closures – ��

LAUSD Could Face Layoffs, Furloughs, Closures Amid Projected $231M Shortfall

Mallika Seshadri — Tue, 04 Aug 2026 11:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Los Angeles Unified School District leaders say they are confident they can persuade county officials that the district can avoid a projected cash shortfall and remain under local control, and are preparing for budget cuts, possible furloughs and school consolidation.

A July 2 from the Los Angeles County Office of Education found that LAUSD met the criteria for a “Lack of Going Concern,” meaning the district’s financial plan does not show it can meet its future cash obligations. County officials project Los Angeles Unified will face a $231 million cash shortfall in 2027.

The finding, which also comes after the district failed to make sufficient cuts during the 2025-26 budget, triggered a 45-day period for LAUSD to revise its current fiscal plan for the coming school year. The county has appointed an expert to work with the district during that process. If Los Angeles Unified does not make adequate changes, a county advisor would be appointed, giving the county authority to overrule district decisions.

Like many California districts, LAUSD’s financial challenges stem from a combination of declining enrollment, the expiration of Covid relief funding and rising operative costs. Enrollment fell 3% during the 2025-26 school year in Los Angeles, reducing state funding tied to student attendance. Still, the amount LAUSD has received from the state has increased over the past three years.

The county’s letter also cites a series of union contracts reached this spring that will cost the district more than $2.5 billion over the term of the contracts. Union leaders have disputed the severity of the district’s financial crisis.

Superintendent Andrés Chait a press conference last week that the county office of education wants the district to prove it can implement its proposed savings, including possible furloughs, and explain its alternative cost-cutting options.

“I just think it’s really important for board members to take very seriously the process that this state has in place to ensure that every district is fiscally solvent,” said Yolie Flores, president and CEO of Families in Schools, a nonprofit focused on student success. A former LAUSD board vice president, Flores was also appointed to the district’s new revenue task force.

District officials and independent experts say LAUSD’s fiscal challenges have been building for years and are not unexpected. They’ve also warned that the district will likely need to make difficult spending cuts to restore its long-term financial stability, and that additional state funding alone is unlikely to solve its structural budget problems.

“Now we’re in a situation where this constriction is still happening, but now the artificial floor is gone,” said Stephen Aguilar, a professor of education at the University of Southern California. “So now, we’re falling through to the basement, and we’re sort of in this emergency period.”

Painful cuts are expected

The district’s most difficult decisions are expected to come over the next several months. Board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said schools will receive their budget allocations for the 2027-28 academic year this fall, and the board will discuss workforce reductions needed to balance the budget.

She also said that the district must carefully manage workforce reductions so high-needs schools aren’t disproportionately affected by staff turnover.

The board will also need to weigh other cost-saving measures, including furlough days — a prospect Ortiz Franklin acknowledged could feel like a “slap in the face for our labor unions” — and possible changes to employee health benefit contributions.

Ortiz Franklin also questioned whether the district could successfully save $200 million by reassessing contracts with outside vendors, as some of the items being procured cannot be made in-house.

Looking beyond the immediate budget crisis, she said school consolidation is likely unavoidable as enrollment continues to decline, with those conversations expected to begin this fall.

The board will meet Aug. 11 in a likely closed session meeting to start discussing its fiscal recovery plan.

“The superintendent is clear that these are ambitious strategies, and that the board needs to not only be aware of them but also weigh in, given that we are elected to represent the voices of our communities,” Ortiz Franklin said.

“And we want to do our best to make sure we continue to do that, and don’t have a fiscal advisor appointed, so that we lose the ability to make decisions on behalf of our community who elected us.”

LAUSD’s financial situation

Education finance experts say the findings of the county office of education are serious, but not unusual. Districts across California have faced similar fiscal challenges, and many have restored their financial footing after county intervention.

“Unfortunately,” Flores said, “it takes a threat like what L.A. Unified is now experiencing for them to make the decisions that they should be making to show that they are fiscally responsible as a board and as management.”

The board received a similar letter when Flores was on LAUSD’s school board during the height of the Great Recession.

“I just got here, and that’s all we were doing is cutting, cutting, cutting,” she said. “Feeling the impact of what that would mean for our families and for children. … It was a long year.”

