In a stunning departure from its consistent support of Superintendent Maria Su, the Board of Education on Tuesday night unanimously rejected her proposed Fiscal Stabilization Plan. The plan was a critical feature of the district’s report to state education officials. Its rejection takes the district — at least temporarily — off the track to a higher financial rating that it publicly celebrated just weeks ago.
Throughout 2025, Superintendent Su’s and the board’s highest priority has been to shrink a years-long pattern of district deficit spending they inherited to avoid additional state oversight of their budget decisions. In June, the board approved Superintendent Su’s budget containing $113 million in cuts, reduced positions, and hundreds of educator early retirements. Last month, it awarded her a 30-month contract, has consistently ushered in her choices for general counsel, deputy superintendent for budget services, and other leadership posts, and augmented her community outreach and public relations team.
The plan and a related school staffing plan for the 2026–27 school year included alarming cuts to social workers, security guards, counselors, teachers, and per-student funding.
The Fiscal Stabilization Plan was a step too far, however. Following months of school and community town hall meetings in which its impact was not discussed, the plan and a related school staffing plan for the 2026–27 school year included alarming cuts to social workers, security guards, counselors, teachers, and per-student funding. Well over three dozen elementary, middle, and high school students spoke out against the cuts at Tuesday night’s meeting. Educators and parents petitioned and rallied against the cuts in recent weeks. Belatedly, and only at the meeting itself, did the superintendent and budget staff clarify that these were not “cuts” but simply “worst-case scenario” forecasts of the next budget. The forecasts could change between now and the June budget deadline, and the superintendent was not asking the board to vote on them. Earlier, the district told concerned community members that it found a way to potentially fund social workers and avoid eliminating their positions.
Commissioner Matt Alexander and others repeatedly questioned the District’s description of deficits. As the senior member of the board, Alexander recounted the years in which the district budget staff’s projections of deficits in December were either reduced or turned into surpluses by the following March or May. In the process, educators, staff and community members were put through the pain of layoff notices and the uncertainty of looking for new jobs.
Adding to the confused rollout of the plan was how it would affect course offerings for middle school and high school students next fall. The materials presented to the public and the board indicated a return to six-period days (from the current seven) for students, but left ambiguous whether the reduction applied to both middle school and high school students, and to what extent it limited the courses in which they could enroll. Some schools were already planning what they considered to be a reality of teacher cuts. At the board meeting, Superintendent Su stated that her staff would meet with school leaders in January and potentially negotiate the extent and impact of any reductions in class periods.
In the end, the superintendent acknowledged that the staffing plan was not well explained, particularly its tentative and evolving nature. The budget staff will continue its efforts to scrutinize the accuracy of past and current funding reports and the availability of additional funds to stave off at least some cuts. Both vowed to return to school communities with additional data and alternatives to what it had already presented and to receive input on future decision-making.
When the board set aside the staffing plan and moved on to vote on the entire Fiscal Stabilization Plan, its doubts and frustrations remained. The roll call vote was taken out of its regular order. Commissioner Supryia Ray cast the first “no” vote followed by the rest of the board. Staffing was only part of the rejected Fiscal Stabilization Plan, but the feelings about it loomed over its other aspects.
Following the vote, SFUSD Director of Communications Laura Dudnick told The Voice of San Francisco, “The Fiscal Stabilization Plan is an important component of our budget work and our path toward exiting state oversight. We plan to submit an updated [plan] in March alongside the Second Interim Report, and will continue collaborating closely with the Board of Education, the state Department of Education, and school communities to implement responsible budget practices.” On behalf of the board, President Phil Kim pledged continued partnership with the superintendent and state education officials to reach fiscal solvency. He added, “We are listening to the community, and we heard loud and clear that the district has more work to do to transparently communicate how the difficult choices before us will support student outcomes.”
Before the board meets next, the San Francisco Parent Coalition, which led a petition drive against the staffing plan, will hold a Jan. 7 town hall forum featuring Board President Phil Kim and the candidates seeking to replace him in the June special election for his seat on the board. Shaping budget decisions and the school district’s future will be at the top of the agenda.