The Deal at a Glance
Salary, Health Coverage & Committees
$80K teacher → ~$1,600/yr $55K classified → ~$1,100/yr
Classified staff also receive a $2.00/hour increase on all salary schedule cells.
Option B: $24,000/year benefits allowance, starting Jan 2027
Funded by redirecting parcel tax money (QTEA/FWEA). Placed in a side MOU, not the contract.
Contract Provisions to Eliminate
Additional preparation time for teachers of Advanced Placement courses.
Leave for study or travel that benefits schools and students.
Additional prep periods and compensation for department leadership.
Replaced with non-enforceable "goals." You lose the right to grieve overcrowded classrooms.
All classified staff switch to bimonthly pay schedule (Frontline system).
Three Positions Compared
| Issue | UESF Proposed | Fact-Finding Recommended | District Offered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certificated Raises | 9% over 2 years | 6% over 2 years (3%/yr) | 6% over 3 years (2%/yr, Year 3 conditional) |
| Classified Raises | 14% over 2 years + 35‑hr week | 6% over 2 years (3%/yr) | 6% over 3 years + $2/hr cell increase |
| Health Benefits | Fully funded at Kaiser family rate | Parcel tax as temp bridge | 75% Kaiser E+2 OR $24K allowance — via side MOU |
| Class Size | Maintain current caps | Maintain current language | Change to non-enforceable "goal" |
| SpEd Workload | District-wide workload model | Pilot at 5 schools | Pilot at 5 schools |
| Sanctuary | In the contract (CBA) | Outside the CBA | Outside the CBA (resolution) |
| Shelter / Housing | Protect Stay-Over Program | Not addressed | Not addressed |
| Sabbaticals | Keep current contract | Not addressed | Eliminate |
| AP Preps | Keep current contract | Not addressed | Eliminate |
| Dept Head Preps & Stipends | Keep current contract | Not addressed | Eliminate |
The Fine Print
"Trigger Language" on Year 3 Raise
"Trigger language" means the 2027-28 raise is conditional — it only happens if the district meets specific fiscal benchmarks. Given SFUSD's projected deficits ($51M in 25-26, $32M in 26-27, $19M in 27-28), the third-year raise is not guaranteed. The effective raise could be 4% over 3 years, not 6%.
Parcel Tax Funding for Health Benefits
The district proposes funding health coverage by redirecting QTEA and FWEA parcel tax money:
- QTEA expires June 30, 2028 — just 2.5 years away. That's ~$50.6M/year in revenue that disappears unless voters renew it.
- These funds currently support teacher salary increases. Redirecting them to health benefits means less money for salaries.
- Health benefits would be in a side MOU, not the collective bargaining agreement. An MOU is easier to modify or end than contract language.
Class Size: "Goal" vs. "Cap"
The district wants to change class size from an enforceable cap to an aspirational "goal." This sounds minor, but the practical difference is enormous:
State law (Ed Code 41376) sets a floor of 30-33 students depending on grade — far higher than typical contractual caps of 20-25.
Sanctuary: Resolution vs. Contract
The district proposes sanctuary protections as a "joint resolution" outside the CBA:
- A resolution can be unilaterally rescinded by a future Board of Education — without bargaining.
- Contract language gives you grievance rights if violated. A resolution does not.
- State law (AB 699) already requires districts to have sanctuary policies. The proposal formalizes what's already legally required without adding new protections.
- The proposal includes 3 hours/year of professional development on these topics.
Special Education: Pilot, Not Reform
The district proposes a workload support pilot at 5 schools — not district-wide reform:
- AB 560 (effective July 2026) reduces the statewide SpEd caseload cap from 28 to 20 students — this is mandatory and district-wide, regardless of any pilot.
- The pilot's stated purpose is to "evaluate effectiveness, scalability, and cost" — meaning any district-wide changes are years away.
- UESF proposed a district-wide workload model. The district is offering data collection at 5 sites.
Healthcare: Side MOU, Not Contract
The dependent health coverage — the headline item of the deal — is placed in a side MOU, not the collective bargaining agreement. This matters because:
- An MOU can be modified or terminated more easily than contract language.
- Contract language carries full grievance and arbitration rights. An MOU may not.
- The funding source (parcel tax) has a built-in expiration date — QTEA ends in 2028.
What's Not in This Deal
- — No enforceable sanctuary protections — only a non-binding resolution that a future board can rescind
- — No Stay-Over Program protections for unhoused students and families
- — No district-wide Special Education workload reform — only a 5-school pilot for data collection
- — No guarantee on the Year 3 raise — trigger language makes it conditional on fiscal benchmarks
- — No permanent funding source for health benefits — relies on a parcel tax that expires in 2028
- — The independent fact-finding panel recommended 6% over 2 years — the district is offering 6% over 3 years with conditions
The district says it can't afford better.
The numbers say otherwise. What follows is a forensic analysis of where SFUSD's money actually goes — and where $111 million in actionable savings can be found.
Follow the Money
Administrative Spending vs. Peer Districts
Using FY2024-25 budget data from the California SACS statewide extract, SFUSD's administrative spending is the highest among comparable large urban districts, at 15.1% of total expenditures vs. a peer median of ~10.5%. CDE SACS Data
Admin spending is defined as SACS Function codes 2100–2150 (Instructional Supervision & Admin), 7100–7191 (Board & Superintendent), 7200–7210 (Other General Admin), 7300–7390 (Fiscal Services), 7400–7490 (HR), 7500–7550 (Central Support), 7600 (Other Admin), and 7700 (Data Processing).
| District | Admin Spending | Total Expenditures | Admin % |
|---|---|---|---|
| San Francisco Unified | $402.8M | $2,661.0M | 15.1% |
| Los Angeles Unified | $2,842.2M | $21,560.6M | 13.2% |
| San Jose Unified | $116.4M | $990.2M | 11.8% |
| Long Beach Unified | $287.6M | $2,600.2M | 11.1% |
| Sacramento City Unified | $178.3M | $1,632.3M | 10.9% |
| Fresno Unified | $293.6M | $3,438.3M | 8.5% |
| San Diego Unified | $317.1M | $3,947.6M | 8.0% |
| Oakland Unified | $140.3M | $1,794.3M | 7.8% |
If SFUSD matched the peer median, it would free up approximately $123M per year. Even closing half the gap would free ~$61M—enough for a 6% raise for all employees.
