Seattle schools open on time, but families should never have faced a last-minute strike threat

Seattle parents went to bed Tuesday night not knowing for certain whether their children would be going to school Wednesday morning.

For families, that uncertainty meant more than wondering about the first day of school. Parents were searching for emergency child care, considering whether they would have to miss work, and preparing to explain to their children why school might suddenly be canceled. Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson had even directed the city to prepare four community centers to accommodate children if educators walked out.

Thankfully, that disruption was avoided. Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and the Seattle Education Association (SEA) teachers union reached a tentative agreement late Tuesday, allowing classes to begin as scheduled Sept. 2.

That is good news. But based on the timeline laid out by Superintendent Ben Shuldiner, families have reason to ask why negotiations were allowed to get this close to a strike in the first place.

According to Shuldiner, SPS asked to begin bargaining on March 6 and said it was prepared to meet immediately. The teachers union did not agree to its first bargaining session until June 25, nearly four months later. Later in the process, the district says it responded within 24 hours to a comprehensive union proposal submitted Aug. 24, then waited several days for a response before negotiations eventually required a state mediator.

Adding to the questions about SEA’s leadership during that delay, union president Ibijoke “Ibi” Idowu was dealing with a serious controversy of her own. A Seattle Public Schools investigation concluded in June that it was “more likely than not” that Idowu grabbed a third-grade student with autism hard enough to cause bruising, among other substantiated findings involving students. Idowu has disputed the investigation’s findings, while some union members have called for her removal.

Families should be able to expect both sides to approach negotiations with enough urgency that the threat of closing schools does not become leverage at the final hour.

Whatever the intention, allowing negotiations to stretch until just hours before the first bell put enormous pressure on parents and students who had no seat at the bargaining table.

Seattle families have been here before. A teachers strike delayed school for five days in 2022. Four years later, parents were again preparing to scramble for child care, rearrange work schedules, and watch their children lose classroom time because adults had not yet reached an agreement.

Now attention should turn to what the new contract will cost.

Initial details show guaranteed salary increases of 2.6% this school year, 3.6% next year, and another 2.6% in 2028-29, nearly 9% over three years. Eligible employees can also receive annual step increases averaging about 4%. The agreement reportedly includes six additional school psychologists and full-time counselors or social workers at larger elementary schools, among other provisions.

Seattle taxpayers deserve to know whether the entire package is sustainable.

SPS is already confronting serious financial problems. Its annual operating budget has grown from roughly $453 million two decades ago to about $1.35 billion today, while the district entered this school year working to close an approximately $87 million budget gap.

Avoiding a strike was important. Avoiding another budget crisis matters too.

As the agreement moves toward ratification, SPS should clearly explain its total cost and whether paying for it will require cuts to classrooms, special education, mental health services, facilities, or other priorities that directly affect students.

Shuldiner deserves credit for giving families an unusually candid look at what was happening during negotiations. Public-sector contracts involve public dollars and essential public services. That level of transparency should be the expectation from the beginning, not something families receive only when a strike is hours away.

Seattle parents should not have to choose between supporting good teachers and expecting their school district to spend responsibly. They should be able to expect both.