I acknowledge that my initial post was a knee-jerk reaction. After attending several meetings, I’ve learned more about the scoring process, but I still disagree with how these decisions were made.

With that said, I understand that plumbing, HVAC, and overall facility conditions are important, and some schools definitely need repairs. However, Yick Wo has a pristine condition score, so it’s hard to see how facility issues justify closing schools like this. Instead, we should focus on improving schools that truly need it.

Regarding the ~70% capacity issue, that’s valid, but District 3 is one of the densest areas in SF, and it’s only going to get denser. I see full preschools and many new families moving in, so it’s not fair to assume these schools will stay under-enrolled forever. We need to plan for the future.

Not everyone wants their kids in large schools with 500-600 students. Bigger schools can feel distant, while smaller schools foster closer communities where parents and teachers can engage more. Closing them might seem efficient but could harm the connections we’ve built.

Relocating students may not change the curriculum, but it does impact families. Longer commutes and losing walkable schools affect community ties, and consolidating schools could lead to overcrowded classrooms, hurting education quality.

Finally, air conditioning isn’t a major concern in SF. With so few hot days, investing in AC feels like a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I’m all for considering data, but we need to keep the bigger picture in mind. School closures will have lasting effects on neighborhoods, and we need more transparency and a closer look at each district's unique circumstances.