BLA Findings (January 2023) PDF
- Central admin = 25% of operating budget ($978M in FY2020-21) vs. 18% median among 12 peer districts
- 220 central FTEs per 10,000 students vs. 138 median—59% more admin staff than peers
- $1,780/student on instructional supervision vs. $611/student peer median
- $104.5M on instructional supervision vs. $27.5M peer median = $77M excess
Budget Variance: Projections vs. Reality
SFUSD's 1st Interim Reports have systematically understated the General Fund ending balance by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. PDF
Projected vs. Actual: General Fund Ending Balance
| Fiscal Year | 1st Interim Projected | Actual Ending Balance | Difference | Miss % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2021-22 | $313.2M | $274.7M | -$38.5M | Over by 14%* |
| FY2022-23 | $307.2M | $413.3M | +$106.1M | Under by 35% |
| FY2023-24 | $383.4M | $467.9M | +$84.5M | Under by 22% |
| FY2024-25 | $286.4M | TBD | — | — |
*FY2021-22 was inflated by one-time COVID relief (ESSER) funds. Sources: Projected figures from SACS Form MYPI; actuals from following year's beginning balance.
Out-Year Projections: Even More Wrong
| Projected FY | From Which Report | Projected Ending | Actual Ending | Miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2022-23 | FY2021-22 1st Interim | $325.9M | $413.3M | +$87.4M |
| FY2023-24 | FY2021-22 1st Interim | $346.0M | $467.9M | +$121.9M |
| FY2023-24 | FY2022-23 1st Interim | $300.8M | $467.9M | +$167.1M |
Historical Surpluses (SACS Actuals)
| Fiscal Year | Revenue | Expenditures | Net Surplus | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2020-21 | $988.8M | $923.9M | +$64.9M | From SACS unaudited actuals CDE SACS Data |
| FY2021-22 | $1,310.6M | $1,162.1M | +$148.5M | Includes one-time federal COVID funds CDE SACS Data |
The EMPowerSF Debacle: $33.7 Million
Board-approved vendor payments confirm: Infosys received $5,747,095 and Frontline Education received $2,660,449 in the reporting period. Board Check Registers (Jul–Dec 2025)
Contractor & Vendor Spending
SFUSD paid $226M to 676 outside vendors in the period covered by board-approved warrant data. Board Check Registers (Jul–Dec 2025) The PERB fact-finding panel explicitly stated:
Spending by Category
(676 vendors)
(18 vendors)
(2 vendors)
(535 vendors)
(26 vendors)
(6 vendors)
(5 vendors)
(8 vendors)
(7 vendors)
(49 vendors)
(4 vendors)
(6 vendors)
(2 vendors)
(3 vendors)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
(1 vendor)
| # | Vendor | Amount | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ZUM SERVICES, INC. RENEGOTIABLE | $38,374,008 | Transportation | ▼ |
| 2 | REVOLUTION FOODS, PBC RENEGOTIABLE | $16,100,138 | Food Services | ▼ |
| 3 | YMCA OF SAN FRANCISCO FUND-SHIFTABLE | $14,369,547 | After-School Programs | ▼ |
| 4 | BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES FUND-SHIFTABLE | $10,472,532 | After-School Programs | ▼ |
| 5 | GALAXY SOLUTIONS INC. CUTTABLE | $7,056,413 | IT Consulting | ▼ |
| 6 | MISSION GRADUATES FUND-SHIFTABLE | $5,924,049 | After-School Programs | ▼ |
| 7 | THE SPEECH PATHOLOGY GROUP REDUCIBLE | $5,850,000 | Healthcare Staffing | ▼ |
| 8 | INFOSYS CUTTABLE | $5,747,095 | IT Consulting | ▼ |
| 9 | PROTIVITI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. CUTTABLE | $5,550,000 | IT Consulting | ▼ |
| 10 | RO HEALTH, INC. REDUCIBLE | $4,349,783 | Healthcare Staffing | ▼ |
Parcel Tax Accountability
Redirecting parcel tax funds to health benefits is legally permissible — both ballot measures authorize spending on "compensation or benefits." But it means:
- Money currently supporting your salary would shift to health coverage.
- When QTEA expires in 2028, approximately half the funding disappears — unless voters renew it.
- Health benefits are in a side agreement (MOU), not your contract — making them less secure and easier to change.
SFUSD receives approximately $104M/year from two voter-approved parcel taxes:
| Tax | Annual Revenue | Expires | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QTEA (Prop A, 2008) | ~$50.6M/year | June 30, 2028 | FY22-23 audit 3 YEARS DELINQUENT SFUSD QTEA page |
| PEEF/FWEA (Prop J, 2020) | ~$53.7M/year | 2038 | FY24-25 report not published |
Healthcare Cost Reality
Kaiser Employee+2 Total Monthly Premium
From SFHSS rate cards filed with the district: 2024 2025 2026
| Plan Year | Total Monthly Cost | Employee Pays (Biweekly) | SFUSD Pays (Biweekly) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | $2,349/mo | $189.58 | $899.40 |
| 2025 | $2,489/mo | $185.26 | $962.59 |
| 2026 | $2,733/mo | $216.16 | $1,045.25 |
UESF demands $14M/year for fully funded family healthcare. The district estimates the cost at $11M/year. PDF
View All Warrant Source PDFs →
Where the Money Is
The Maximum Salary Argument
Working from the PERB benchmark of $10.17M per 1% raise for all employees: PDF
| Funding Source | Annual $ Available | Raises Funded | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cut admin spending to peer median (50% of gap) | $61M | 6.0% | HIGH |
| Reduce consultant/contractor spending | $15–25M | 1.5–2.5% | HIGH |
| EMPowerSF waste recovery (ongoing costs) | $3–5M/yr | 0.3–0.5% | MEDIUM |
| Fund balance surplus (recurring pattern) | $15–25M | one-time bonus | HIGH |
| Parcel tax for health benefits (MOU) | $14M | frees salary pot | HIGH |
| School consolidation savings (phased) | $10–25M | 1.0–2.5% | MEDIUM |
| Bond fund cost absorption | $5–10M | 0.5–1.0% | MEDIUM |
| Conservative Total | $123M | ~12.1% | |
| Optimistic Total | $175M | ~17.2% |
Actionable Savings: $111 Million
Not all the spending documented above is cuttable. This section separates sunk costs (money already spent), actionable savings (contracts that could be cut or renegotiated), and structural changes (require policy decisions but are real). Every estimate includes a confidence level, timeframe, and trade-off assessment.
Sunk Costs (Context, Not Savings)
Past budget projection misses — Can't recover past surpluses, but the documented pattern proves that current "we're broke" projections are unreliable.
