SFUSD Fact-Finding Report — Explained

Plain English: One person is neutral (the chair). Each side also has a panel member (SFUSD and UESF).

When you read the recommendation, keep in mind: the chair’s view tends to be the “middle” that’s meant to be defensible to the State and to the public. The union member’s dissent at the end explains where UESF thinks the chair was too conservative.

Plain English: This isn’t a new disagreement — bargaining ran for months, then formally hit “impasse,” then mediation failed, and only then did it go to factfinding.

Working without a contract means pay/benefits generally stay at the prior agreement’s terms while bargaining continues — which is part of why both sides feel urgency.

Plain English: The report is structured around a list of disputed contract topics (“issues”).

You can think of each issue as a separate decision: wages, dependent healthcare, special education working conditions, sanctuary policies, contracting out, AI, health & safety processes, class size, and staffing levels.

Plain English: SFUSD’s plan is “2% per year” and it says it needs to pay for that by cutting other contract provisions (like preps/sabbaticals) and avoiding new costs (like class-size caps).

This matters because it shows the District isn’t treating raises as “free” — it’s tying raises to offsets elsewhere.

Plain English: The neutral chair lands on a compromise: bigger than SFUSD’s 2% ask, but smaller than UESF’s 9% ask.

The key rationale isn’t “what’s fair” in the abstract — it’s “what will the State approve,” given SFUSD’s oversight status.

Plain English: The chair is saying the union’s wage demand is not just expensive — it’s also above what the chair sees as “typical” when compared to inflation metrics and other districts.

This doesn’t mean educators aren’t under pressure from Bay Area costs — it means the chair thinks this particular number is too far above the inflation benchmarks to justify under State oversight.

Plain English: This is about dependent coverage (spouses/kids), not just the employee’s own plan.

The headline is cost: the report frames the union proposal as roughly $14M/year.

Plain English: The chair’s “path” for dependent healthcare is: use a parcel tax funding mechanism now, via a separate agreement (MOU), to get to 100% coverage without baking a new permanent expense into the core contract under oversight.

Whether you like this depends on your view of risk: the chair is optimizing for “State-approvable” in the short term; the union prefers locking the benefit into the CBA as ongoing.

Plain English: Caseload counts students; workload tries to capture the real time demands (meetings, documentation, intensity of services).

The report frames the workload model as significantly more expensive (it cites $22M/year).

Plain English: The chair doesn’t recommend immediately switching the whole district to a workload model, but does recommend a pilot to pressure-test solutions.

This is a common “bridge” recommendation: acknowledge a real problem, but avoid a districtwide cost increase during oversight.

Plain English: This isn’t about whether SFUSD should support immigrant families — it’s about whether this belongs inside a labor contract as a mandatory bargaining topic.

The chair’s framing suggests the legal question (“mandatory subject”) is a gating factor.

Plain English: The chair is saying: even if the goal is admirable, the specific proposal doesn’t fit the legal category required to put it into a binding labor contract.

The chair recommends a joint resolution instead (a political/values statement), rather than enforceable contract language.

Plain English: This is a tension between continuity of services (district flexibility) and limiting privatization (union concern).

The chair later pushes SFUSD to reduce reliance on consultants, but doesn’t fully embrace all union restrictions in the core contract.

Plain English: Even if SFUSD keeps some ability to contract out, the chair is explicitly calling out consultant/contract spend as a place to find savings.

This becomes the chair’s “pay-for” to improve wages/conditions later, especially once oversight eases.

Plain English: SFUSD is proposing a “study/working group first, bargain later” approach. UESF is proposing immediate contract language.

In the chair’s conclusion, most of these non-wage issues end up as “status quo for now,” largely because the report says there wasn’t enough bargaining/evidence on them once dependent benefits became the sticking point.

Plain English: This dispute mixes operational burden (staffing/training) with legal compliance (student privacy under FERPA).

A typical “compromise space” here is process improvements without creating a large new administrative system — but the chair ultimately recommends maintaining status quo on this issue in the conclusion.

Plain English: A “goal” is aspirational; a “limit” is enforceable and usually triggers costs (hiring more teachers or paying overage penalties).

The chair’s conclusion is status quo on this item, citing cost and lack of sufficient evidence in the record to justify the shift right now.

Plain English: The chair isn’t saying class size doesn’t matter — the chair is saying the record presented didn’t justify changing the contract language given the budget/oversight constraints.

This is also a signal to UESF: if they want enforceable caps later, they’ll need stronger, specific evidence on impacts and costs.

Plain English: This is the biggest single-dollar non-wage proposal in the list: adding nurses, social workers, counselors/deans, and ratios.

Even people who like the idea have to grapple with the scale: $82.1M/year is a large recurring commitment during a period when the report repeatedly emphasizes oversight constraints.

