Candidate Name: Ryan Hazelton
Phone Number: 415-371-9793
Web site: www.ryanforsfschools.com
E-mail: info@ryanhazelton.com
Name of Campaign Manager: Daniel Anderson
How much do you expect to spend in this contest: $45,000
Major Endorsements: UESF, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, Supervisor Connie Chan, Supervisor Chyanne Chan, Former SF Supervisors Hillary Ronen, Aaron Peskin and Gordon Mar
Incumbent whose votes are most similar to the way you would vote: Matt Alexander
Incumbent who votes least similarly to the way you would vote: Supryia Ray
1. What lessons did you take from the recent strike? What would you have done differently than the incumbents, if anything?
The clearest lesson is that UESF hadn't gone on strike in 50 years, so this wasn't inevitable, it was a failure of will. The moment for relentless negotiating was October 2025, when the possibility of a strike was already on the table. Instead, incumbents let negotiations drag for 11 months, allowing conditions to deteriorate until educators had no other option left. The strike itself then ran longer than it needed to, and we later learned the district had the money for the agreement it eventually reached, money that could have ended this days earlier. What I would have done differently is treat that October warning as the actual deadline, not a formality to get through before eventually settling. The larger lesson for the district is that better budgeting models and earlier, honest conversations with labor are what prevent strikes, not last-minute concessions after months of damage. Incumbents should be held accountable for that breakdown, and for the trust it cost the district with educators and families.
2. What is your stance on school closures for budgetary reasons?
Closures should be a last resort, not a budget shortcut, and before we even consider consolidation, we need to fix the broken enrollment lottery system that's already pushing families out of the district. A Stanford study from May 2026 found that closing schools doesn't actually save districts money, undercutting the main argument usually made for them. If consolidation is ever necessary, it has to be about improving resources at a school, not cutting costs, and it needs real equity safeguards: disaggregated data on who's affected, and direct, sustained engagement with educators and families throughout the process, not after decisions are made. The district's last attempt at this badly broke trust with the communities it was supposed to serve. We can't go down that road again without rebuilding that trust first, meaning real co-design with the people affected, not a plan presented for reaction.
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 classes? 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'd base that decision on public health guidance, specifically SF Department of Public Health and CDC recommendations, not gut instinct or politics, and I'd want that process to include direct consultation with our labor partners like UESF to build real agreement before any mandate is announced, not after. Mandates are a tool for genuine public health emergencies, not a permanent posture, and I'd support reinstating one if DPH assessed a serious transmission risk to students or immunocompromised staff and families, the same threshold that governed the original 2020-21 decisions. I would not support canceling in-person classes except as a last resort in an acute emergency, given what we now know about the cost to kids' learning and mental health from extended closures. The board's job isn't to have a fixed ideological position on masks or vaccines, it's to defer to public health expertise, coordinate closely with the educators who'll implement any decision, and act quickly when that expertise says to.
4. How (if at all) would you like to see AI used in the classroom and implemented in the curriculum?
I'd want AI treated as a tool for teachers, not a substitute for them, used to cut down administrative burden like lesson planning and grading logistics so educators have more time for actual instruction. In curriculum, I'd want media literacy and critical evaluation of AI-generated content taught explicitly, since students are going to encounter it constantly whether or not the district engages with it directly. I'd be cautious about vendor contracts that put student data into commercial AI systems without strict privacy safeguards, and skeptical of anything that positions AI as a replacement for actual instructional relationships between teachers and students.
5. Do you have practical ideas on how SFUSD can be adequately funded?
Two concrete levers: addressing chronic absenteeism, since funding is still tied partly to attendance, and building a statewide coalition to shift school funding models from attendance-based to enrollment-based, since it costs the same to staff a school for its planned enrollment regardless of daily attendance. On the spending side, continuing to reduce Central Office overhead, which currently runs 83% above peer districts, and redirecting those savings toward the classroom and educator pay.