"Fund the Raises" Calculator
Realistic, conservative estimates of what could be redirected to fund raises, with honest assessments of trade-offs: PERB BLA Warrants
| Source | Annual Savings | Confidence | Timeframe | What It Takes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reduce healthcare staffing agencies by 50% (hire permanent) | $8,435,283 | PERB recommended | 1-2 years | Hiring + onboarding permanent speech pathologists, nurses, therapists |
| Reduce IT consulting by 60% (post-EMPowerSF stabilization) | $11,545,341 | BLA flagged 2023 | 1 year | Internal IT capacity building, completing Frontline transition |
| Shift after-school programs to restricted funds where eligible | $9,422,334 | Staff analysis | 1 year | Grant writing + fund coding review. Many programs eligible for ASES, 21st CCLC, Title I funds. |
| Renegotiate transportation contract | $5,756,101 | Staff analysis | Next RFP cycle | Competitive bidding, route optimization, potential in-house fleet |
| Use fund balance surplus (documented recurring pattern) | $20,000,000 | Staff analysis | Immediate | Political will. District consistently ends with $80-170M more than projected. |
| Cut admin FTEs to peer median (phased, ~200 positions) | $56,097,046 | BLA documented | 2-3 years | Attrition + reorganization. BLA found 220 central FTEs/10K students vs 138 median. |
| Conservative Total | $111,256,105 | = 10.9% raises for all employees | ||
Vendor Analysis: Key Findings
IT consulting bloat
Staffing agencies → permanent
Move to grants/restricted funds
Competitive rebid opportunity
Notable Findings
- Protiviti ($5.5M) — Robert Half subsidiary doing management consulting. This is pure overhead that a functional admin could handle internally. CUTTABLE
- SAP Public Services ($1.1M) — Still receiving payments despite the failed $33.7M EMPowerSF system being replaced by Frontline. Why is SAP still getting paid? CUTTABLE
- Syntex Global ($610K) — Another IT consulting firm layered on top of Galaxy Solutions, Infosys, and Protiviti. CUTTABLE
- Healthcare staffing ($4.8M from unknown vendors alone) — Pioneer, Stepping Stones, RCM, Sunbelt — these are on top of the $16.9M already identified. Total healthcare staffing spend approaches $22M. Permanent hires at $150K/FTE = 146 positions. REDUCIBLE
- After-school programs ($9.4M reclassified) — Boys & Girls Clubs, Richmond Neighborhood Center, Telegraph Hill, RAMS — many of these are eligible for ASES/21st CCLC/Title I grant funding. FUND-SHIFTABLE
- Sunset Scavenger/Recology ($3.1M) — As the sole waste hauler in SF, this is a monopoly price. A competitive review or inter-district cooperative purchasing could yield 15-20% savings. RENEGOTIABLE
Updated Savings Potential
| Category | Total Spend | Potential Savings | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| IT Consulting (total) | $20.0M | $12.0M | 60% cut post-EMPowerSF |
| Healthcare Staffing (total) | $21.7M | $10.9M | 50% convert to permanent hires |
| After-School Programs (total) | $46.2M | $11.5M | 25% shift to restricted funds |
| Facilities/Operations | $6.7M | $1.3M | Competitive rebid (20%) |
| Ed-Tech/Curriculum | $3.8M | $0.8M | License renegotiation (20%) |
| Additional from reclassification | $52.3M | $30.3M | Combined mechanisms |
Vendor Savings Potential Assessment
Each vendor over $500K has been assessed for savings potential:
- CUTTABLE Contract could be eliminated entirely (IT consulting bloat, redundant services)
- REDUCIBLE Service is needed, but staffing agencies could be replaced with permanent hires
- RENEGOTIABLE Essential service, but contract terms could be improved through competitive bidding
- FUND-SHIFTABLE Program could be funded from restricted/grant sources instead of General Fund
- ESSENTIAL Service is essential and competitively priced
Salary Comparison
Salary spending as a percentage of total expenditures (FY2024-25 SACS budget data): CDE SACS Data
| District | Cert. Salaries | Class. Salaries | Total Expend. | Salary % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Diego Unified | $1,585.8M | $615.9M | $3,947.6M | 55.8% |
| San Francisco Unified | $975.8M | $442.8M | $2,661.0M | 53.3% |
| Los Angeles Unified | $8,036.6M | $3,051.9M | $21,560.6M | 51.4% |
| Long Beach Unified | $1,022.5M | $288.8M | $2,600.2M | 50.4% |
| San Jose Unified | $371.9M | $124.4M | $990.2M | 50.1% |
| Sacramento City Unified | $616.9M | $183.0M | $1,632.3M | 49.0% |
| Fresno Unified | $1,185.6M | $448.0M | $3,438.3M | 47.5% |
| Oakland Unified | $545.6M | $263.7M | $1,794.3M | 45.1% |
SFUSD's salary percentage (53.3%) is above average—but the issue is where non-salary money goes. SFUSD sends a disproportionate share to admin overhead and outside consultants rather than direct student services.
FY2025-26 Expenditure Breakdown
From the December 2025 Fiscal Stabilization Plan (~$1.3B total): PDF
| Category | Amount | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Instruction | $751.8M | 58% |
| Student Services | $198.4M | 15% |
| Instruction-related | $150.8M | 12% |
| Building & Grounds | $116.0M | 9% |
| General Administration | $72.2M | 6% |
| Ancillary | $6.8M | 1% |
| Other Outgo | $4.3M | <1% |
Note: The FSP "General Administration" ($72.2M / 6%) uses a narrower definition than SACS function-level data. When all admin-coded functions are counted, the total is $402.8M / 15.1%. Fiscal Stabilization Plan
Function-Level Breakdown
Top General Fund spending categories from the statewide SACS extract. Items marked [ADMIN] are included in the administrative spending calculation. CDE SACS Data
| Code | Function | Amount | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1000 | Instruction | $1,202.4M | |
| 2100 | Instructional Supervision & Administration | $172.8M | ADMIN |
| 2700 | School Administration | $122.0M | |
| 8200 | Operations | $95.8M | |
| 3130 | Attendance and Social Work | $89.8M | |
| 1120 | SpEd: Resource Specialist | $81.8M | |
| 3600 | Pupil Transportation | $81.5M | |
| 1110 | SpEd: Separate Classes | $80.3M | |
| 7400 | Personnel/Human Resources | $75.7M | ADMIN |
| 1190 | SpEd: Other Specialized | $65.5M | |
| 7700 | Centralized Data Processing | $58.2M | ADMIN |
| 3110 | Guidance and Counseling | $49.8M | |
| 1180 | SpEd: Nonpublic Agencies/Schools | $48.0M | |
| 1130 | SpEd: Supplemental in Regular | $45.0M | |
| 3140 | Health Services | $39.0M | |
| 3120 | Psychological Services | $38.6M | |
| 3150 | Speech Pathology and Audiology | $34.1M | |
| 8400 | Other Plant Maintenance & Operations | $30.2M | |
| 2420 | Instructional Library, Media & Technology | $29.7M | |
| 7150 | Superintendent | $29.2M | ADMIN |
Governance & Transparency Failures
| Issue | Detail |
|---|---|
| Late Audit (FY 2021-22) | Annual audit approved two years late (March 2024) PDF |
| Late Audit (FY 2022-23) | Submitted late to CDE PDF |
| FCMAT Risk Assessment | Found: no position control, contra accounts used improperly, budget monitoring failures PDF |
| Negative Certification | May 2024 Source |
| QTEA FY22-23 Audit | Nearly 3 years delinquent—"Coming Soon" on website SFUSD QTEA page |
| PEEF FY24-25 Report | Not yet published (required by ballot measure) |
The financial evidence is clear.
