The Facts

SFUSD says it signed a tentative two-year agreement with United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) Teachers Union at 5:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 13, ending the four-day strike.

GrowSF reviewed the full tentative agreement PDF (13 pages). Here’s the deal, plus what the District initially offered, what UESF demanded, and what the neutral fact-finder recommended in the lead-up to the strike. The deal is roughly in-between the initial offer and the fact-finder's recommendations, and significantly less than the union's initial demands, reflecting the fiscal reality of the district.

Side-by-side: offer vs demand vs recommendations vs final contract

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the district's initial offer, the union's demands, the neutral fact-finder's recommendations, and the final contract agreement for key disputed items:

More details on the contract agreement

TEACHER PAY: 4% over two years plus three added work days

What they agreed to:

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2025.
• 2% raise effective July 1, 2026.
• Three added work days: two added to the end of 2025–26, and one added to the beginning of 2026–27.

This is roughly equivalent to a 5% raise over two years, but it comes with more working days. Since no reduction in prep periods, paid leave, or other duties was part of the deal, layoffs are now looking likely for the upcoming school year.

Note that the date for the first raise is in the past. That's because teachers have been working without a contract since July 2025, so the raises are retroactive to the start of the school year.

What the union demanded:

• 9% to 14% over three years

What the district offered:

• 2% raise effective July 1, 2025
• 2% raise effective July 1, 2026

The district stated that these raises would be paid for based upon savings accomplished by eliminating AP Prep periods for teachers, paid sabbatical leaves, department head preps and stipends, and class size limits.

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• 6% over two years (3% + 3%)

DEPENDENT HEALTH CARE: 50% employer contribution first year, 100% employer contribution second year

What they agreed to:

• Starting July 1, 2026, the district pays 50% of the employee contribution for the Kaiser HMO plan at the employee+1 and family coverage levels.
• Starting Jan. 1, 2027, the district pays 100% of the total premium for Kaiser at employee-only, employee+1, and family coverage levels.
• Members choosing a non-Kaiser plan pay only the difference between that plan and Kaiser.
• Eligibility is defined as working 50% or more of a full-time assignment and already receiving an employee-only premium contribution.

What the union demanded:

• Permanent 100% employer contribution for dependent health coverage (no cost to employees)

What the district offered:

• District-paid dependent health coverage during the contract term only, paid as a $24,000 "benefits allowance"

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• A temporary solution using existing parcel tax revenues (2008's Proposition A parcel tax) to cover dependent health care costs, with a recommendation to revisit permanent coverage later

NON-EDUCATOR RAISES: 8.5% over two years

What they agreed to:

Fon non-educator staff:

• 4.5% raise effective July 1, 2025
• 4% effective July 1, 2026

The agreement also includes several other classified provisions that didn’t get much attention in early coverage, including:

• A 5% differential for paraeducators providing specified specialized medical services.
• A change to bi-monthly pay for classified staff effective July 1, 2026.
• Security aides being offered an 8-hour workday effective July 1, 2026.

What the union demanded:

• 14% raises for non-educator staff

What the district offered:

• 2% + 2% raises
• Augmenting salaries (i.e. paying more) for hard-to-staff special education paraeducators

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• Same as educators: 3% + 3% raises

CLASS SIZE: no change

What they agreed to:

• Retains the existing class size language, which emphasizes class size goals rather than enforceable limits (Class Size Article 9, including 9.5).

What the union demanded:

• Convert class size goals into enforceable limits

What the district offered:

• Retain existing class size language

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• Retain existing class size language

SPECIAL EDUCATION WORKLOAD: no immediate overhaul, but new processes, supports, and funding

What they agreed to:

Early reporting often summarized changes to special education as “no major workload change” or “no immediate overhaul.” That’s directionally true—this isn’t a wholesale districtwide workload-model replacement. But the contract does add multiple specific workload and support mechanisms, including:

• Caseload overages: within 15 workdays of exceeding the applicable goal, there must be a consultation; then, within 15 workdays after that consultation, one of the following remedies may be implemented: (a) overload pay of $1,000 per semester per student over the goal, only when the caseload is not more than two students over, or (b) additional staff, or (c) reassignment.
• A stronger set of “equitable distribution of workload” expectations, including an escalation path to a Joint Special Education Committee if not resolved at the site and supervisor level.
• Elementary compliance time: uninterrupted time during the student day of 60 minutes per week.
• Secondary compliance period: encouragement to provide a compliance period, plus the district committing $2 million in 2026–27 (in collaboration with the Joint Special Education Committee) to fund compliance periods where they don’t exist.
• A “complexity indicators” framework and a required response: when a unit member flags complexity indicators, the Joint Special Education Committee reviews within 15 days and can implement supports like assessment coverage, adjusted schedules, substitute release days, clerical help, temporary staffing, or centralized specialists.
• A stated $2 million per school year budget for special education improvements.

What the union demanded:

• Immediate districtwide implementation of a new workload model

What the district offered:

• A pilot program to test a new workload model

What the neutral fact-finder recommended:

• A pilot program to test a new workload model (the report does not clearly state an automatic districtwide rollout trigger)

The Context

Before the strike, SFUSD publicly described a proposed three-year “stability package” featuring district-paid family health benefits, a special-education workload pilot, added pay for hard-to-staff paraeducator roles, and a 6% raise spread over three years (2% per year). That was outlined in the district’s Jan. 31 negotiations update.

GrowSF’s Feb. 6 “School Strike Facts” Special Report compiled the key disputed items (and the neutral fact-finder’s recommendations). In that accounting, UESF was pushing for significantly larger raises (9% to 14% over three years) and permanent district-paid dependent health coverage at Kaiser rates, along with broader changes on special-education workload and other non-wage issues.

For completeness, the neutral chair’s full findings are in the public fact-finding report.

The GrowSF Take

This deal was always going to end this way. The union leadership knew the district didn't have the money for their full set of demands, and the district knew it would have to balance any increases in one area with cuts in another. It's ultimately entirely unsurprising that the final agreement is roughly in line with the district’s last public offer and the neutral fact-finder’s recommendations. The financial reality always led here.

So 50,000 kids lost a week of school, parents lost a week of work, and the city lost a week of economic activity, all for a deal that was always going to be in this ballpark. And we think that this deal is likely to result in teacher layoffs for the upcoming school year, because the raises weren't accompanied by corresponding cuts elsewhere, and the strike cost the district at least $28 million, according to Superintendent Su's estimates.