Hundreds of students, parents and community members gathered at the San Jose Unified School District office Tuesday evening to protest the possible closing of the district’s elementary schools.
Announced last week, the proposed school closures are part of the district’s “Schools of Tomorrow” program, which was launched in the fall of 2025 to address the loss of nearly 6,000 students enrolled since 2017.
Parents of primary schools that are at risk of closure showed up in large numbers to express their support for the schools in their neighborhood at a meeting of the “Schools of Tomorrow” implementation committee on Tuesday night. A committee made up of parents, district staff, school staff and teachers, the implementation committee is tasked with recommending to the board of education the best way to implement possible school closings, consolidations or changes to school boundaries.
“I’m worried about what this could mean for low-income communities and our families,” said Lizeth Hernandez, a parent at Lowell Elementary School. “We are already facing a very difficult time. We are fighting different things, we are afraid… Not only are we coming out of COVID that our children are not growing academically, emotionally and mentally, these changes will now put our children at risk of suffering more, entering schools where they are not welcome.”
More than 100 members of the public were packed into the district meeting room, with at least 100 more sitting in overflow rooms and another 50 standing outside the building’s doors, which district staff locked due to overcrowding. The district also said it expects the live broadcast of the meeting to meet its 1,000 attendance mark.
Community members held signs in support of their local schools, which read, “Save Simonds” and “Save Williams,” while others voiced opposition to the district’s proposal, such as “No school closings” and “Don’t ignore our voices.”
Angry parents from affected schools across the district, including Simonds Elementary School, Williams Elementary School and Los Alamitos Elementary School, expressed concern that the proposed closure and consolidation of schools would cause longer school walks, poor academic performance and difficulty finding child care.
But parents and community members are divided on which of the three proposed plans they would like to see the district implement, as they differ widely on which schools will remain open and which will be closed or relocated. And schools that are not at risk of closing could see new learning boundaries.
Option 1: Close nine elementary schools, relocate one
- Almaden Elementary
- Anne Darling Elementary
- Canoas Elementary
- Gardner Elementary
- Lowell Elementary
- Rachel Carson Elementary
- Selma Oliver Elementary
- Simonds Elementary
- Walter L. Bachrodt Elementary
- Hammer Montessori is moving from Ernesto Galarza Elementary to Rachel Carson Elementary
Option 2: Close nine primary schools
- Empire Gardens Elementary
- Gardner Elementary
- Lowell Elementary
- Rachel Carson Elementary
- Umhlanga Elementary
- Selma Oliver Elementary
- Terrell Elementary
- Walter L. Bachrodt Elementary
- Williams Elementary
Option 3: Closing eight primary schools
- Almaden Elementary
- Empire Gardens Elementary
- Ernesto Galarza Elementary
- Gardner Elementary
- Grant Elementary
- Rachel Carson Elementary
- Umhlanga Elementary
- Williams Elementary
Yurie Doubov, a parent at Los Alamitos Elementary School, said that under two of the three proposed options, her Croydon neighborhood would be reassigned to “low-performing schools.”
“If change is inevitable, it should not result in a clear loss of the quality of education for our children,” said Doubov.
But the third proposed option, which leaves Croydon at Los Alamitos Elementary School, would mean the closing of Ernesto Galarza Elementary and Williams Elementary.
Priya Ghandikota, a parent at Williams Elementary School, said more than 200 families said they may leave the San Jose Unified School District if Williams Elementary is closed.
“Our analysis shows that the second and third choices would expel more than 1,000 students … and send more students to low-performing schools than to high-performing schools,” Ghandikota said. “That’s not just a distraction. It’s just not right.”
A working committee discussed alternatives to the three presented to them by district staff earlier this month.
Parents and community members recommended that the committee add a fourth option to stop discussions or decisions about school closures. Board member Nicole Gribstad also urged the committee to include an option that delays the decision and eliminates all other funding options, rather than closing schools.
The committee did not vote Tuesday to create an option that would prevent school closures. Instead, the committee voted to consider combining the first and second proposed school closures in an effort to prioritize student transportation and special education programs. The committee also voted to create an option where all students who are closing schools would be moved together to a new school, rather than separated between schools. Committee members also voted to remove a third option for school closures, which district staff say prioritizes less disruption to families and school communities.
The committee will meet again on Tuesday, February 24. The board of education is expected to vote on closing schools no later than March 12.
