A confident and commanding San Francisco Schools Superintendent Maria Su gained key new authority to safeguard educational services during an anticipated teacher strike that could begin as early as next week. A teacher strike would be San Francisco’s first in 40 years and could cost the school district between $7–$10 million per day in lost revenue and fines to be paid to the State of California for failure to keep schools open.
By a narrow 4–2 vote, the school board approved her request to prepare for a possible strike of teachers, paraeducators, counselors, social workers, and nurses represented by the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF). The resolution authorizes Superintendent Su to close schools if key personnel do not report and to expand contracts with outside vendors to provide food and other services for students if schools are closed.
Today, her hand in negotiations was strengthened by a neutral fact-finding panel report that largely validated the school district’s approach as to what it can afford, while not disputing that the union’s demands may be what students and employees need.
Superintendent Su maintains that she does not want a strike and has repeatedly called on UESF to return to the bargaining table. Explaining that teachers left the bargaining table last Friday after school district negotiators acceded to what they perceived as the union’s highest priority — paid health care for employees, and their spouse and child or children — Superintendent Su urged them to renew negotiations and predicted they could agree on remaining issues.
Superintendent Su demonstrated decisiveness and determination to avoid a strike if possible, and to be ready to serve students and their families if one occurs.
On Wednesday, the three-member fact-finding panel released its report estimating the cost of the union’s bargaining demands and the resources the school district has available to fund them.
At the Tuesday night school board meeting, Commissioners Matt Alexander and Alida Fisher argued that it was premature to grant Superintendent Su new authority to prepare for a strike without first waiting for the report and evaluating whether at least some of the school district’s financial reserves — estimated to total $429 million — could be tapped to pay educator salaries and benefits. Commissioner Parag Gupta countered that less than a quarter of that reserve was unrestricted and available to spend. Superintendent Su reminded school board members and the public that the school district was caught flat-footed and unprepared to provide educational services during Covid-19 and that she could not wait for the outcome of the negotiations to start preparations. Now that the report has been issued, the district and union may return to the bargaining table as early as Thursday.
Prior to the school board vote, Superintendent Su made a critical concession to commissioners by pulling back on her request to be able to hire replacement workers during a strike. She pledged to return to the school board to seek that authority if needed and to regularly report back to commissioners and the public on any use of her expanded authority.
Throughout her almost 18 months leading the school district, Superintendent Su has often deferred to her top staff when asked about fiscal and operational details. In this pivotal moment for the school district and its 44,000 students, Superintendent Su demonstrated decisiveness and determination to avoid a strike if possible, and to be ready to serve students and their families if one occurs.
At a press briefing prior to the meeting, she hinted at strong support and involvement from City Hall — almost daily calls with Mayor Daniel Lurie and multiple daily contacts with his staff. In whatever form this support takes — financial support or state relief from fines and regulations — it adds to the momentum Superintendent Su has gained to avoid a strike or minimize disruption if one occurs.
Near the end of the meeting, Board of Education student delegate Shoon Mon brought the nearly two-hour discussion to a close with basic but pointed questions about how students will fare during a strike and where student success fits into the negotiations. She noted that it was easy for both sides to discuss lengthening the school year to meet the state requirements of 180 days of instruction. She asked they take into account the actual cost and impact that would have on graduating seniors, many of whom take Advanced Placement examinations that are scheduled nationally and would not be moved for local considerations, and all of whom could face a delayed graduation ceremony or even having to return to school after graduation to reach the required 180 days to complete high school and enter college.
Wednesday’s fact-finding report from the neutral fact finder largely validates the school district’s reluctance to put more money on the table than it has or to place into the contract provisions that could be agreed to in other forms. The report estimates that the parties are at least $118 million apart. A strike could begin as early as next week without significant progress or external intervention.