What follows is how to use it — the precedents, the legal tools, and the strategy for winning.
This Has Happened Before
SFUSD's playbook — replacing enforceable caps with "goals," offering below-inflation raises, carving benefits out of the contract — is not new. Here's what happened when other urban districts tried the same things.
What the Fact-Finding Panel Found
The district wants you to treat the independent fact-finding panel's report as the final word. It isn't. Here's what the national precedent shows — and what the SFUSD panel actually said that favors the union.
Unions That Rejected Fact-Finding Won More
CTU / Chicago has rejected every fact-finding report since 2012 — and won better deals every time. In their most recent round (2024-25), CTU attorney Latoyia Kimbrough called it "the best fact-finding report we've received" while still formally rejecting it. Why? Because accepting locks you in. Rejecting preserves leverage.
Oakland OEA (2019) rejected the fact-finding panel's 6% recommendation, went on strike, and won 11% raises over 4 years — nearly double what the panel suggested.
Findings That Favor UESF
- The panel recommended 3% per year for 2 years — that's more per year than the district's 2% per year for 3 years. Even the neutral panel says the district should pay more per year.
- The panel endorsed the parcel tax bridge for health benefits — validating the funding mechanism UESF has proposed.
- The panel called the district's finances "precarious" — but still recommended raises, implicitly confirming that some raises are affordable even in the current environment.
CTU's Playbook: Cherry-Pick and Reject
CTU's 2024-25 strategy was to reject the report formally (starting the 30-day strike clock) while publicly citing every favorable finding. Deputy counsel Thad Goodchild declared the report "exploded the myth that CPS can't afford to put more resources into schools." They expanded bargaining to include Board member participation in negotiations and parent townhalls — reframing from a financial debate to a "priorities" debate.
UESF should do the same: reject the report to preserve flexibility, but quote the panel's 3%/year recommendation and its validation of parcel tax funding in every public statement.
UESF's Leverage Right Now
This isn't just a teacher strike. The alignment of forces right now is historically unprecedented — and the math overwhelmingly favors the union.
Three-union solidarity — a complete school system shutdown
SF Labor Council Endorsement
The San Francisco Labor Council (representing 100,000+ workers) has formally endorsed the strike. This is not just an education fight — it's the entire organized labor movement in San Francisco standing behind UESF.
The retention crisis — by the numbers
The BCG Playbook They're Running
"Bargaining for the Common Good" (BCG) is the framework that powered the wins in LA, Chicago, and Oakland. The core idea: every union demand is reframed as a student and family issue. This isn't spin — it's the truth. When teachers can afford to stay, students get stability. When class sizes are manageable, every child gets attention. When the contract protects sanctuary, vulnerable families are safer.
| Union demand | What it means for students & families |
|---|---|
| Higher wages | Teacher retention = student stability. Kids deserve teachers who stay year after year. When teachers leave because they can't afford SF, students lose continuity, mentorship, and institutional knowledge. |
| Healthcare in the CBA | Teachers shouldn't choose between their family's health and the classroom. Secure benefits mean teachers can focus on teaching, not on whether they can afford their child's doctor visit. |
| Enforceable class size caps | Every child deserves individual attention. When a teacher has 35 students instead of 25, every child gets less feedback, less support, and less connection. |
| Sanctuary in the contract | Protect our most vulnerable students with enforceable rights. A board resolution can be rescinded on a Tuesday. Contract language means real protection that families can count on. |
| SpEd reform (district-wide) | Every student with a disability deserves a manageable caseload. When one SpEd teacher handles 28 students, none of them get the individualized support the law guarantees them. |
| Stay-Over Program | No child should lose shelter because of bureaucracy. Protecting the Stay-Over Program means unhoused students and families don't fall through the cracks during school closures. |
Talking points for picket lines, media & parent conversations
Legal Tools in the Toolbox
Beyond the picket line, UESF has powerful legal mechanisms that can be deployed before, during, and after any work action. These aren't abstract — each one is backed by specific PERB decisions and state law.
Unfair Labor Practice Charges — If the District Imposes Unilaterally
If SFUSD attempts to implement its "last best offer" before exhausting all impasse procedures, UESF should file a PERB Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charge immediately.
- Moreno Valley USD (PERB Decision No. 0206E): Held that a district implementing its offer BEFORE completing impasse procedures is a per se unfair labor practice — no intent analysis needed. Affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
- PERB can order the district to rescind unilateral changes and restore the status quo ante.
Class Size Is Not Optional — It's a Mandatory Subject
Class size is explicitly a mandatory subject of bargaining under EERA (Gov Code 3543.2). PERB decisions in Oxnard (Decision 2803E), Rio Hondo (Decision 0279E), and Moreno Valley (Decision 0206E) all confirm that unilateral class size changes are unlawful.
If the district ever attempts to implement "goals" instead of "caps" without UESF's agreement, that is a ULP. The district cannot convert enforceable limits into aspirational targets without bargaining to genuine impasse and completing all statutory procedures.
AB 560 Imposes District-Wide SpEd Workload Requirements
AB 560 (signed October 2025) requires districts to equitably distribute assessment workloads across resource specialists and provide instructional aides to at least 80% of resource specialists within each local plan. It also directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction to recommend maximum staffing ratios by July 2027. These are mandatory, district-wide requirements — they apply to every school in SFUSD, not just 5 pilot sites.
UESF should argue that the district's 5-school pilot is insufficient given these statewide mandates. The district needs a district-wide implementation plan for workload equity, not a study at 5 sites.
Side MOU Vulnerability — Health Benefits Belong in the CBA
The district's insistence on placing health benefits in a side MOU (outside the collective bargaining agreement) should be challenged. In Raines v. UTLA (PERB Decision 2475E), PERB found that secretly negotiating side letters that modify collectively bargained rights without member notice violates the duty of fair representation.
If the side MOU modifies existing compensation structures, members have a right to full transparency and input. UESF should insist that any compensation changes — including health benefits — be negotiated within the main CBA where they carry full grievance rights.
The Unfair Practice Strike Doctrine
PERB has held that a strike provoked by employer unfair labor practices is protected at any time during negotiations — even before formal impasse. In Oakland USD (PERB Decision 2906E, 2024), the Board overruled four prior decisions to affirm this principle, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2025. If SFUSD has committed any bargaining violations, this doctrine strengthens the legal standing of any strike action.
