1/13/26 Board of Education Meeting Summary
Heard during public comment: “Potential cuts were the worst case scenario, then 2 weeks later we are at the worst case, the cuts to staff are unacceptable, and will drive parents away from the district.” – Courtney Helland, public school mom and SF Parents advocate since 2020
- Election of officers: Phil Kim remains President; Jaime Huling remains Vice President
- Fiscal Health Back-and-Forth – Board vs. Superintendent:
- Budget remains flat despite challenges: The district will receive the same funding as last year due to decreased COLA that doesn’t reflect SF’s high costs, offset by one-time state money. Budget planning is complicated by ongoing UESF contract negotiations, which create uncertainty around staffing costs until an agreement is reached.
- Board pushes back on staffing plan rollout: Commissioners criticized the similarity between December’s rejected Fiscal Stabilization Plan and January’s Staffing Plan shared with schools, particularly regarding cuts to positions like social workers and the elimination of the Newcomer program at Visitation Valley MS without prior site leader consultation.
- Dr. Su defends the process: The Superintendent argued the Staffing Plan differs from the FSP, noting that elementary schools will receive social worker allocations (which the community advocated for). She emphasized this is early in a 6-month process meant to gather feedback from site leaders, with meetings scheduled over the next 2 weeks.
- President Kim clarifies his December vote: Kim explained he rejected the FSP not because he opposed fiscal responsibility, but because the board and community lacked sufficient context and information to make an informed decision at that time.
- Communication failures highlighted: Vice President Huling emphasized the district needs to clearly communicate this is the start of a 6-month process with nothing finalized, rather than letting families react to perceived imminent cuts, and must share information more broadly than requiring attendance at 3-hour summits.
.
Additional Meeting Details:
Nomination and Election of BOE Officers
After Public Comment, the first substantial agenda item was the nomination and election of 2026 BOE Officers. Despite some public sparring in the fall, the commissioners kept things positive and President Kim and Vice President Huling were both re-elected to their current positions with no challengers. There was a lot of appreciation shared for President Kim especially, and given the big lift of steering the BOE, as Commissioner Alexander aptly stated, “It is Thank You, not Congratulations.”
Fiscal & Operational Health Update
The discussion led by Deputy Superintendent Chris Mount-Benites was initially focused on State budget updates. He noted:
- COLA (based on National benchmarks, not local) went down, does not reflect SF costs, which negatively impacted SFUSD funding allocation
- There was one-time money provided by the state
- Net impact will be the same amount of money as last year
He also noted that without an agreement in place with UESF, there is a lot of variability that is hard to plan around until that gets settled.
The Commissioners then re-directed the conversation off-agenda to the Staffing Plan / Fiscal Stabilization Plan, which Dr. Su largely fielded.
Context (from our Cheat Sheet):
At the last BOE meeting, the Board unanimously rejected the Superintendent’s proposed Fiscal Stabilization Plan. The Board cited the need for more community engagement before approving the plan, which included controversial staffing cuts to positions like social workers and security guards.
The FSP is a technical document that demonstrates the willingness of the BOE to make cuts if needed. Because the BOE voted 6-0 to reject the FSP, Dr. Su and Deputy Superintendent Chris Mount-Benites are now working with the state to convince it that SFUSD is still worthy of a positive certification. (It is unclear whether or not / when they would have to vote to approve another one)
When commissioners noted that the FSP presented in December was very similar to the Staffing Plan shared with site leaders early January, Dr. Su countered that the Staffing Plan was quite different, and did include social worker allocations for all elementary schools (that SF Parents and others in the community advocated for).
President Kim then shared his frustration when he heard Dr. Su say that the FSP is not related to the Staffing Plan. Kim went on to explain that he voted it down in December because he felt the board and community did not have enough context to vote for the FSB. He was not making a statement about willingness to right the fiscal ship, but was rather making one about having enough information to make a decision.
Alexander also challenged that schools got a very similar staffing model to what was presented in December. He also criticized that the Newcomer program was shown to be eliminated at Visitation Valley MS by Central without talking to Site Leaders prior.
Dr. Su countered that
- This was early in a 6 month process
- Staffing models were shared now to get feedback from the site leaders
- She would be meeting with all site leaders in the next 2 weeks
- Restricted funds could be used to augment (as with last year, the district is mandating how with its guidelines)
Vice President Huling criticized the communication around this rollout, saying that the district should communicate clearly that this is the beginning of a 6 month process (with nothing set in stone as of yet), as the community does not seem to be hearing this, but rather reacting to what seem like likely cuts. Furthermore, she said that the District needs to get this information out to the public without families having to go to a 3 hour summit, and better communicate changes (e.g. where are the communications saying that we will still have Middle School health?)
Discussion of Superintendent’s Progress on Short Term Metrics
While mostly this discussion was positive, and the board praised Dr. Su’s focus on getting 97% of the classrooms to have a dedicated teacher, VP Huling pointed out there is room to grow in improving the District’s communication.