Today’s release of a report by a state-appointed fact-finding panel triggered the San Francisco teachers union’s ability to set a strike date, with Monday as the earliest possibility.
The United Educators San Francisco has announced that it is ready to walk off the job.
The report is non-binding and cannot prevent or even delay a strike. It recommended three percent annual raises over a two-year contract for San Francisco Unified School District teachers. It found the district’s offer for pay increases to be too paltry, and the union’s demand to be too generous.
Regardless of the contents of today’s report, its primary impact is to, legally, allow the teacher’s union to strike 48 hours after giving notice. Both sides have reached an impasse, and negotiations have stalled.
The report found that the district’s ongoing state financial oversight and declining enrollment make higher spending unrealistic, even though educators have cited rising living costs.
The recommendation aligns with the district’s position and reflects a compromise advanced by neutral chair Cheryl A. Stevens, an arbitrator and lecturer at University of California, Berkeley Law.
The district’s representative on the panel, Elizabeth Mori, endorsed the report’s findings.
The union’s panel representative, Angela Su, agreed with parts of the report but issued a sweeping dissent, arguing that the majority of its recommendations fail to address what the union sees as poor pay, lack of benefits and suboptimal working conditions for staff. All of the latter fueled a staffing crisis, the union contends.
“With recent increases, high rents, and Bay Area cost of living being taken into account, SFUSD must provide fully funded family healthcare to UESF members,” wrote Su, no relation to SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su. “The district will see further destabilizing of staffing if they do not prioritize this issue.”
School board members have pointed to approximately $429 million in the district’s reserves as a potential funding source. Superintendent Su has stated that the district “will not touch” its reserves, citing a potential financial cliff.
In a dissent to today’s report, Angela Su lamented that last year’s $111 million allocation to the reserve fund is “5 times higher than the state’s recommended reserve for economic uncertainties” and “shows there are funds that can be spent on students and educators now and in future years.”
She accused the district of consistently “under-projecting revenue and over-projecting certain expenses, which inherently favors the employer in thwarting collective bargaining demands, results in unnecessary threats of cuts, and the manufactured crisis we are in now.”
The school district, in a statement, wrote that the report “echoed the district’s long-standing position that SFUSD remains in a dire fiscal situation.”
“This is a credible, fair report that offers transparency and affirms the District’s financial position,” wrote Superintendent Su. “We do not want a strike. Our goal continues to be to keep our children in classrooms.”
The union will hold a press conference of its own Thursday morning at the school district’s headquarters.
Mayor Daniel Lurie posted a video on Wednesday, saying “it is crucial that our schools remain open,” though it is unclear how the district could do so if teachers walk out. “I’ve been in regular contact with both the school district and the teachers union, and I am urging them to keep talking, so kids can keep learning.”
Report says yes to (some) wage increases, no to healthcare and sanctuary schools
The report recommends a two-year contract that includes three percent wage increases beginning July 2025. It concluded that the three-percent increases would better align with inflation and cost-of-living rates while protecting the district from financial risk.
Superintendent Su said the district offered the union a “stability package” last week, including a six percent raise over three years, increasing by two percent each year, and fully funded health benefits. The union, however, denied this account in a video posted to its YouTube channel, saying it received no such offer.
Today’s fact-finding report did not back teachers’ demands that the district fully fund dependent health coverage, citing an estimated annual cost of $11 million to $14 million and the district’s ongoing financial oversight.
Instead, the report recommends the parties use existing tax parcel funds to cover healthcare for dependents, characterizing it as a short-term solution that could eventually result in permanent coverage once the district leaves state oversight.
Recognizing the workload pressures of special education teachers, the report recommends a pilot program to test a workload-based model instead of a caseload-based model. It said a districtwide change would be too expensive at present, estimating an annual price tag of $22 million.
It advised maintaining the current system on class sizes, which is guided by goals rather than enforceable limits. The panel said the union did not present enough evidence to justify the estimated $5 million cost of converting those goals to limits.
It also recommended that the district not change multiple other issues under dispute, like equitable staffing mandates, health and safety reporting systems, the use of artificial intelligence, and contracting restrictions.
But it did recommend the district reduce its reliance on outside contractors and consultants, and that it instead use those funds to support employees and wage increases.
The report also rejected the union’s demand that the district incorporate sanctuary protections for immigrant families, ruling that it could subject the district to legal and financial risks.
Instead, it recommended that the union and district draft a joint resolution confirming their shared commitment to vulnerable students, separate from the collective bargaining agreement.
You can get an administrative job as an analyst at SFUSD for over 90K a year with just a bachelor’s degree and no experience. However, new teachers, with bachelor’s degrees and teaching credentials and more responsibilities and stress, start at far less. Also, many SFUSD teachers have master’s degrees. Stop paying outrageous administrative salaries and start providing teachers and paraprofessionals with a living wage and benefits.
Also, it speaks volumes that we have leadership at SFUSD, Dr. Maria Siu, who has never been a K-12 classroom teacher. This should be a requirement.
Education is a top value of the Democratic party. I would think that means we expect our schools to be well run, fully funded, and our teachers and kids fully supported. What is this nonsense?