Michael Fine, the CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, said the debate over whether union contracts pushed the district into its present predicament misses the larger issue. The concern, he said, is whether the board approved contracts without clearly explaining how it would pay for them.

He said that the district should have been more transparent. In July, the parent group Oleada, Inc., findings from a public records request revealing a series of written warnings from LACOE to Los Angeles Unified dating back to April, months before the school board approved its fiscal stabilization plan.

“��’s when the board says, ‘I’m going to approve these contracts, even though I don’t know how I’m going to pay the bill,’ that’s where the problem is,” Fine said. “��’s not with the negotiations themselves. ��’s not with the deal that was made.”

Despite his criticism, Fine said he does not believe LAUSD is beyond recovery.

“I’m normally the one worrying. I’m normally the one on behalf of all district staff all night figuring out or thinking through ‘Uh-oh, do we have a district in trouble?’ ” Fine said. “I’m not feeling that for L.A. right now because I truly believe this is well within their ability to address.”

California unlikely to come to the rescue

For months, LAUSD and its labor unions have lobbied lawmakers in Sacramento for additional education funding. But education experts say new state funding, while helpful, is unlikely to solve the district’s underlying fiscal problems.

Much of that advocacy — including from other districts — has focused on the $3.9 billion of Proposition 98 funds that the state has withheld, Fine said.

Even if the state releases those funds, Fine said, LAUSD’s share is unlikely to make up for the shortfalls. And because the funding may come with restrictions, the money may not come in the form LAUSD needs.

“We should be able to invest in our schools. However, that always has to come with the understanding that we can’t artificially raise the floor again,” Aguilar said.

“Because then, what you’re essentially doing is you’re kicking the can down the road, and I think this time it won’t even travel as far if you kick it.”

This story was originally published by EdSource. for their daily newsletter.

Exclusive Data Highlights Paradox: As Enrollment Falls, Fewer Schools Close

Linda Jacobson — Mon, 12 May 2025 10:30:00 +0000

The headlines are seemingly everywhere:

“ board votes to close 13 school buildings.”

“ to close 7 schools, cut grades at 3 others despite heavy resistance.”

“: These are the SFUSD schools facing closure.”

Such reports can leave the impression that districts are rapidly closing schools in response to declining enrollment and families leaving for charters, private schools and homeschooling.

But the data tells a different story.

School closures have actually declined over the past decade, a period of financial instability that only increased in the aftermath of the pandemic, according to research from the Brookings Institution.

The , shared exclusively with ��, shows that in 2014-15, the closure rate — the share of schools nationwide that were open one year and closed the next — was 1.3%. In 2023-24, the rate was just .8%, up from .7% the year before.

“I think it’s important for people to realize how rare school closures are,” said Sofoklis Goulas, a Brookings fellow and the study’s author.

Last fall, showed how schools that have lost at least 20% of their enrollment since the pandemic are more likely to be low-performing. The Clark County Public Schools, which includes Las Vegas, had the most schools on the list — 19 — but isn’t currently considering closures. In Philadelphia, with 12 schools in that category, district leaders are to discuss closures.

When it released Goulas’s initial report, of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute argued that low-performing schools should be the first to close. But efforts to do so are often met with pushback from families, teachers and advocacy groups who argue that shutting down schools unfairly harms poor and minority students and contributes to neighborhood blight. Their pleas often push district leaders to retreat. Working in advocates’ favor, experts say, is the fact that many big district leaders are untested and have never had to navigate the emotionally charged waters of closing schools.

“Closing a neighborhood school is probably one of the most difficult decisions a district’s board makes,” said Michael Fine, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, a California state agency that provides financial oversight to districts. “They are going to avoid that decision as long as they can and at all costs.”

Such examples aren’t hard to find:

Just weeks after announcing closures, the San Francisco district to shutter any schools this fall.

In September, outgoing Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez pledged to for another two years, even though state law allows the city to take action sooner. The district is in the process of absorbing to keep them from closing.

In October, Pittsburgh Public Schools ; several others were set to be relocated and reconfigured. About a month later, Superintendent Wayne Walters hit pause, saying the district needed more “thoughtful planning” and community input.

Last May, the Seattle Public Schools it would shutter 20 elementary schools next school year in response to a $100 million-plus budget deficit. They later increased the number to 21. By October, the list had dwindled to four schools. Just before Thanksgiving, Superintendent Brent Jones entirely.

