The San Francisco Unified School District was all set to approve a contract to provide “ChatGPT EDU” to 12,000 users across the district at the Feb. 10 school board meeting. The order form was signed by the district’s technology services officer on Jan. 22, and countersigned by OpenAI’s head of education four days later. 

Then the district nixed it from the agenda. Why?

District officials did not address the delay, but said the proposal would give district staff ChatGPT “accounts and free training,” and “does not involve any financial cost to the district.” It is unclear if that means a private funder is behind the effort. The contract shared with the school board had a price, but it was redacted. 

The OpenAI contract had been scheduled for the school board’s “consent calendar,” meaning that it could have been approved by the board without public discussion. But SFUSD is also in the middle of heated labor talks, and is facing down the potential of a historic teacher’s strike, perhaps as soon as Feb. 9. 

Ahead of an emergency board meeting on Tuesday, school board members raised concerns on Monday night about the contract’s heavily redacted details, including its total cost. By Tuesday morning, the agenda item was removed, according to the district’s spokesperson. 

It is unclear how much the contract would have cost the district. It would have applied for one year, from Feb. 2, 2026, to Feb. 1 next year, but the price of the agreement was redacted from a document shared with the school board, as was a bullet point discussing the terms of the contract. 

ChatGPT Edu provides access to OpenAI’s flagship AI model for use in the classroom and by administrators. It is used by at least 15 school systems, according to OpenAI’s site, including Oxford University and Columbia. A similar contract inked by the California State University system reportedly cost the schools $15 million for 500,000 users for one year. 

When the tool was launched last year, it was marketed towards universities, not public schools. 

“This proposed agreement would establish clear guardrails around data protection, privacy, and responsible use,” Laura Dudnick, a district spokesperson, wrote in a statement.

Board members raised questions after they noticed the document attached to the agenda, and the redacted price. 

During a board meeting held on Jan. 27, the school board gave Superintendent Maria Su the power to redact information on an agenda item up until 72 hours before a meeting. That’s what Su appeared to have done in this case. 

Typically, San Francisco public documents are redacted to protect personal privacy by blocking out addresses, names, and contact information — not information about pricing or scope of a contract. 

The agreement comes in the midst of labor negotiations with the teachers union, which has threatened to walk out of school classrooms in the coming days if an agreement to raise salaries and improve healthcare plans, among other demands, is not made. 

The union has also demanded to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom to not negatively impact student learning or replace educator’s jobs. As of May of last year, according to the union, the district rejected the language of these demands. 

The district, which is seeking to reduce its budget by $102 million, has declared an impasse in ongoing negotiations, citing a lack of funds. 

The strike could begin as early as next week.