.
We need a more equitable approach that supplements, rather than simply replaces, parent fundraising. The San Francisco Ed Fund is an excellent example of how an outside partner can bring additional resources to schools and students who need them most. Its high-impact literacy tutoring program has provided intensive, individualized tutoring to thousands of SFUSD students, prioritizing schools with the greatest academic and economic needs. In 2025â€"26, SF Ed Fund expanded tutoring to more than 2,700 students across 20 schools, with a particular focus on second through fourth grade. The program uses consistent, in-person tutoring at least three times a week and aligns tutoring with SFUSD's literacy curriculum.
The results demonstrate what targeted investment can accomplish. During the 2024â€"25 school year, the percentage of participating students meeting grade-level reading standards more than doubled, from 24% to 54% in just five months. Partnerships like this allow us to direct philanthropic and community resources toward closing opportunity gaps rather than simply reinforcing the fundraising advantages of schools in wealthier neighborhoods. We should continue building these partnerships while ensuring that every school receives the baseline resources it needs from SFUSD itself..
9. Are you familiar with the case of Williams et al. v State of
California? Do you believe that all schools in the SFUSD are
currently in compliance with Williams?
Yes. I am familiar with Williams et al. v. State of California, which established basic standards to ensure that every student has access to adequate instructional materials, qualified teachers, and safe, well-maintained school facilities.
I am concerned, however, that we cannot confidently say that every SFUSD school is currently in compliance. The issue is not simply whether we have a Williams complaint process; we do. The larger issue is whether the District is proactively monitoring compliance across every school.
Too often, our system relies on families, students, educators, and community members to identify and self-report problems. That creates an uneven system in which conditions may go unreported, particularly when families do not know their rights or lack the time, language access, or confidence to navigate the complaint process.
SFUSD must have a stronger internal monitoring system that regularly verifies instructional materials, teacher vacancies and assignments, and facility conditions at every school. We should not wait for a family or staff member to report a problem before the District knows it exists. Compliance should be proactively measured, publicly reported, and followed by corrective action when deficiencies are identified.
10. What is your position on JROTC in the public schools?
SFUSD's JROTC programs have provided benefits for high school participants, particularly in STEM education, leadership, and service. Students are developing leadership, teamwork, discipline, communication, time management, and decision-making skills while participating in structured activities and community service. I have been honored to attend multiple JROTC drill competitions, where students showcase the skills they've learned through the program.
11. Would you support district elections for school board members?
Currently, no. The Board of Education creates policies that affect the entire school district, and as such everyone should be able to weigh in on who they believe would best serve SFUSD public schools. Enrollment isn't dictated by district, so district elections could potentially restrict our greatest accountability measure: holding our elected officials accountable at the ballot box.
12. What is your stance on allowing noncitizen parents, guardians and caretakers of students to vote in school board elections? Did you take a public position on previous ballot initiatives on the subject?
I absolutely support non-citizen voting, and have stated so publicly. All families should have the opportunity to participate in every aspect of their children's education, and holding elected
officials accountable is an important part of our democracy.
I also think it's important for undocumented families to understand the risks involved in registering to vote, particularly in this political climate. The Department of Elections could be forced to provide the database of registered voters to other governmental agencies, including federal agencies such as ICE. Parents should consult with an immigration attorney or other knowledgeable resource before registering.
13. What are your thoughts on the various non-profit organizations that partner and/or contract with SFUSD?
I believe community-based organizations (CBOs) are an important and valuable partner to SFUSD, particularly because they often have deep, longstanding relationships with families and communities that schools may not have built on their own. CBOs often provide culturally responsive services, trusted relationships, and wraparound supports that help address the needs that affect a student's ability to succeed in school. In many cases, families feel more comfortable seeking support from a trusted community organization than from school staff, making CBOs an essential bridge between schools and families.
CBOs are a critical component of the community schools model, where schools work in partnership with families and community organizations to provide integrated academic, health, social, and enrichment supports. These partnerships should be grounded in clear expectations, accountability, and measurable outcomes, while recognizing the expertise that CBOs bring. SFUSD should evaluate partnerships based not only on cost, but on whether they are effectively reaching students and families, strengthening relationships, and improving student outcomes.
14. How do you see the role of the School Board in comparison to the role of the superintendent?
The school board has one employee: the superintendent. The superintendent in comparison is charged with overseeing the day-to-day operations of SF's public schools. Good communication and collaboration between the two entities is important for good school district governance.
Our Board adopted the Student Outcomes Focused Governance (SOFG) model to improve our focus on governance and oversight. It provides a clear framework for accountability while delineating “Board work” from “Superintendent work.” The Board progress monitors three core priorities: improving third-grade reading proficiency, strengthening eighth-grade math proficiency, and ensuring students graduate prepared for college and careers. The Superintendent's evaluation is directly tied to these student outcome measures, creating clear accountability and keeping our focus where it belongs: on students.
15. Would you ensure that all San Francisco students have access to a free, public pre-K program? If so, how?
Yes. I believe every San Francisco family should have access to a free, high-quality public pre-K option, and SFUSD has made significant progress toward that goal through the expansion of Transitional Kindergarten (TK). The next step is to build on that progress through a strong partnership between SFUSD and the San Francisco Department of Early Childhood (DEC). The two agencies have already developed a shared vision for Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK), combining SFUSD's TK and preschool programs with the City's broader Early Learning for All network. This mixed-delivery system gives families options while working toward a common goal: ensuring that cost, neighborhood, or family circumstances do not determine whether a child has access to quality early learning.