Plain English: The chair recommends not changing AI, health/safety, class size, or equitable staffing language in this contract cycle.

The report links that outcome to limited negotiation/evidence once talks became dominated by dependent benefits and wages.

Plain English: The chair isn’t free to pick any outcome. The law tells the panel what to weigh: ability to pay, comparables, CPI/COLA, and other relevant equities.

That’s why the recommendation repeatedly references inflation metrics and State oversight — they’re central to the legal framework, not side notes.

Plain English: The report situates this dispute in the scale of SFUSD: large workforce, many schools, and a broad list of unresolved contract topics.

It also flags the two “big rocks” that drive everything else: compensation and dependent benefits.

Plain English: Both sides bring budget narratives. UESF argues SFUSD can redirect money (especially away from contracting out). SFUSD argues declining enrollment and oversight makes big new costs unsafe.

This section is important because later the chair’s recommendation turns on which side met the burden of showing where the money would come from.

Plain English: Both sides use “comparables,” but they interpret the same landscape differently.

That’s why the chair later says the real task is reconciling differences in the data analysis, not debating whether educators deserve raises at all.

Plain English: Even if SFUSD expects to improve its certification, the report emphasizes it’s not guaranteed until the State signs off.

That uncertainty is a big part of why the chair recommends conservative commitments now.

Plain English: The report treats dependent benefits as both expensive and politically/administratively risky under oversight.

So the chair looks for an alternative funding mechanism (parcel tax) that can deliver the benefit without triggering a State rejection of the whole package.

Plain English: This is a big procedural driver of the outcome. The chair is saying: because talks narrowed to one sticking point, the evidentiary record on other issues is thin.

That lack of record helps explain why the chair recommends “status quo for now” on several working-conditions issues.

Plain English: The chair is explicitly grounding the recommendation in the legal framework (EERA criteria) and the record presented at the hearing.

So if the report says “not enough evidence,” it’s not just rhetoric — it’s the chair signaling the record didn’t support a change.

Plain English: This is the chair’s central constraint. The recommendation is designed to be “approvable” under oversight, not just desirable for either party.

That’s why the chair repeatedly emphasizes conservative commitments until SFUSD is outside State scrutiny.

Plain English: The chair is saying UESF didn’t convincingly show where the extra ongoing money would come from (beyond general claims about consultants/reserves).

In a factfinding setting, that matters: if you want a larger recurring commitment, you need a clear, credible funding path.

Plain English: This is the chair’s wage recommendation in full: 3% + 3% on a two-year deal. The chair thinks it’s both more defensible to the State and better for recruitment/retention than 2%.

Note the framing: it’s aligned to COLA/CPI (inflation benchmarks), not to the union’s comparables argument alone.

Plain English: The chair is effectively saying: if you want dependent benefits now, the least risky path is to attach it to a specific revenue source the public has already approved (parcel tax).

This shifts the question from “can SFUSD afford it in the General Fund?” to “can the community fund it explicitly?”

Plain English: The chair is acknowledging SFUSD had floated 6% over three years; since UESF wants two years, the chair “pulls” 1% from that third year into each of the first two years.

This is a bet that State funding improves and oversight eases, so SFUSD can handle more later — but it’s also why the chair doesn’t recommend jumping all the way to 9%.

Plain English: The chair is saying UESF’s evidence didn’t successfully rebut SFUSD’s financial risk argument (negative/qualified certification, revenue constraints).

So the chair picks a middle-ground number that still adds “some demand on the budget,” but avoids a State-rejected package.

Plain English: CPI is the report’s main “inflation yardstick.” The chair uses it to evaluate whether proposed raises keep pay steady in real terms.

This matters because the chair is trying to justify a number that looks reasonable beyond just local politics.

Plain English: The chair is basically saying 2% is likely too low relative to inflation (COLA/CPI).

That’s another reason the chair lands at 3%: it’s only slightly above those inflation benchmarks, but it’s enough to avoid falling behind.

Plain English: The chair is calling out bargaining posture — suggesting UESF’s strike posture reduced the room for iterative problem-solving on non-wage issues.

Whether you agree or not, this helps explain why the chair emphasizes compromise solutions that can be “fulfilled financially.”

Plain English: This sentence is the chair’s thesis statement: the recommendation is built around financial fragility and State oversight risk.

It’s also why the chair repeatedly prefers temporary/targeted solutions (like parcel tax funding for dependent benefits) over large new ongoing General Fund commitments.

Plain English: The chair recommends 3% + 3% wages, maintains status quo on most non-wage issues this cycle, and tries to route dependent benefits through parcel-tax funding rather than the main contract under oversight.

The chair is explicitly prioritizing a deal that (1) can be approved by the State, and (2) can actually be paid without forcing cuts that undermine schools.