In an email sent to all SFUSD staff on Wednesday evening 2/2 SFUSD Superintendent Dr. Vincent Matthews stated, "While we are still analyzing the potential impacts, we do not believe the number of layoffs related to this provision of the TA will go beyond 35 educators at most and likely far fewer. "

This is the first time in writing that either the district or the UESF leadership has acknowledged that indeed the tentative agreement will necessarily increase layoffs above what we will already experience due to the SFUSD budget deficit.

While Dr. Matthews gives the estimate at 35 layoffs, he does not provide any numbers to support this number. UESF leadership has not provided any specific numbers to its members about layoffs. While it would be nice to believe Dr. Matthews, in a contract negotiation the district is our opposition, not our ally. Taking their claims at face value without supporting data is not good negotiating. It is not possible to cut $6.7 million from site budgets without laying off teachers. While this is being framed as a "pause on AP preps", the teachers who lose their jobs are not getting them back if the pause ends. They will likely move on to other districts, or other careers.

While the UESF leadership and SFUSD have not provided transparency around budgeting, the numbers are public. If you would like to educate yourself about budgeting and the impact of these cuts, please take the time to look over this document.

UESF leadership has stated that we are in the middle of a teacher shortage. We totally agree. Laying off our most recent hires and most vulnerable teachers will do nothing to address this problem. It will in fact make it worse.

Vote your conscience. Vote No.

THERE WILL BE CUTS

• The pay bonuses members will receive come at the expense of other members' jobs.

• UESF leadership has said “no cuts to classrooms,” but proposed cuts to AP funding strip $6.7 million from site budgets—we believe that 60+ teaching jobs will be lost!

• The youngest, most vulnerable teachers will lose jobs, and their consolidations compound pressure on other sites, who are also trying to save their youngest, most vulnerable staff.

• All these site-based cuts are in addition to the district-wide cuts of 10%.

• We should support and grow programs in SFUSD, not cut them for one-time bonuses.

FLAWED BARGAINING PROCESS

• There was no reason to rush this negotiating process; rushing weakened our bargaining position.

  • We could have stayed under the current contract, without these cuts, until our next contract is ratified.

  • The UESF bargaining team gave away members’ rights to pay for bonuses.

• Unlike in past negotiations, the current bargaining process lacked transparency.

  • UESF membership should know who, specifically, is negotiating on their behalf

  • Bargaining teams should include a broad range of members, from diverse positions and experiences, to represent the needs of ALL UESF members.

  • Bargaining teams should solicit input and feedback from the members throughout the process and provide regular, timely updates.

• The TA sets a dangerous precedent, signaling the union will allow the district to eliminate future programs and jobs, under any number of faulty and unsubstantiated pretexts

• The TA is DIVISIVE, pitting one division against another, cutting jobs for some by offering bonuses (bribes) to others.

IMPACTS ON PROGRAMS AND STUDENTS

• Cutting AP funding affects more than AP programs and will eliminate non-AP jobs, courses, and programs.

  • AP funding, like any other type of specialty funding (LEP, Title IX, Title I, etc.), supports student success by paying for a higher number of enriching, high-interest electives and student support classes; therefore, cutting AP funding also cuts these programs.

  • High schools will have to prioritize offering graduation requirements to students, leading to further cuts to elective programs and support classes (ex: counseling, peer resources programs, and AVID). This will exacerbate the effects of the district-mandated 10% cuts.

• SFUSD is already losing students. These cuts will cause more families to flee to other options with a wider variety of supports and electives, leading to even less funding overall.

• Changes to AP funding directly impact students in the following ways

  • 2,521 socioeconomically disadvantaged “low-income” students took AP exams at SFUSD in 2019-2020, according to CA Dept of ED.

  • AP options allow disadvantaged students to access college, reducing crippling college costs, and setting students up to succeed in college and beyond.

  • Studies show that students who take an AP class are more likely to graduate from college.

BETTER WAYS TO SERVE OUR MEMBERS

• Do not bargain away hard-fought benefits—fight to extend benefits to others

• Universal advocacy for more time, money, and support for all members of UESF

• Real, permanent wage increases that count toward retirement, for all members of UESF

• More prep time for elementary and Learning Resource teachers

• More time for academic support for struggling students

Above info a google doc

SFUSD budgets are complex and varied. Between Elementary, Middle, and High Schools there are many differences in needs, funding, programming, and state and district-mandated requirements. The proposed tentative agreement would cut $6.7 million from high school budgets. This will come directly out of the operating budgets of high schools across the district. This is not equitable, nor what our union is about. For a detailed breakdown of budgets and how the tentative agreement will impact them, see the linked document.

Follow this link to vote. All you need is your district employee ID and email.

We are a group of veteran and newer UESF members whose school sites would all be negatively impacted by the tentative agreement.

Please fill out this linked form to contact us.