Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD approves charges and unpaid suspension for teacher after classroom incident
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Education voted to approve a statement of charges and place Moscone Elementary second-grade teacher Martha Vallejo on unpaid suspension pending a hearing after staff accused her of spitting at a student during an April incident.
The San Francisco Board of Education voted in closed session and reported in open session that it approved a proposed statement of charges against a district certificated employee and placed that employee on unpaid suspension pending hearing and disposition.
District general counsel Manuel Martinez told the board in open session that the charges concern Martha Vallejo, a second-grade bilingual teacher at Moscone Elementary. Martinez summarized staff allegations that an incident on April 4, 2025, involving a second-grade student with an individualized education program (IEP) led to charges including immoral conduct, refusal to follow district regulations and evident unfitness for service under cited provisions of the California Education Code. Martinez also told the board staff recommended unpaid suspension pending the hearing.
Vallejo addressed the board in open session before it recessed to closed session. She told commissioners she rejected most of the charges and characterized her reaction as a “reaction of disgust” after a student spat on her and her glasses. She said she did not intend to harm the student and asked for a chance to return to work, offering to complete discipline or additional training.
After the closed-session deliberation the board announced in open session that, by a vote of seven ayes, it had authorized a proposed statement of charges, placed the employee on unpaid suspension pending hearing and disposition, and provided the employee notice of suspension.
The board’s announcement in open session also recorded that the board gave direction to the general counsel in multiple anticipated litigation matters. The district’s public materials list the applicable Education Code sections cited by counsel as the statutory bases for the charges and for suspension pending hearing.
The suspension is administrative and does not constitute a final disciplinary determination; the employee will be entitled to the hearing process specified by law before any final termination decision.
The board did not identify a hearing date in the open-session report. Martinez said the employee is entitled to respond and to the procedures set out in relevant Education Code provisions.
The action reported by the board followed staff recommendation based on their internal investigation. The board’s statement listed no further disciplinary steps taken at the meeting beyond the suspension and the decision to file charges.
