San Francisco school officials unanimously approved a health and safety agreement with unions, allowing schools to reopen before the end of the academic year.
The deal, approved during Tuesday’s school board meeting, is the first major hurdle to bringing early students back to classrooms for personal learning, although unions and the district are still at odds over how the school day when classrooms are reopened.
Any return to face-to-face classes – which is not a certainty – will likely take at least two months.
The district and the board faced increasing pressure from parents and city officials to reopen schools – including a process and possible revocation – and continue to face several obstacles before returning students to classrooms. They are now struggling to reach an agreement with teachers union leaders, who have expressed concern about the loss of learning, as well as possible outbreaks among staff and the community when students return.
A key component of the agreement approved on Tuesday allows return to classrooms as soon as the city reaches the red level, the second most restrictive level of the California reopening plan, if coronavirus vaccines are made available to school officials in the place. San Francisco is expected to reach the red level next week.
If the city progresses to the orange level, a less restrictive category with “moderate” spread of the virus, teachers and other staff would return without requiring vaccines.
The question now is what the school day will be like when schools reopen. The daily schedule of students and teachers is still pending, requiring an agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. As negotiations continue on these issues, labor leaders and district officials have expressed frustration with ongoing conversations about differences over how often students would be in class.
District officials released a proposal at a news conference on Tuesday – ahead of the board meeting – for younger students.
Superintendent Vince Matthews detailed the proposed reopening of the district for children from kindergarten to transition to second grade, including students with disabilities, noting that the district is struggling for more hours and days than the teachers’ union.
The district wants five hours a day, five days a week in schools with low demand for return to face-to-face learning and for pre-K and special education students. In such cases, children would be in school 25 hours a week.
The superintendent said that the union’s proposal would be to provide only 12 hours of face-to-face education in these schools, three hours a day, for four days a week, and one day of distance learning.
According to the union’s plan, “students and families would also spend a large part of the day making the transition” from home to school and vice versa, said Matthews.
“We don’t want to offer just part time,” he added. “We want to offer consistency.”
In response, the United Educators of San Francisco issued a statement that did not directly address the difference between the proposals, but said that after five days at the negotiating table discussing how to reopen schools before June, the union wants to bring in foreign aid.
“At this point, we believe that it is necessary to have a trusted mediator to intervene, as we have lost confidence in the Superintendent to manage this process,” said Susan Solomon, the union president.
Solomon said teachers believe the “fairest and most viable” timetable is for students to attend school “at least four days a week, even if it is half a day and that families who decide not to return will not be left out.”
The statement adds that students must remain with the same teacher they had throughout the year.
Several teachers spoke during public comments on Tuesday, saying it is critical that students stay with their current teacher, given the importance of relationships already built during a tumultuous period.
“I am asking the council to trust and value educators,” said Professor Betty Estrada.
The district’s strong pressure for its plan was the latest in a growing battle to reopen schools. The city attorney, with the support of Mayor London Breed, sued the district in early February, arguing that there was no concrete plan to bring the students back.
District and union plans require students to be seated 6 feet apart, which means that only 14 students can be in a single classroom.
Both plans divide primary schools into two categories: those with more requests for face-to-face instruction and those with fewer requests.
Matthews said that more than 80% of schools would probably be able to keep the limit of 14 people.
According to the district plan, school children with more requests for face-to-face instruction would attend classes twice a week throughout the day and learn at home for the other three days. In all, there would be 16 hours of live instruction each week, said Matthews.
In contrast, he said the union’s proposal for the same schools would provide 14 hours of live instruction with four half-days in the classroom per week. Children stayed at home doing distance learning once a week.
District officials said during a reopening update before the school council that there is still no set date for bringing students back, given the uncertainty about vaccines and when the city will enter the red or orange level.
In addition, all primary schools must be cleared by the Department of Public Health to reopen, but only six of the 64 primary schools have completed enrollment for face-to-face education.
There are no plans to bring back elementary and high school students.
Matthews said the district has heard many families who are anxious for more information, and school officials are trying to provide that.
“I know that many families are eagerly waiting for clarity,” he said.
Nanette Asimov and Jill Tucker are writers for the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: [email protected] [email protected] Twitter: @nanetteasimov @jilltucker