This means UESF should document every instance of potential district bad faith throughout bargaining — each one becomes legal ammunition that fortifies the right to strike.
The Legal Chess Match
A strike is one move in a longer legal game. Here is how an experienced labor attorney would sequence the union's legal and strategic moves for maximum leverage.
Build the Legal Foundation
- Audit district communications for potential unfair labor practices (ULPs) — surface bargaining, bad faith delays, direct dealing with members
- File EERA information requests for complete financials: consultant contracts, administrative compensation, reserve fund details, enrollment projections methodology
- Formally reject the fact-finding report — this starts the 10-day statutory clock (Gov Code 3548.2)
- File PERB ULP charges for any identified violations — each charge creates legal ammunition under the unfair practice strike doctrine (PERB 2906E)
- Coordinate three-union parallel filings — UESF, UAS, and SEIU 1021 filing simultaneous charges amplifies pressure
Not a Waiting Period — It's an Organizing Window
After rejecting the fact-finding report, Gov Code 3548.2 provides a 10-day period before a strike becomes legal. This is not dead time — it's the most valuable organizing window in the entire process.
- Schedule parent townhalls at every school site
- Launch media events with the SF Labor Council and allied organizations
- Release detailed financial analysis of district spending on consultants vs. classrooms
- After 10 days: strike is legal under Gov Code 3548.2 — no additional notice required
Immediate ULP Filing — Per Se Violation
If the district attempts to unilaterally implement its last offer:
- File immediately under PERB 0206E (Moreno Valley) — implementation before completing impasse procedures is a per se ULP, no intent analysis needed
- Seek injunctive relief to restore the status quo ante
- PERB can order the district to rescind all unilateral changes
The County Sanitation Shield
County Sanitation District v. LA County Employees, 38 Cal.3d 564 (1985) is the landmark California Supreme Court decision establishing that public employee strikes are not automatically enjoinable. To obtain an injunction, the district must prove a "substantial, imminent threat to public health and safety."
- No California teacher strike appears to have been enjoined under this standard — courts have consistently held that education disruption alone does not meet the threshold
- The unfair practice strike doctrine (PERB 2906E) provides additional protection: a strike provoked by employer ULPs is protected even before formal impasse
- The three-union solidarity pact — if the district enjoins UESF, UAS and SEIU can continue independently
Continue Building Legal Pressure
- File ULPs for strike misconduct — any district interference with picketing, threats to strikers, or unilateral changes during the strike
- Document substitute teacher pay rates — if the district pays substitutes at premium rates, it's evidence of ability to pay permanent staff more
- Track every unilateral change — each one is a separate ULP charge, compounding the district's legal exposure
- Coordinate daily with the SF Labor Council for community support actions
Lock In the Gains
- No-reprisal clause with PERB enforcement — explicit protection against retaliation for strike participation
- Retroactive pay for strike days — CTU won retroactive pay in both 2012 and 2019 settlements
- Resolve pending ULPs as part of settlement — each pending charge is a bargaining chip
- All settlement terms in the CBA — not side letters, not MOUs, not resolutions
Know Your Opponent
To win, you need to understand the district's strongest case — not a caricature of it. What follows is an honest steelman of 7 district arguments, presented with genuine force, followed by sourced rebuttals that explain why the union's position wins on facts and precedent.
"We Genuinely Cannot Afford It"
The strongest version: SFUSD projects deficits of $51M in 2025-26, $32M in 2026-27, and $19M in 2027-28. Enrollment has declined to under 50,000 students, reducing per-pupil state funding under LCFF. The district is under state fiscal oversight with CDE-appointed fiscal advisors. This isn't posturing — it's a structural problem shared by urban districts across California.
The Fact-Finder Reviewed the Same Data — and Recommended More
The independent fact-finding panel had full access to SFUSD's financial data and still recommended 3% per year — more per year than the district's 2%. When Oakland OEA struck in 2019, the district also claimed fiscal distress — OEA's budget analysis challenged those claims and the union won 11% over 4 years. A 2023 Budget & Legislative Analyst audit found SFUSD spent 25% of its operating budget on central administration — compared to a peer-district median of 18%. "Can't afford" is a political choice about priorities, not an accounting fact.
"Trigger Language Protects Everyone"
The strongest version: Making the Year 3 raise conditional on fiscal benchmarks is responsible stewardship. If revenues fall short, the district faces state receivership — which would strip the union of its bargaining rights entirely. Trigger language is a safety valve that prevents the worst-case scenario for both sides.
The District Controls the Benchmarks
In practice, the district controls the benchmarks. Budget projections are internally generated and routinely revised. A trigger conditioned on district-controlled fiscal metrics is an escape hatch, not a safety valve. Under EERA (Gov Code 3543.2), wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining — making them contingent on unilateral fiscal determinations undermines the statutory purpose of collective bargaining. The fact-finder recommended unconditional raises at a higher per-year rate.
"Goals Are More Flexible Than Caps"
The strongest version: Rigid class size caps prevent principals from making common-sense decisions. A school might benefit from one larger art class to fund a smaller intervention group. "Goals" give site administrators the flexibility to optimize for student outcomes rather than enforcing arbitrary numbers.
"Goal" Has No Grievance Mechanism — UTLA Won on This Exact Issue
Flexibility sounds reasonable until you see what happens in practice: without enforceable caps, classes balloon to 35+ students and teachers have no remedy. UTLA won the elimination of LAUSD's identical "Section 1.5" escape clause in their 2019 strike — a provision that let the district ignore caps whenever it chose. The result wasn't rigidity; it was accountability. Principals retained the ability to request waivers through the union — but the default was protection. State law (Ed Code 41376) only sets a floor of 30-33 students. Without contract caps, that floor becomes the ceiling.
"The Side MOU Is Legally Equivalent"
The strongest version: A Memorandum of Understanding is a binding agreement between the parties, just like the CBA. Placing health benefits in a side MOU allows for faster modification as health plan options change, without reopening the entire contract. This benefits both sides with administrative efficiency.
MOUs Expire Independently and Are Easier to Modify
While technically binding, a side MOU expires on its own timeline, can be modified without full contract bargaining, and lacks the procedural protections of CBA language. PERB Decision 2475E (Raines v. UTLA) found that side letters modifying collectively bargained rights without proper member notice raise duty of fair representation concerns. Health benefits representing thousands of dollars in compensation belong in the main contract where they carry full grievance rights, ratification requirements, and cannot be altered without reopener procedures.
"We're Protecting the Public's Fiscal Investment"
The strongest version: San Francisco voters entrusted the district with hundreds of millions in parcel tax revenue. The board has a fiduciary duty to allocate those funds responsibly across all needs — facilities, student services, technology, safety — not to commit them entirely to compensation. Fiscal responsibility isn't anti-teacher; it's pro-student.