6. How are you currently involved in the SFUSD -- or how were you involved in the past?
For 15 years I've worked in San Francisco nonprofits serving children and families. As Executive Director of Mariposa Kids, I run after-school programming for children from two SFUSD elementary schools. At Leonard Flynn Elementary, I built a partnership with the school to provide free play engagement programming with our staff on their campus during lunchtime after seeing gaps in supervision and engagement as a result of the school being under-resourced during that time of day for students. I'm also an SFUSD appointee to CPAC where I currently sit as Chair, and where I've worked directly on the Universal Pre-K Initiative, which includes SFUSD as a partner in expanding transitional kindergarten access across the city. This isn't outside advocacy. It's been my daily work, inside school buildings, alongside the families and staff who depend on these programs.
7. How do you feel about the current school assignment system(including at Lowell)? Would you make changes, and if so, which ones?
The current lottery has left schools more segregated by income, race, and academic performance than before it started, and the board's own promised fix, zone-based assignment under Board Policy 5101.2, approved back in 2020, has now been delayed six years running. I'd push for a hard implementation timeline instead of allowing further slippage. On Lowell specifically, I support keeping merit-based admissions, but I don't think relitigating that policy every few years is the real fix for equity across our high schools. The actual fix is making sure every SFUSD high school offers a genuinely excellent education, so a student's chance to thrive doesn't hinge on getting into one specific school.
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?
Yes, and this compounds directly with our broken lottery system. Together they create a perceived hierarchy of winners and losers in school placement, families see some schools flush with parent-fundraised aides and enrichment and others without, and that perception is part of why families are leaving the district entirely. I'd want to explore policy that requires PTAs raising above a certain threshold to contribute a percentage of their fundraising into a general redistribution pool for schools with less fundraising capacity, similar to models other districts have used. I'd also want more transparency on what each school actually raises and spends, so families and the board can see the real scope of the gap. Fixing this isn't about capping what any single PTA can do for its school, it's about making sure a child's access to basics doesn't depend on which side of that gap their school happens to fall on.
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?
I want to be upfront that I looked into Williams specifically for this questionnaire rather than coming in as an expert on it. Based on what I read: it's the 2004 settlement guaranteeing every student sufficient instructional materials, safe facilities, and a qualified teacher in every classroom, enforced through SFUSD's own Uniform Complaint Procedure. What stood out to me most was a March 2026 appellate ruling making clear that districts can't cite a statewide teacher shortage as an excuse for unfilled vacancies, they have to show they've exhausted every option first. I don't have confirmed data on SFUSD's current site-by-site compliance, and I don't want to assert a claim I can't back up. What I do believe is that the board should be proactively tracking Williams-related complaint data itself, rather than waiting for a lawsuit to force transparency on whether we're meeting this obligation.
10. What is your position on JROTC in the public schools?
JROTC currently operates at Balboa, Galileo, Lincoln, Lowell, Mission, and Washington, plus a Navy program at Burton, and satisfies students' PE graduation requirement. I don't see a need to expand it, but if it continues attracting real student interest and keeps kids engaged and coming to school, it's worth keeping as an option. For some teens, it also offers a genuine, desirable path who don't see themselves headed to college, and we shouldn't pretend that isn't a legitimate choice for some students. This is an area where family and educator feedback should carry real weight in any decision, rather than the board deciding from a distance what students in these programs actually need or want.
11. Would you support district elections for school board members?
Yes, I support district elections for school board. Citywide elections favor candidates with name recognition and the resources to fundraise and campaign across the entire city, which raises real barriers to entry for qualified candidates without that institutional backing. District elections lower those logistical and financial costs, making campaigns more approachable, and they can improve equity and representation by ensuring specific communities, including ones like the Southeast neighborhoods, have a board member directly accountable to them rather than needing to be part of a citywide coalition to get a voice at all.
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 support it. San Francisco voters approved Proposition N via ballot initiative in 2016, allowing noncitizen parents, guardians, and caregivers to vote in Board of Education elections, and it's since been upheld by the California Court of Appeal and made permanent local law. I don't see any reason to overturn the will of the voters on this, especially when it gives more people a genuine voice in a system that directly impacts their children's lives. One third of SFUSD children have immigrant parents, and those families deserve representation in who governs their kids' schools.
