A new three-year contract for Seattle Public Schools employees is nearly approved. The tentative agreement was reached just hours before the start of the school year, as about 50,000 students returned to classrooms following tense negotiations. The document must be approved by members of the Seattle Education Association, which represents roughly 6,000 teachers, instructional assistants, secretaries, counselors and other workers, and then by the school board.
The agreement provides for salary increases of about 10% over three years. Certificated employees, including teachers, school counselors, psychologists and special education specialists, will receive a combined increase of approximately 9.8%, while classified staff will receive about 10.55%. The first category generally includes employees who need a state professional license, while the second includes teacher assistants and paraeducators, secretaries, cafeteria workers, custodians, bus drivers and other support staff. This is a legal and personnel classification, not a measure of the importance of the jobs.
In the first year, all employees will receive a 2.6% raise, matching the state-mandated cost-of-living adjustment. In subsequent years, salary increases will vary slightly by employee category. Classified staff will also receive additional raises based on seniority and special tax benefits.
One of the union’s main achievements was securing staffing guarantees. Elementary schools with more than 350 students must have a full-time social worker or counselor. In addition, the district plans to increase the number of nurses and psychologists serving multiple schools. The contract limits mandatory staff meetings to three one-hour meetings per month and protects teachers’ preparation and grading time on early-release days.
However, the agreement does not reduce class sizes — a demand that was especially important to some teachers. The union plans to seek additional state funding. Washington’s public schools receive most of their funding from the state budget, as well as from local property taxes and federal sources. Following the state Supreme Court’s ruling in the McCleary case, the government is required to provide “full and sufficient” funding for education, including salaries and basic staffing needs. The state determines funding formulas, student-teacher ratios and the amount of required funding. As a result, the district can redistribute its own resources, but it can generally hire more teachers and reduce class sizes on a sustained basis only if state funding increases under those formulas.
The agreement preserves additional pay for employees who replace absent colleagues or take additional students into their classrooms. It also strengthens protections for immigrant and LGBTQ+ employees, regulates the placement of surveillance cameras and governs the use of artificial intelligence.
Special education remained a separate point of contention. Students with special educational needs currently receive services under an individualized education program developed by the school, specialists and parents. Depending on their needs, students may learn in a mainstream classroom, a small separate group or a specialized program. The district currently has four program tracks, but administrators wanted to reduce that number to two so that more schools could offer the full range of services.
Such a consolidation could formally simplify the system while also creating broader student categories. As a result, some children might have more difficulty accessing the right program, receiving the necessary level of support or maintaining their familiar learning environment. Much will depend on placement criteria, staffing and the content of the new programs.
Instead of implementing an immediate overhaul, the parties agreed to an 18-month joint study involving the union and the local community. Final recommendations are expected by January 2028, after which a new model will be piloted in about one-third of the district’s 106 schools.
District leaders believe the pilot will make it possible to match staffing resources to students’ individual needs rather than relying solely on predetermined standards. Some employees worry that the district will retain too much influence and could impose a new system on schools without sufficient teacher involvement. However, the contract provides for equal participation by the union and administration in decision-making, as well as the option for employees to transfer out of schools participating in the experiment. Overall, both sides described the agreement as a significant compromise that will help retain workers while gradually revisiting the most difficult issues.
Based on: What Seattle teachers won — and compromised on — in their new contract