SFUSD Board Meeting Recap — June 9th, 2026
Item F.3 SFUSD’s FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget, First Reading (presentation link here, report link here)
As we noted in our Cheat Sheet:
After entering “negative” budget certification in May 2024, SFUSD is sharing a proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget that finally looks “positive” with SFUSD no longer in deficit spending.
The board discussion largely focused on two competing realities: celebrating that SFUSD has made remarkable progress stabilizing its finances, but continuing to question whether the district has a clear strategy for improving student outcomes (and whether the budget is tied to that strategy).
District staff shared that the structural deficit has fallen dramatically, from approximately $30 million in 2025-26 to roughly $1.2 million in 2026-27, with positive fund balances projected through 2028-29. The California Department of Education commended the district’s financial turnaround while cautioning that budget assumptions remain subject to change.
However, several commissioners expressed frustration that budget presentations continue to focus primarily on operational and compliance requirements rather than showing how resources are aligned to student outcome goals.
Commissioner Alexander argued that if there is no clear strategy connecting spending decisions to student outcomes, he could not support the budget. He referenced the decision to remove the core substitute teacher from Marshall, because the school no longer qualified for it under standards set by the budget team, as an example of rule following without strategic rationale and focus on what is good for students, Commissioner Fisher echoed concerns that budget discussions often focus on whether spending is allowable rather than whether it is effective.
A recurring theme throughout the budget discussion was the loss of the district’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework during fiscal stabilization. Several commissioners questioned how schools are currently receiving targeted resources and whether budget decisions are being made strategically enough to improve literacy, math, attendance, and other student outcomes.
The budget returns for adoption on June 23.
Item G.2 SELPA Local Plan and Annual Budget and Service Plan (link here)
As we shared in our Cheat Sheet:”San Francisco administers a Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), which is required to submit an annual service plan and budget to provide a free and appropriate public education to all (public, charters, private/parochial, and non-public school) students within its area. The number of students with disabilities who are served grows each year (16.6% of SFUSD students had IEPs in 2025). The SELPA budget is increasing from $279.3 million in 2025-26 to $352.1 million for 26-27.”
District staff attributed much of the increase to additional staffing and transportation costs. The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for Special Education highlighted ongoing concerns including 35 vacant Special Education teacher positions, 96 paraeducator vacancies, assessment backlogs, and high absenteeism among students with disabilities.
Commissioners spent considerable time discussing whether growing investments in Special Education are translating into improved services and outcomes for students and families. Ultimately, the board postponed action on the SELPA plan until June 23 to allow additional conversations between Special Education staff, finance teams, and parent leaders.
Item G.3 Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Annual Presentation (presentation link here)
Item G.4 Superintendent’s PEEF Expenditure Plan for SY 2026-27 (presentation link here)
The Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF) Community Advisory Committee continued to raise concerns about the use of enrichment dollars to support mandated Special Education services.
As a reminder, PEEF was established to fund educational enrichments such as sports, libraries, arts, and music programs. For 2026-27, approximately $25 million of PEEF funding is still proposed to support Special Education costs.
The CAC argued that these funds should be used for enrichment programming whenever possible, while district staff noted the ongoing financial pressures within the Special Education system.
One positive development: instructional coaching positions that had previously been funded through PEEF were moved to another funding source (a grant) in response to CAC feedback.
The board approved the PEEF expenditure plan unanimously, 7-0.