More than 250 Seattle Times readers evaluated the actions of Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and the Seattle Education Association (SEA) during negotiations over a new three-year contract. The survey was conducted after an agreement was reached covering the period from Sept. 1, 2026, through Aug. 31, 2029. The deal was reached nearly 11 p.m. the night before the school year began, avoiding a strike and delayed classes but leaving families uncertain until the last minute.
As part of collective bargaining, the two sides discussed salaries, benefits, class sizes, workloads and learning conditions. Without an agreement, the process could have moved to mediation, a strike authorization vote and an actual strike. The contract must be ratified by union members and approved by the school board. Such agreements typically prevent school closures and delays to the start of the school year, but they can affect schedules, school programs, salaries and local spending.
The new contract provides union employees with salary increases of about 10% over three years. The agreement also includes an 18-month study and testing period for potential changes in special education, a requirement that elementary schools with more than 350 students have a full-time school psychologist or social worker, and an increase in the number of psychologists and nurses. SEA represents about 6,000 teachers, instructional assistants, counselors, secretaries and other district employees.
The financial disputes unfolded against the backdrop of an $87 million SPS budget shortfall. District expenses, particularly for salaries, health insurance and special education, were rising faster than revenue. Washington state funds basic educational services, but that funding is insufficient to cover all the costs of a large urban district. Local taxes make up part of the difference, but their amount is limited by law and depends on the strength of the tax base. Declining enrollment created additional pressure: buildings, transportation and a significant portion of the workforce cannot be reduced quickly in proportion to the drop in enrollment.
Nearly 60% of survey participants were parents or relatives of SPS students, about 15% worked for the district, and 8% were current or former students. About 28% gave the school district an “A,” while another 29% gave it a “B.” Readers particularly praised new Superintendent Ben Shuldiner for his regular, detailed updates, open discussion of the budget shortfall and willingness to discuss the progress of negotiations.
Some respondents described Shuldiner’s communication as more candid and substantive than that of previous administrations. They responded positively to his participation in the negotiations and to a lengthy letter to families in which he explained the district’s financial problems and addressed what he called widespread misinformation. At the same time, 16% of readers gave SPS a “D,” and 13% gave it an “F.” Critics condemned the prolonged negotiations and said district leadership had subjected families to unnecessary risk and uncertainty.
Potential changes to special education and the tone of Shuldiner’s letter drew particular criticism. Under federal law, the district must provide children with disabilities with individualized education programs (IEPs), specialized instruction, assistance from aides and other services — both in general-education classrooms and in specialized programs. Parents feared that cuts to funding or staffing would lead to overcrowded classrooms, less individualized support and failures to meet IEP requirements.
The district pointed to the budget shortfall and the need to reallocate resources, while SEA emphasized employee workloads, safety and service quality. As a result, the dispute over special education involved children’s rights, working conditions and the district’s financial stability at the same time. Some parents also found the superintendent’s letter excessively long, unprofessional or accusatory. Shuldiner acknowledged that some readers may have perceived his message as too harsh, but said the district had been placed in a difficult position after remaining silent for too long in response to conflicting information.
The union received even harsher ratings: roughly one-third of participants gave SEA an “F,” while nearly one-quarter gave it a “D.” Readers criticized the organization for continuing negotiations until the final night, using emotional rhetoric, showing insufficient willingness to compromise in light of the budget shortfall, and demanding salary increases that many considered high compared with other regions of the United States. An SEA representative, by contrast, said the union was grateful to its supporters and considered the contract an important achievement for students and employees.
However, about 16% of respondents gave the union an “A,” and 14% gave it a “B.” They praised the work of the bargaining team, particularly its resistance to district plans to change funding and staffing for special education. SEA supporters believed the union had defended the interests of students, educators and support staff, while also standing up for the services promised to children with special educational needs.
Based on: Readers grade SPS, teachers union after negotiations