Despite relief expressed by a tired but smiling San Francisco School Superintendent Maria Su, elected officials and parents across the city, the financial future of the school district remains uncertain following a four-day teacher strike, the first such labor action since 1979.
Hours after the school district and educator union bargaining teams reached a predawn agreement, Superintendent Su briefed reporters and acknowledged that the $183 million agreement “stretches the district to its limits.” Among the features of the settlement:
- 2 percent pay raise this year and next year for teachers (offered before the strike)
- 8.5 percent pay raise for classified staff over two years (higher than offered prior to strike)
- Increased hours for security guards, making them full-time and thus eligible for benefits
- Fully funded health care benefits for teachers and their families
The gap between the school district and the union on fully funding family health care benefits was the primary issue that led to the strike. The school district — which already spends more per employee on family health care than any city agency — long maintained that it could not afford to cover teachers’ full family benefits. The neutral fact finder, selected by the union and school district to evaluate each side’s positions, agreed. In the end, the school district opted to dip into its emergency reserve fund to offer this benefit and enable teachers to join only the select group of San Francisco Superior Court judges and court employees whose family health care premiums are fully paid by their employer.
The teachers’ union and school district employed contrasting strategies before and during the strike.
Currently, the school district contributes $1,681 per month per employee for family health care. That amount will increase to $ 3,188 per month in 2027 under the new contract, barring any rate hikes. In July 2026, the school district will pay between $390 and $750 more per month for most teachers. If the school district has underestimated the number of teachers who will opt into fully paid health care in 2027, then the superintendent’s caveat that the agreement takes the district to its limits may be an underestimate and more financial pain to teachers, parents, and students will ensue.
The contract also includes provisions unique to San Francisco. Teachers get one additional paid day this year and two days next year to perform “duties … chosen solely at [their] discretion. …” at home or at school. The contract calls on the school district to identify a second school site for emergency overnight housing for students or their families, contingent upon city funding. And it promises that all newcomer families are provided access to legal, housing, health, employment, food, and other resources; teachers are provided training on how to interact with federal immigration law enforcers; and that the district and teachers “jointly commit to defend the right to a free and safe learning environment to the extent permitted by law.”
The next steps are for the school district staff to explain how much each of the provisions costs; where the money will come from; whether the funding can be sustained beyond one year; and what happens if paying for the contract forces employee layoffs or student program cuts. The school district had earlier recommended eliminating preparation periods for teachers of Advanced Placement classes as one way to pay for part of the agreement but the teachers union disagreed so this teacher support remains.
A required school board vote to ratify the agreement may come on Feb. 24. It will be followed by a March 10 decision to authorize layoff notices to staff that the district believes it can no longer afford in the 2026–27 budget. The school district must also assure the state Department of Education that the agreement and other financial obligations can be fulfilled. Tremendous uncertainty will remain until Governor Newsom issues his revised budget proposal to the Legislature in May.
The teachers union and school district employed contrasting strategies before and during the strike. The union’s public relations strategy relied heavily upon daily rallies and visible political support from local elected officials and candidates for statewide office. State Superintendent of Schools Tony Thurmond played a dual role. As chief education executive for California, he is responsible for oversight of the school district’s financial health and academic performance. He is also a candidate for governor seeking union and other support. He called on both sides to reach an agreement. Locally, Mayor Lurie and his team provided technical assistance to the school district bargaining team after he and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi called on the teachers union to delay striking for 72 hours.
Superintendent Su has already pivoted to calling on state officials to increase funding for urban school districts and to change the state education funding formula from average daily student attendance to how many students are enrolled, whether they attend school or not. Left for another day are the questions that led to former Superintendent Matt Wayne’s departure and Maria Su’s arrival to the school district in October 2024 — “After years of declining enrollment, can our school district continue to avoid not closing schools?” and “How do the dollars spent by the school district and the city improve public education?”