Students and educators urge San Francisco Board to reject staffing model; board declines fiscal stabilization plan

SAN FRANCISCO

Hundreds of students, educators and community members packed a San Francisco Board of Education meeting on Dec. 16 to plead with trustees not to adopt a draft staffing model and related fiscal stabilization plan that staff presented as a "worst-case" scenario for 2026. After more than three hours of public comment and extended debate, the board voted down the fiscal stabilization plan in a roll-call vote.

The public-comment period was dominated by students from multiple middle and high schools who said the staffing model's projected shift from a seven-period school day to a six-period funding baseline would eliminate electives for many learners and disproportionately harm English learners, newcomers and students with special needs. "Electives are important because they help students like me discover who they are," said Andrea Sofia Benitez, an eighth-grade student, describing her music elective as having "a positive impact on my academic development." Other students described wellness centers as lifelines: "When my friend died, I felt that the only place I could turn to was my wellness center," said Reese Yen, a middle-school student.

Why it matters: The staffing model is linked to the district's projection of revenues and enrollment. Staff said the draft demonstrates the minimum staffing the district could afford if key financial assumptions go against the district; community members countered that the model was presented with too little explanation of trade-offs and with insufficient site-level engagement.

Superintendent Dr. Sue Hsu told the board she and her team had identified restricted funding sources to "fill the gaps" for social-worker allocations and reiterated that the staffing model posted online was a draft and not a final cut plan. "We have identified restricted sources to be able to fill the gaps that were for the allocation of our social workers," she said, adding that staff would continue one-on-one meetings with site leaders and hold a School Site Council summit in January to gather further input.

Board members pressed staff for data and timelines. Commissioners asked staff to show how the staffing numbers were derived from engagement and how the district would measure and mitigate impacts on school safety and student supports. Several trustees said they were reluctant to approve a fiscal stabilization plan without clearer evidence tying trade-offs to student outcomes and without more community consultation.

Fiscal stabilization plan and vote: The fiscal stabilization plan (FSP), a statutory document that outlines options to close budget shortfalls when a district reports a qualified certification, was brought to the board for approval. Board records show the motion to approve the FSP failed on a roll-call vote, with the final tally in the meeting minutes recorded as 0 ayes and 6 nays. The vote means staff must continue to refine the plan and the board will revisit budget options during upcoming interim reports; it does not, by itself, enact any cuts.

Union and staff testimony: Labor leaders and school-site staff urged the board to reject the staffing model as drafted and criticized the district's budget assumptions. Anna Clafter, president of United Administrators of San Francisco, said in a prepared statement that the district had not meaningfully consulted site leaders and that broad cuts would "undermine our efforts to achieve our academic and enrollment goals." United Educators of San Francisco representatives also warned of escalated labor actions if educators felt budget decisions were made without sufficient negotiation.

Several presenters urged alternative approaches, including reallocating existing reserves, pursuing additional restricted funding sources and expanding community engagement to allow site-based planning rather than a centralized, one-size-fits-all allocation.

What happens next: Staff said they will continue site-level meetings in January, update allocations once enrollment projections and the state budget are clearer, and present a revised budget path in subsequent interim reports. The board also approved several routine personnel items and a small number of provisional internship permits for teachers during the same meeting.

The board did not adopt immediate cuts as part of the meeting's actions; the conversation will continue in January and through the district's interim reporting to the California Department of Education.

— Reporting by San Francisco Board meeting transcript