If any of the various stakeholders in the bitter conflict over reopening San Francisco schools thought a recently announced deal between the school district and its unions would dissuade the city from pursuing its lawsuit on the issue ... that is not the case.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera has amended the complaint against San Francisco's school district and its school board, adding three new allegations that include violations of California's constitution.
The new charges amend a petition filed last Wednesday in San Francisco Superior Court seeking an order directing San Francisco Unified School District to prepare for bringing students back into classrooms.
The suit claimed the district has been derelict in creating a plan required by the California Education Code, one which describes actions taken to provide classroom instruction "whenever possible, particularly for pupils who have experienced significant learning loss due to school closures in the 2019-20 school year," or for those at greater risk of learning loss in the future.
The lawsuit notes that county and state health departments, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have said it is safe for in-person classes to resume, as reported transmission within schools has been low.
The amended complaint, filed Tuesday, adds that the failure to provide public school students in-person learning violates the California Constitution by depriving children of their right to attend public school and by discriminating against them on the basis of wealth, which runs afoul of the equal protection clause. The filing also accuses the district of violating state law to "offer in-person instruction to the greatest extent possible."
The deal on health and safety measures required to reopen schools, agreed to by school unions and SFUSD — announced a few days after the original lawsuit was filed — would return students to classrooms when the city graduates to the red tier of the state's risk-assessment system, provided all school employees have been offered vaccinations. Alternatively, if the city moves into the orange tier, which is considered one level safer in terms of coronavirus transmission, students could return to classes regardless of the availability of vaccines.
But Herrera says the agreement, as publicized, is insufficient.
“We’re pleased the school district and its unions finally seem to be making some progress on reopening, but it’s not nearly enough,” he said in a statement. “There are more questions than answers at this point. We have not seen an agreement, but our understanding is that it still doesn’t cover classroom instruction. Which kids will be able to go back? When will they be able to? How many days a week? How many hours a day? These are just some of the questions the district hasn’t answered for parents."
Responding to the latest legal filing, Laura Dudnick, a spokesperson for SFUSD, said in an email:
We wholeheartedly agree that students are better served with in-person learning. Bringing students back to school in a large public school district is very complex and requires partnership. We are committed to continuing to work together with the City and labor unions to offer in-person learning options to students as soon as possible.
Dudnick said the district is eager for the city to make vaccines available.
In an emailed statement, United Educators of San Francisco President Susan Solomon criticized the city's legal move.
"We are frustrated to see the San Francisco Mayor and City Attorney further politicize this difficult moment and continue to attempt to redirect our energy to a frivolous and distracting lawsuit," she wrote. "We welcome the opportunity to work with the Mayor’s Office to assure that vaccinations for teachers and school staff start earlier than February 24. If the Mayor moves quickly to vaccinate teachers and staff and helps provide testing for schools, then we too can move quickly and get our students back to the classroom safely this school year."
Speaking at a regular COVID-19 briefing Tuesday, Breed indicated the lawsuit was a last resort.
"There's no way I would support using the legal system to get our schools open if we were on a path to move forward," she said.
Breed said she wasn't unsupportive of the agreement between SFUSD and the unions. But she echoed Herrera in stating that it's not specific enough.
"It doesn't provide any timelines and exactly what we're going to actually need to do," she said. "I have a lot of questions, just like a lot of parents have a lot of questions about the agreement."
When asked when she expected schools to reopen, Breed said, "Definitely not this school year. I don't think it's realistic to expect schools to reopen this school year."
In a subsequent tweet thread, Supervisor Hillary Ronen disagreed with that assessment.
