Parents, teachers and students plead with SFUSD to spare social workers and wellness staff

Public comment dominated the opening portion of the San Francisco Board of Education's Dec. 9 meeting, as parents, teachers, principals, students and union representatives lined up to urge the board to protect school-based wellness staff and not to move $111.5 million into a board reserve without clearer transparency and impact analysis.

Speakers detailed local impacts: "If you vote to cut social workers, you will lose the confidence of school leaders, educators, families and students you are trusted to work in service of," said Michael Crest, principal of Sunset Elementary, citing the role social workers played after a recent campus homicide. School social workers and counselors described frequent crisis interventions, risk assessments, and day-to-day wellness work that they said could not be replaced by teachers.

Teachers and site leaders warned the proposed staffing model would roll back a districtwide seven-period middle- and high-school day, reduce electives and eliminate roles that help prevent crises and support instruction. "With a 6-period day, any student who needs an intervention may lose access to electives such as art, music and computer science," said Laura Simon, an art teacher at Visitation Valley Middle School. Principals from Thurgood Marshall, Lowell, and other high schools described increased caseloads and potential loss of assistant principals, counselors and safety staff.

Parents and community members framed the reserve and cuts as a choice between "a savings account" and services. "This year's money for this year's students—you have time to fix this, but not a lot," said a speaker from Parents for Public Schools, noting the board materials showed a large fund balance and that many in the audience viewed moving money into Fund 17 as premature while cuts threaten student services.

Several speakers asked for concrete transparency: a phased approach, clear metrics for when reserve funds could be used, exceptions for schools that have experienced recent tragedies, and an equity impact analysis showing how the staffing model would affect high-needs sites. Board members and staff acknowledged the concerns and said a fiscal stabilization plan and additional budget details would return to the board on Dec. 16.

The public comment period set the tone for the fiscal debate that followed; many speakers requested that the board prioritize students and site-based supports over creating a large board reserve, while staff argued a reserve is needed to protect the district from macroeconomic shocks and delayed state payments.