Sacramento City Unified to start next 2 school years early to avoid nearly $40M state fine

The Sacramento City Unified School District will avoid a nearly $40 million penalty for losing eight days of instruction during the 2022 teachers strike after the state Board of Education approved a waiver on Wednesday.

As part of the agreement, the district will add eight days to each of the next two school years. That will move the start date for students up to Aug. 19 from Aug. 29 this summer.

“We are pleased that the State Board of Education approved our District’s plan to invest in additional days of instruction that our students deserve,” Board of Education President Lavinia Phillips said in a statement. “We appreciate the collaboration with our labor partners and the thoughtful consideration of the State Board of Education that has resulted in this waiver.”

SCUSD’s “learning recovery plan,” which was reached along with the Sacramento City Teachers Association, says the district and the teachers union have committed to use the money to hire additional staff at schools. The plan also resolves “several outstanding SCTA grievances and unfair labor practice charges,” according to the district. 

The fine came down in 2022 after teachers and other school staff went on strike March 23 to April 1, looking for higher wages, better health benefits and for the district to address what they felt were staffing shortages that led to unsafe working conditions. 

Students lost eight school days over that time, bringing the district under the 180 days of instruction required by the state. But the district and the unions weren’t able to reach an agreement on adding days back after the end of the strike. 

Last month, the Sacramento City Unified Board of Education voted to approve the plan to add the 16 days and send it to the state for approval. Cancy McArn, chief human resource services officer for the district, said they looked at a number of options to add the hours back.

“This was the best we could come up with given the limitations,” she said. “We recognize these are not the same students that lost instructional time, but we recognize it’s an opportunity to give more instructional time.”

At the time, board members acknowledged the difficulties the plan could present for students and families. 

“Families might feel like, first of all, why is this so delayed? And second of all … why are my students being punished with more school?,” board member Taylor Kayatta said. “This is going to be a burden on our families and I really wish the law was better in this area, that there were other things we could do.”