Voters Passed Parcel Taxes for Educator Compensation
QTEA (Prop A, 2008) and FWEA (Prop J, 2020) were championed by the union and passed with UESF members walking precincts and phone banking to fund educator compensation. Voters approved them knowing the money would go to teachers and staff. Using "fiscal responsibility" to redirect funds voters earmarked for compensation is not protecting the public's investment — it's subverting it. And QTEA expires in June 2028 — the district needs UESF's active support for renewal.
"A Strike Hurts Students the Most"
The strongest version: Every day of a strike is a day of lost instruction. For low-income students who depend on school meals, for students with disabilities who need services, for families without childcare alternatives — a strike imposes real, immediate harm on the most vulnerable. The adults in the room should find a way to settle without putting children in the middle.
400 Unfilled Vacancies Hurt Students Every Day
~400 educator vacancies mean students already face classrooms without permanent teachers — every day, not just during a strike. A short strike to secure sustainable compensation, enforceable class sizes, and SpEd reform prevents the ongoing, chronic harm of teacher attrition, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate special education. Legally, County Sanitation v. LA County Employees, 38 Cal.3d 564 (1985) established that education disruption does not meet the "substantial, imminent threat to public health and safety" standard required to enjoin a public employee strike. The courts recognize that short-term disruption is the price of long-term institutional improvement.
"Declining Enrollment Means Less Revenue"
The strongest version: SFUSD has lost thousands of students over the past decade. Under California's Local Control Funding Formula, fewer students means less state money. This is a structural constraint that no amount of bargaining can overcome — the district cannot spend money it doesn't receive.
Enrollment Decline Is Caused by the Conditions the Union Is Trying to Fix
Families are leaving SFUSD because of the problems the union is bargaining to solve: persistent teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms, inadequate special education services, and a district that struggles to compete with neighboring districts and private schools on teacher quality. Accepting the district's proposal — below-inflation raises, weakened class size protections — would accelerate enrollment decline by making SFUSD even less competitive. The union's demands are the enrollment recovery plan.
The Constitutional Case for Striking
Both the district and the union have legitimate philosophical frameworks. Understanding them reveals why the union's position is not just tactically stronger but constitutionally grounded.
Fiscal Sovereignty — The Competing Factions Argument
The district's strongest constitutional argument is about competing interests. An elected school board must balance competing demands from multiple stakeholders: unions, parents, taxpayers, students with disabilities, community groups. The democratic design of school governance assumes no single interest group should dominate — elected representatives exist to mediate between competing claims on limited resources. The union, under this theory, is one faction among many.
State fiscal oversight exists precisely to prevent any single interest group from driving a district into insolvency. The board's fiduciary duty runs to all students and taxpayers, not just to the employees it bargains with.
Labor Rights as Fundamental Rights — The Democratic Channel
The California Constitution, Article IX, Section 5 mandates a system of free public schools. The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) codifies collective bargaining as the democratic channel for workers within public institutions.
The whole point of democratic institutions is that competing interests get channeled through structured processes, not suppressed. Collective bargaining is that process. When the district refuses to bargain in good faith or attempts to hollow out contract protections, it is not acting as a neutral mediator between factions — it is acting as the dominant faction itself, using institutional power to suppress a competing voice.
"Fiscal constraint" is a political choice, not an immutable fact. The same district that claims it cannot afford 3% raises was found by a 2023 audit to spend 25% of its budget on central administration — nearly 40% more than peer districts.
Why the Union's Argument Wins
The district's competing-factions argument collapses because the fiscal constraint is partially self-imposed (administrative bloat, consultant spending) and partially a state funding failure that the union is also fighting to fix. The union's argument prevails because it aligns worker interest with the public good — the core insight of the Bargaining for the Common Good framework. When teachers demand livable wages, students get stability. When the union demands enforceable caps, every child gets attention. This is not one faction seeking advantage — it is the workforce that delivers public education demanding the conditions necessary to do so.
Winning the Public Fight
Here is how experienced labor lawyers actually negotiate — the specific named tactics the district is likely to deploy, and the counter-moves that neutralize each one.
"Never Negotiate Against Yourself"
Every district demand — eliminating AP preps, sabbaticals, department head stipends, converting class size caps — is a concession the union can trade at a price. Do not simply reject these items. Instead, assign each one a value and use them as currency. "You want to eliminate sabbaticals? That costs you an extra 0.5% on salary." The district's takeaway proposals are, paradoxically, union bargaining chips.
1. The Package Deal
Present the entire proposal as a single take-it-or-leave-it package. "This is our comprehensive offer — everything is interconnected." Forces the union to accept unpalatable items to get the pieces it wants.
Unbundle — Item-by-Item Bargaining
Insist on negotiating each item separately. Under EERA, the union has the right to bargain over each mandatory subject individually. A "package deal" is a negotiating choice, not a legal requirement.
2. The False Deadline
"We need to reach agreement by [date] or we'll have to implement our last offer." Creates artificial urgency to force concessions under time pressure.
Call the Bluff — No Legal Deadline Exists
There is no statutory deadline for reaching agreement. Under Gov Code 3548.2, implementation requires completing all impasse procedures. Premature implementation is a per se ULP under PERB 0206E.
3. Budget Opacity
"We can't share detailed financials — it's complicated. Trust our projections." Uses complexity to avoid scrutiny of spending priorities.
EERA Information Requests + Joint Audit Demand
Under EERA, the union has a right to financial information relevant to bargaining. File formal information requests for: all consultant contracts over $50K, administrative compensation schedules, reserve fund balances, and enrollment projection methodology. Demand a joint audit by an independent CPA.
4. Administrative Sympathy
Bring sympathetic principals and administrators to testify about how the union's demands would force cuts to their schools. Personalizes the fiscal argument.
UAS Already Answered This
The United Administrators of San Francisco voted for a sympathy strike — potentially the first administrator strike in California history. When the principals themselves say the union is right, the "administrative sympathy" play collapses.
5. The Mediator Play
"Let's go back to mediation. A fresh mediator might help us find common ground." Designed to reset the clock and delay the strike timeline.
Refuse — Impasse Process Is Exhausted
The statutory impasse process — mediation, then fact-finding — is complete. There is no legal requirement to re-mediate. Re-mediation is a delay tactic that allows the district to run out the school year without a strike. The union's leverage increases as the strike date approaches.
6. Splitting the Coalition
Offer better terms to one union (e.g., classified-specific raises for SEIU) to break the three-union solidarity pact. Divide and settle separately.
Three-Union Solidarity Pact
UESF, UAS, and SEIU 1021 have publicly committed to coordinated action. No individual union settles without all three reaching acceptable terms. This commitment must be formalized in writing between the unions. A split coalition loses; a unified coalition is historically unbeatable.