We should continue to leverage the City's investments through Proposition C and the Public Education Enrichment Fund, which provide important resources for preschool and early-childhood education. The City's Prop C resources support initiatives including tuition assistance, educator compensation and workforce development, facilities, and inclusion and infant-toddler supports. SFUSD and DEC should continue coordinating enrollment, funding, workforce development, quality standards, and services for children with disabilities so families experience one connected early-learning system rather than two separate bureaucracies. Universal TK is an important foundation, but achieving truly universal pre-K will require sustained City investment and close collaboration between SFUSD, DEC, community providers, and families.
16. Have you read Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System? What lessons should the District take from this work? Whether or not you've read the book, what role do you see for charter schools in the public education System?
While I have not read the book, I agree with the premise that charter schools often operate as direct market competitors to traditional public schools. I was the sole board member to vote against renewing the KIPP Bayview Elementary School charter last year and previously served on the SFUSD Charter School Oversight Committee to hold charter schools accountable.
Charter schools were originally intended to be innovative “lab schools.” We do have charters in SF that embody that spirit. However, many California charters have become corporate entities lacking oversight and accountability mechanisms. They aren't required to offer the full continuum of special education pathways and language programs that SFUSD schools do. Instead, charter schools compete with traditional schools for students and public resources.
We must recognize that charter schools are attractive to many SF families because of the inequitable resources available across SFUSD schools. All public schools must have the necessary resources to serve their students and attract new families. I would much rather see charter school funders work collaboratively with SFUSD to improve outcomes at our existing (and often under-enrolled) schools rather than open new schools.
17. What do you think of the current requirements that students take the SBAC test, and what are your thoughts on standardized testing in general?
I support the underlying goals of the Common Core standards and the shift away from rote memorization toward problem-solving, critical thinking, meaningful discourse, collaboration, and a growth mindset. Having consistent standards helps ensure that students graduate with the skills they need for college, careers, and success in the 21st century. I also believe we need reliable measures of student achievement so that we can identify and address persistent inequities. However, I am concerned about the amount of testing we ask of our students and educators. I am not a fan of the annual SBAC assessment each spring, particularly when it takes valuable time and resources away from instruction.
The SBAC is designed primarily as a summative assessment; it's a broad measure of how students and schools are performing against grade-level Common Core standards. It can be useful for identifying achievement trends, comparing performance across student groups, and holding systems accountable for equity. But it is not designed to give teachers the detailed, timely information they need to understand an individual student's specific learning gaps, misconceptions, or next steps for improvement. Those questions are better answered through ongoing classroom assessment, student work, and direct observation. We should minimize the use of broad standardized testing, such as SBAC, as one data point rather than allowing it to drive instruction. We must protect instructional time, and ensure educators have access to better, more timely information that actually helps them meet each student's individual learning needs.
18. How can the public schools better address the needs of Special Education students and ESL students?
As a special education advocate, I appreciate this question! Budgets are moral documents, and they should reflect our commitment to closing the opportunity gaps that many students continue to experience. Equity requires more than equal distribution of resources; it requires targeted investments that ensure students with the greatest needs receive the support necessary to thrive. I believe strongly in the principle of targeted universalism: when we design systems and services that effectively support students who face the greatest barriers, the benefits extend to all students. Investments in differentiated instruction, behavioral supports, and inclusive practices strengthen entire classrooms and school communities by giving educators the tools they need to support a wide range of learners.
Achieving this vision requires deeper collaboration between SFUSD and our community. While educators are asking for additional training and professional development, training alone is not enough. Students and schools need sustained wraparound support, increased inclusive practices, expanded Tier 2 and 3 interventions, and access to trained staff who can implement evidence-based strategies throughout the school day. If we are serious about creating equitable outcomes, our investments must extend beyond one-time initiatives or limited pilot programs. For example, while I am encouraged by SFUSD's renewed commitment to Restorative Practices, fully realizing the goals of our Safe and Supportive Schools Resolution will require coordinated investment in staffing, implementation support, and community partnerships that help schools build lasting systems of care. It will require investments in collaboration with community partners, who often know our students best.
As both a County Office of Education and a Local Education Agency, SFUSD also plays a unique role in coordinating services that extend beyond the traditional scope of a school district. This creates opportunities for stronger alignment with city departments, community-based organizations, and regional agencies to better serve students with complex needs. I am particularly encouraged by the development of our new county school program, which will allow more students with disabilities to remain connected to their communities and receive services closer to home rather than being placed in distant nonpublic schools.
We must be asset-based and culturally responsive in all ways we interact with multilingual families and educate our students. Considering that nearly a quarter of SFUSD students are multilingual learners, this is a large priority in the District. We need to expand curriculum offering for ELD and English Language Learners, in all languages represented by our SFUSD families. We need more translation and interpretation services, and we need more staff on all campuses that speak the languages of our families!
We also need to provide access to tutoring and afterschool programs. Families tell us that they rely on or would benefit from homework support because navigating English language materials is a barrier. The Springboard summer programs is a great example; students receive daily math and reading enrichment while parents receive weekly coaching. Connecting families to the curricula helps them better support their students at home, which improves outcomes.
San Francisco's students are worth sustained public investment, and our city has consistently demonstrated that it values public education and wants young people to succeed. We can build more equitable systems of support that reflect the strengths and diversity of our city. Diversity is one of San Francisco's greatest assets: it makes our schools, our classrooms, and our communities more thoughtful, innovative, and resilient. When we work together across systems and institutions to invest in all students, especially those who have historically been underserved, we create stronger outcomes not only for individual children, but for the entire city.