“This decision allows us to clarify the process, deepen our understanding of the potential impacts, and thoughtfully determine our next steps,” to families. While the plan would have saved the district $5.5 million, he said, “These savings should not come at the cost of dividing our community.”

Graham Hill Elementary in Seattle, which fifth grader Wren Alexander has attended since kindergarten, was initially on the list. The Title I school sits on top of a hill in a desirable area overlooking Lake Washington. But it also draws students from the lower-income, highly diverse Brighton Park neighborhood.

Among Wren’s neighbors are students from Ethiopia, Vietnam and Guatemala. Wren, who moves on to middle school this fall, said she looks forward to visiting her former teachers and cried when she heard Graham Hill might close. She wanted her younger brother and sister to develop the same warm connection she had.

“I don’t think I would be who I am if I didn’t go to the school,” she said.

Wren Alexander and her little sister Nico, outside Graham Hill. (Courtesy of Tricia Alexander)

Tricia Alexander, her mother, was among those who opposed the closures, participating in outside the district’s administration building and before board meetings.

“We were really loud,” said Alexander, who’s also part of , an effort to advocate for more state education funding. She said there was “no real evidence” that closing schools would have solved the district’s budget woes. “In no way would kids win.”

��’s shared by many school finance experts, who note that the bulk of school funding is tied up in salaries, not facility costs. Districts may save some money from closing schools, but unless coupled with staff reductions, it’s often not enough to make up for large budget shortfalls.

‘So bad at this’

If enrollment doesn’t pick up, experts say, leaders who delay closures will have to confront the same issues a year later or — perhaps even more likely — pass the problems on to their successors.

“If there continues to be fewer and fewer children …then that doesn’t get better,” said Brian Eschbacher, an enrollment consultant.

One Chicago high school, for example, had just last year. In Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest district, 34 elementary schools have fewer than 200 students and 29 of those are using less than half of the building, according to a recent . The share of U.S. students being educated outside of traditional schools also continues to increase, according to a forthcoming analysis Goulas conducted with researchers at Yale University.

“We don’t see a trajectory of enrollment recovery,” he said. “Things actually got worse in the most recently released data batch.”

But such conditions haven’t stopped advocacy groups from campaigning against closures. One of them, the left-leaning Advancement Project, has joined with local groups in Denver and Pittsburgh to make a case against closures nationally.

“All children deserve to have a local, neighborhood public school in which they and their families have a say,” said Jessica Alcantara, senior attorney for the group’s Opportunity to Learn program. “��’s not just that school closures are hard on families. They harm the full education ecosystem that makes up a school — students, families, school staff and whole communities.”

Last May, Alcantara and other Advancement Project staff urged the U.S. Department of Education to treat school closures as a civil rights issue. Nine of the 10 schools the Denver district in 2022 had a majority Black or Hispanic student population.

The advocates argued that in cases of enrollment loss, run-down facilities and empty classrooms, there are alternatives to closing schools. They to push for renovations and urge district leaders to use vacant spaces for STEM, arts or other programs that might attract families. Opponents of closures also say that districts sometimes underestimate how much of a building is used for non-classroom purposes like special education services, early-childhood programs and mental health.

Eschbacher’s assessment of why districts often back down from closing schools is more blunt.

“Districts are so bad at this,” he said. “If you just do a few things wrong, it could sink the whole effort.”

For one, leaders often target schools with under 300 students for closure, appealing to parents that they can’t afford to staff them with arts programs, a school nurse or a librarian.

But those explanations sometimes fall flat.

“Parents always say, ‘I wanted a small school. I know my teachers and they know my kid. And it’s right down the street,’” Eschbacher said. If they didn’t like their school, he added, they would have likely would have chosen a charter or some other option.

District officials also run into trouble if they try to spin the data. When Seattle officials talked about “right-sizing” the district, to the loss of 4,900 students since 2019-20.

But Albert Wong, a parent in the district and a lifelong Seattle resident, knew there was more to the story. Not only is the current enrollment higher than it was from 2000 to 2011, the pandemic-related decline seems to have . In a , he argued that officials presented misleading data “to make current enrollment look exceptionally bad.”