7. Takeaway Proposals as "Modernization"
Frame elimination of AP preps, sabbaticals, and dept head stipends as "modernizing the contract" and "removing outdated provisions."
Concession Trade — Sell Them Back at a Price
Package every district takeaway demand as a high-value concession. "You want sabbaticals? That costs an extra 0.5% on salary. You want AP preps? That's worth enforceable class size caps." Never give anything away for free. The district's takeaway proposals are the union's bargaining chips.
8. Closed-Door Bargaining
"What's said at the table stays at the table." Insists on confidentiality to prevent public pressure and maintain information asymmetry.
Radical Transparency
Make all union proposals public immediately. Post every bargaining session update to the UESF website. Transparency locks the district into positions — they can't quietly walk back public commitments. The district benefits from secrecy; the union benefits from sunlight.
Settlement Targets — What the Final Deal Should Include
Based on precedent from CTU, UTLA, and OEA settlements:
- 3% per year minimum — matching the fact-finder's recommendation and the UTLA/OEA precedent
- Health benefits in the CBA, not a side MOU — with full grievance rights and ratification requirements
- Class size caps preserved with enforceable grievance mechanisms — no conversion to "goals"
- Sanctuary protections in the CBA — modeled on CTU Articles 46-7
- District-wide SpEd workload plan — not a 5-school pilot, consistent with AB 560 mandates
- No-reprisal clause with PERB enforcement for all strike participants across all three unions
- Retroactive pay for strike days — following the CTU precedent
- Stay-Over Program protections in contract language
The Press War
The district has a predictable media playbook. Here are the four frames they'll deploy, followed by the union's superior messaging strategy.
District's predicted media frames
Why it works: Appeals to fiscally conservative voters and editorial boards. Positions the district as the adult in the room.
Why it works: Emotionally powerful. Makes the union the aggressor and children the victims.
Why it works: 6% sounds generous to the public. Health benefits sound like a major concession.
Why it works: Attempts to isolate union leadership from moderate members and the public.
The union's 7 key messages
Op-ed frameworks — ready to adapt for Chronicle, Mission Local, KQED
The Teacher's Voice
Personal narrative from a SFUSD educator. Open with: specific moment when you realized you couldn't afford to stay. Middle: what your students lose when teachers leave. Close: "I'm not striking for myself — I'm striking so my students have a teacher next year." Best for: Chronicle, KQED Forum
The Parent's Voice
Written by a parent, ideally from a Title I school. Open with: how many teachers your child has lost to turnover. Middle: what class size and SpEd support mean for your family. Close: "I support the strike because it's the same fight I'm fighting as a parent." Best for: Mission Local, 48 Hills
The Data-Driven Analysis
Written by a policy analyst, economist, or school board ally. Open with: $79K vs. $127K comparison. Middle: compare SFUSD spending on consultants vs. classrooms; cite fact-finder recommendations. Close: "The money exists. It's a question of priorities." Best for: Chronicle editorial board, KQED news analysis
Rebuttal Quick-Reference
Rapid-fire rebuttals for picket lines, media interviews, and parent conversations. Every response cites a specific source.
| They Say… | The Facts… |
|---|---|
| "We offered 6% raises" | 6% over 3 years is 2%/year — below Bay Area inflation. The fact-finder recommended 3%/year, and Year 3 has trigger language that may never pay out. |
| "We can't afford more" | The neutral fact-finding panel reviewed the same financial data and recommended higher raises. Oakland claimed the same in 2019 — then settled for 11%. |
| "Goals are just as good as caps" | A "goal" has no grievance mechanism. UTLA struck to eliminate the identical escape clause (Section 1.5) and won enforceable caps. |
| "The side MOU is binding" | An MOU expires independently and is easier to modify. PERB 2475E flags fair representation issues with side agreements that modify collectively bargained rights. |
| "Sanctuary is already covered by state law" | AB 699 sets a floor, not a ceiling. A board resolution can be rescinded any Tuesday. CTU put sanctuary in the contract (Art. 46-7) — enforceable with grievance rights. |
| "A strike hurts kids" | 400 unfilled vacancies hurt kids every day. A short strike to fix systemic problems prevents years of chronic harm. |
| "The union is being unreasonable" | 97.6% authorization. Three unions. SF Labor Council endorsement. When everyone agrees, the problem isn't the employees. |
| "We offered health benefits" | Funded by a parcel tax (QTEA) that expires June 2028 and placed in a side MOU instead of the contract. That's a benefit built on disappearing money in a document with fewer protections. |
| "The fact-finder sided with the district" | The fact-finder recommended 3%/year for 2 years — more per year than the district's 2%, over a shorter period. The panel endorsed the parcel tax bridge. The district's offer falls below the neutral recommendation. |
| "The SpEd pilot is a good start" | AB 560 mandates district-wide SpEd workload equity. A 5-school pilot to "evaluate effectiveness" of what the state already requires is delay, not progress. |
| "Enrollment is declining" | Families leave because of teacher shortages, overcrowded classes, and inadequate services. Accepting below-inflation wages accelerates the decline. The union's demands ARE the enrollment recovery plan. |
| "Strikes are illegal" | Public employee strikes in California are legal after impasse procedures are exhausted. County Sanitation (1985) established that education disruption does not meet the injunction standard. |
| "We'll implement our last offer" | Implementation before completing all impasse procedures is a per se ULP under PERB 0206E (Moreno Valley). PERB can order rescission of all unilateral changes. |
| "Teachers make good money" | Starting salary: $79K. City median household income: $127K. 47% of starting salary goes to rent. That's not "good money" — that's poverty wages in San Francisco. |
| "Let's go back to mediation" | The statutory impasse process is complete. Re-mediation is a delay tactic with no legal basis. The union's leverage increases as the strike date approaches — delay serves only the district. |
At the Table — 5 Arguments You Can Defend
Every claim below is backed by an official document we have on disk. Click PDF links to verify the source yourself. These are not estimates, projections, or news reports — they are board-approved records, independent audits, and the neutral fact-finder's own words.
The official finding: The Budget & Legislative Analyst found in January 2023 that the EMPowerSF system drove a $13M (28%) increase in Centralized Data Processing costs — and the system was ultimately abandoned. PDF
The BLA already called it bloat. The system was abandoned after $33.7M spent. The replacement (Frontline, $2.7M/yr) is still flowing. A “modernization” that costs $33.7M and doesn't work is not an investment — it's a sunk cost that proves the district cannot manage IT procurement.
The official finding: The PERB fact-finding panel explicitly stated: “The District must continue to reduce its reliance on outside consultants and thus reallocate the contracting out funds to programs that directly benefit their employees.” PDF
At agency markup rates, permanent positions are cheaper. If the district paid $21.7M to staffing agencies, that's equivalent to ~145 permanent positions at $150K/year (salary + benefits). The agencies are finding people to fill these roles — the district just isn't hiring them directly.