13. What are your thoughts on the various non-profit organizations that partner and/or contract with SFUSD?
Nonprofits are essential partners to SFUSD, and the vast majority in this space are doing genuinely great work, extending what the district alone can offer, especially in out-of-school-time programming, family support, and enrichment that stretched school budgets can't fully cover on their own. I work with Prosperity Initiative and service providers in this space to continue to find ways to support our nonprofits and their youth workers. I also participated in Partnership for Children & Youth's leadership series to improve out-of-school time services across the state with a focus on workforce needs. DCYF needs to remain a strong, well-funded partner in that ecosystem. As the Executive Director of one of these nonprofits myself, I understand firsthand what's needed for these partnerships to actually work, and how the district and community organizations can coordinate more effectively to improve outcomes for kids. That said, nonprofits should never be exempt from accountability. Contracts need clear outcome expectations and real transparency about how funding is used.
14. How do you see the role of the School Board in comparison to the role of the superintendent?
The board sets policy, priorities, and holds the Superintendent accountable to outcomes, it shouldn't manage day-to-day operations. But "staying focused" on that division shouldn't mean disengaging from how decisions get made. Commissioners need guaranteed access to full materials before any vote, and high-interest items shouldn't get bundled into broader agenda lines in ways that limit real public input. Governance and management are different jobs, but oversight requires the board to actually look closely, not defer entirely. As an Executive Director of a nonprofit that reports to a volunteer Board of Directors and having served on non-profit boards myself, I have a clear understanding of the role of a Board and its leader, how it is different and where there is important collaboration and partnership.
15. Would you ensure that all San Francisco students have access to a free, public pre-K program? If so, how?
Yes. As chair of the SF Childcare Planning & Advisory Council and vice chair of its Legislation & Policy Working Group, I've worked directly on the expansion of free pre-K in our city, including the recent expansion of subsidies of pre-k for families making up to 200% average median income after years of those voter-approved Prop C funds sitting unused. Through this appointment, I have also worked on the Universal Pre-K Initiative which our council holds the contract for in San Francisco, where we continue to evaluate the needs and means to getting to universal pre-k in our city. Getting to true free, universal access means continuing our funding fights at the city and state level and making sure SFUSD's own TK enrollment process is simple enough that families actually use it.
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?
I haven't read Ravitch's book. On charter schools directly: the ones already operating in San Francisco should be able to continue if they're showing strong enrollment and strong student outcomes. If they aren't, the district should assume responsibility for those students directly. If there's a genuine unmet need mobilizing parents to start a new charter, our district should be the one meeting that need, not ceding the ground. Lastly, there should never be corporate or profit-based charter schools in our system, full stop.
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 don't think standardized testing should drive curriculum or be treated as the primary measure of a school's success, but I also don't think eliminating it solves the underlying problem. SBAC data is useful as one input for identifying where disparities exist, particularly when disaggregated by race and income, but it shouldn't be the basis for high-stakes decisions about a school's future, like closures. I'd want the board treating test data as a diagnostic tool, not a verdict.
18. How can the public schools better address the needs of Special Education students and ESL students?
Both groups need the same underlying thing: adequately staffed, properly trained support instead of services stretched thin across too many students. For LEP families, that means translation services built into the budget by default and communications, including on mobile platforms, that are genuinely accessible in families' home languages. For Special Education, failing to follow IEPs isn't just a service failure, it actively costs the district money through lawsuits and settlements when families are forced to fight for what they're legally owed. We need to invest in growing the pipeline of qualified providers, since shortages are a real driver of noncompliance, and prioritize earlier diagnosis and intervention, which has been shown to reduce long-term costs while also serving kids far better than waiting until problems compound. This is an issue I have been working on through my work on the SF Childcare Planning & Advisory Council where Special Education access is one of our policy platform priorities. We are engaging in conversations with the Mayor's Office, Golden Gate Regional Center, DCYF, DEC, UESF, and members of the Board of Supervisors to better understand where gaps exist and how we can build a collective response to improve outcomes in this area.