Students and parents urge Board of Education to reject cuts tied to tentative labor agreement

Dozens of students and parents told the San Francisco Board of Education on Feb. 22 that a tentative agreement and proposed budget cuts threaten teachers and programs they say are central to student learning and equity.

Student speakers described the potential loss of "roughly 60" full‑time teaching positions, saying cuts would eliminate Advanced Placement electives, world‑language classes (including the only Korean teacher in the district), ethnic studies, orchestra, peer resources and wellness programs. At least one student said the measure would "destroy important programs like peer resources, wellness, AP electives and art programs" and that "you are firing newer, younger teachers. You are firing our future." The comments came during the board's public‑comment period and were delivered by high‑school and middle‑school students, several naming particular teachers and sponsors they want the board to preserve.

Parents and teachers echoed the students' concerns. A teacher at Cobb Elementary said the school was being redesignated from Tier 3 to Tier 2 and warned that losing MTSS staff and a kindergarten class could threaten the school's viability. A teacher from Junipero Serra said the school's $200,000 cut forced local leaders to absorb program costs and that losing a kindergarten is a "recipe for colocation and closure." Another caller raised payroll problems tied to the Empower payroll system that have led to inconsistent paychecks.

The district did not take a formal vote on the budget items during the portion of the meeting that was held. Multiple commenters explicitly asked the board to "rescind non‑reelections" and to reconsider any agreement that would result in layoffs. One union representative delivered a statement describing longstanding staff turnover and urged reversal of a site administrator's non‑reelection decision.

The public comment period also included pleas to preserve programs described by students as safety nets and identity spaces — for example, ROTC/JROTC and GRTC programs — and requests to keep specific staff members who serve as advisers for student groups such as the Black Student Union.

The board did not respond to individual public‑comment requests during the period (board rules limit responses during public comment). Staff and board members later said some items would be taken up when the agenda resumed in a re‑noticed meeting.

Next steps: Board leadership announced the meeting would be adjourned and re‑noticed after counsel identified a public‑notice defect (see separate article). The items related to staffing and the tentative agreement were not decided at this session and will be considered when the board reconvenes.