Source: CDE SACS FY2024-25 statewide extract (budget data) and BLA Central Admin Staffing Report, January 2023.
Oakland spends 7.8% on admin. San Jose: 11.8%. San Diego: 8.0%. All high cost-of-living districts. The cost-of-living argument explains higher salaries, not higher admin headcount. SFUSD has 60% more admin FTEs per student than the median — that's a staffing choice, not a cost-of-living effect.
The official finding: SFUSD received a negative fiscal certification in May 2024 — the state's determination that the district may not meet its financial obligations. A district that can't project its own finances doesn't have credibility on affordability claims. Source
$80–170M misses are not “conservative” — they're unreliable. Combined with the negative certification, late audits (FY2021-22 approved two years late), and FCMAT findings of no position control and improper contra accounts, the pattern is clear: the district's financial projections should not be taken at face value.
Why it matters: This is not the union's analysis. It's the conclusion of a neutral, state-appointed panel that reviewed the same financial data the district uses to claim it can't afford more. The panel found the money exists.
True — but the fact-finding report establishes the public record of what a neutral party considers reasonable. If the district rejects a neutral recommendation for higher raises, they carry the burden of explaining why their own numbers are more credible than the state-appointed panel's analysis.
Source verification: Every claim above links to its source document, hosted at santajordan.github.io/sfusd-documents. Source documents include board-approved check registers (OCR verified, 0.29% error rate), the PERB Fact-Finding Report (Feb 2026), BLA Central Admin Staffing Report (Jan 2023), CDE SACS statewide data, and SFUSD fiscal stabilization plans. No claim uses news articles, estimates, or third-party analysis as its primary source.
AI & Tech Spending — Where the Money Goes Instead
While the district claims it cannot afford competitive raises, it has quietly pursued multimillion-dollar AI contracts — one with pricing so sensitive it had to be redacted from public records. This section documents what we know about SFUSD’s AI and technology spending decisions during the 2026 contract fight.
The OpenAI Contract
In January 2026, SFUSD’s Technology Service Officer signed a contract with OpenAI for ChatGPT EDU — before the school board voted on it. The contract covered 12,000 users, had its pricing completely redacted, and was pulled from the board agenda after members raised concerns. No payment was ever made.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2026 | Eddie H. Ngo signs OpenAI order form as Technology Service Officer — before any board vote | Contract PDF |
| Jan 26, 2026 | OpenAI’s Kevin Mills countersigns the contract | Contract PDF |
| Jan 27, 2026 | Board grants Superintendent Su special redaction authority over agenda items | Mission Local |
| Feb 2, 2026 | Contract effective start date — 8 days before scheduled board vote | Contract PDF |
| Feb 3, 2026 | Board members raise concerns; item removed from agenda | Mission Local |
| Feb 6, 2026 | SF Public Press publishes investigation into the contract | SF Public Press |
| Feb 9, 2026 | SFUSD teacher strike begins; all schools closed | Multiple sources |
| Feb 10, 2026 | Board meeting canceled due to strike — vote never happens | BoardDocs |
ChatGPT EDU for 12,000 Users
OpenAI’s ChatGPT EDU platform. The contract was signed by a Technology Service Officer — not the Superintendent, not the board. The primary contact email listed was a personal Hotmail address (znd_g0@hotmail.com), not an official @sfusd.edu email.
Pricing Completely Redacted
The per-user price, total contract value, and several pages of terms were blacked out from public records. The Superintendent obtained special redaction authority just 5 days before the contract appeared on the agenda. Redaction authority is normally for personal privacy — not contract pricing.
What Does 12,000 Users of ChatGPT EDU Cost?
San Bernardino City USD signed an unredacted contract with OpenAI: $19/user/month for 500 users ($114,000/year). At that rate, SFUSD’s 12,000-user contract would cost:
12,000 users × $19/month × 12 months = $2,736,000/year
The district claims the deal is “cost-free.” No grant acceptance was on the board agenda. If truly free, it should have been listed as a gift — not buried on a consent calendar with redacted pricing.
Borrowed Privacy Framework
SFUSD did not negotiate its own data privacy agreement with OpenAI. Instead, it subscribed to San Bernardino’s DPA via “Exhibit E” — a boilerplate framework written for a district one-tenth SFUSD’s size. The DPA prohibits use for students under 13 and requires annual audits, but SFUSD has not disclosed how it would comply with either requirement.
UESF Demanded AI Regulation — The District Said No
In the 2023–24 contract talks, UESF demanded contract language regulating AI use in classrooms. The district rejected that language. Then, during the 2026 strike negotiations — with AI as a central bargaining issue — the district signed an AI contract without consulting the union.
Google Workspace & Gemini AI
SFUSD purchases Google Workspace for Education through CDW Government, the largest Google Workspace for Education reseller in North America. On February 3, 2026 — during the strike — Google began rolling out Gemini AI capabilities to all Education Plus customers, meaning SFUSD students and staff gained access to generative AI tools through their existing licenses.
| Item | Cost |
|---|---|
| Google Workspace Education Plus (base license) | $6/user/year (as of Feb 2026) |
| Estimated base cost (~59,000 users) | ~$354,000/year |
| Google AI Pro for Education add-on | $30/user/month ($360/user/year) |
| AI Pro at OpenAI-contract scale (12,000 users) | ~$4,320,000/year |
| CDW Government total payments from SFUSD | $1,715,566.81 |
Gemini AI Now Bundled Into Education Plus
As of February 3, 2026, Google began rolling out select Gemini capabilities — including AI assistants with enterprise-grade data protection, NotebookLM, and Gemini in Classroom — to all Education Plus and Teaching & Learning customers at no additional cost. This means SFUSD may have been pursuing a paid OpenAI contract while free AI tools were already being added to the Google platform they already pay for.
The Big Picture
| Spending Item | Annual Cost |
|---|---|
| OpenAI contract (est. at San Bernardino rate) | ~$2,736,000 |
| CDW Government payments (Google, hardware, etc.) | $1,715,567 |
| Total identifiable tech vendor spending | ~$12,200,000 |
| Cost of 1% raise for all SFUSD employees (PERB benchmark) | $10,170,000 |
| Gap: PERB recommendation vs. district offer | ~$10,170,000/year |
The district claims it can’t afford the raises recommended by a neutral state panel.
Meanwhile, it signed an AI contract with pricing so sensitive it had to be redacted from public records — for a product that duplicates features being added to Google Workspace at no extra cost. The contract was signed before board approval, during a strike, by an officer using a Hotmail address as the primary contact. The $12.2 million in identifiable tech vendor spending could fund a 1% raise for every employee in the district.