Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paraprofessional Layoffs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD board declines proposed paraprofessional layoffs after heated public testimony
Summary
San Francisco Unified School District trustees considered a resolution to issue layoff notices affecting roughly 13.91 FTEs (34 employees or 20 layoffs reduced from an earlier 45) but the motion failed after public pleas and board debate about funding timelines and the use of stimulus and rainy-day dollars.
The San Francisco Unified School District on April 14 considered, but ultimately rejected, a resolution to begin layoff notices for paraprofessional staff amid a budget shortfall.
Roger Bushman, the district’s chief administrative officer, presented an amended resolution that would discontinue 13.91 full-time-equivalent (FTE) paraprofessional positions and reduce 3.02 FTE in hours, a change Bushman said equates to roughly 20 layoffs and reduced hours for 14 employees. He said the proposals reflect site-level decisions, seniority-based layoff procedures, and the district’s effort to place displaced staff on a 39-month recall list and provide reemployment support.
The measure prompted sustained public comment from paraprofessionals and union leaders. Carolyn Simoa, identified as vice president for paraprofessionals for United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), told the board that "paraprofessionals are an essential part of educating our children" and asked how rainy-day and federal stimulus funds were being allocated before authorizing layoffs. Roberto Michel, a paraprofessional and UESF sergeant-at-arms, said the district had the necessary money from rainy-day funds and the federal stimulus to avoid layoffs and appealed directly: "Please, no layoffs."
Board members questioned staff about timing and funding. Commissioners pressed whether Title I increases and stimulus allocations — staff said the district expects roughly $13 million over two years from the federal stimulus, but that much of those funds are one-time and only $1.75 million of the first-year allocation had been distributed to schools — and they noted the 45-day notice timeline under the education code requires precautionary action if funds have not been received in time.
Commissioners also raised concerns about equity and program alignment. One member asked whether reductions concentrated in AO3/AO4 (basic-skills instructional aides) would disproportionately affect the district's neediest students; staff replied that site councils made staffing decisions and the district is trying to preserve positions where possible.
After discussion and public testimony, the board conducted a roll-call vote. Recorded responses in the roll call showed a majority voting "No" and the layoff resolution failed.
Next steps: Staff said the district will continue to monitor incoming funds and, as in a prior year, would seek to rescind notices or reassign employees if additional resources are secured. The board asked staff to report back and scheduled a personnel/labor relations ad hoc meeting for later in the month to review options.