Graham Hill Elementary, fifth-grader Wren’s school, actually saw a slight increase in enrollment this year, including a new class for preschoolers with disabilities. And while Pittsburgh schools are another 5,000 students over the next six years, enrollment this year held steady at .

To Eschbacher, the “burden of proof is always on the district” to make an airtight case for why students would be better off in larger schools. He has applauded the Denver-area Jeffco Public Schools, which has schools since 2021, for having , not just district officials, explain population trends to families at community meetings.

‘It wasn’t realistic’

Walters, Pittsburgh’s superintendent, can easily rattle off reasons why the district should rethink how it uses its buildings. Early last year, showed that almost half of the district’s schools were less than 50% full.

“We’ve lost about a fourth of our population, but we have not changed anything to our footprint,” he said.

Meanwhile, the average age of the district’s buildings is 90 years old, and many lack , forcing some schools to send students home in sweltering weather.

But a consulting group’s showed that Black and low-income students and those with disabilities would be disproportionately affected by the changes. Several drew attention to those disparities, calling the effort “rushed.”

412 Justice, an advocacy group, is among the community organizations pushing for alternatives to school closures in Pittsburgh. (412 Justice)

Walters agreed and put the plan on hold last fall, saying he lacked “robust” responses to parents’ tough questions about how schools would change for their kids.

“It doesn’t mean that we don’t see a path forward,” he said. “But it wasn’t realistic that we would have those questions answered within the timeline that we’ve been given.”

In March, parents pushed for , causing the school board to postpone a vote on the next phase in the closure process.

As the Jeffco district demonstrates, some school systems are following through with closures. The school board in nearby Denver unanimously voted in November to close seven schools and downsize three more.

But that’s after community protests pushed the district to put on a plan to close 19 schools in 2021. Advocates argued that families in low-income areas, who had been heavily impacted by the pandemic, would be most affected. Then the district only in 2023, and now board members are considering on closures for three years.

School boards closing a dozen or more schools are often catching up with work their predecessors let pile up, said Goulas of Brookings.

“Closing a single school allows for easier placement of students and minimizes the political cost and community stress,” he said. “When a district releases a long list of schools to close, it likely indicates that they waited for conditions to improve, but this didn’t happen.”

Angel Gober, executive director of 412 Justice — one of 16 organizations that called on the Pittsburgh district to drop its plan — acknowledged that their fight isn’t over.

“I think we got a temporary blessing from God,” she said. But she wants the district to explore a host of alternatives, like community schools and corporate support, before it shutters and sells off buildings. “We do have very old infrastructure, and that is an equity issue. But can we try five things before we make a drastic decision to close schools for forever?”

‘It is Heartbreaking:’ Parents, Teachers Meet With Denver School Board About Possible Closures

Melanie Asmar — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

In school libraries and cavernous auditoriums, the Denver school board on Monday began a week of listening to students, parents, and teachers in 10 schools facing possible closure.

What they heard was emotional at times.

“This is the first school I’ve ever been in where I have not seen a single instance of bullying,” Robin Yokel, an English language arts teacher at Denver School of Innovation and Sustainable Design, told board members.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

“It is heartbreaking to see us continue to put lip service toward ‘students first’ and make choices that are not students first — they are finances first. Our students deserve better than that.”

Superintendent Alex Marrero last week in Denver Public Schools. The school board is set to vote Nov. 21 on whether to follow through with the closures.

Denver School of Innovation and Sustainable Design, International Academy of Denver at Harrington, Castro Elementary, Columbian Elementary, Palmer Elementary, Schmitt Elementary, and West Middle School are up for closure.

Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy, Dora Moore ECE-8 School, and Denver Center for International Studies would be partially closed if the board votes yes.

The school meetings Monday stood in contrast to — a proposal . The meetings in 2022 were run by mid-level district administrators. Last-minute scheduling and overlapping meetings meant school board members were sometimes there and sometimes not. Parents’ questions were often met with “I don’t know.”

The engagement this time is similarly short, with just two weeks between Marrero’s recommendation and the board’s vote, drawing familiar criticism about a rushed process. But district officials described the process as improved.

to visit two schools per day over five days, accompanied by top administrators. Each school will have four meeting times: one in the morning during student dropoff, one over the lunch hour, one in the afternoon during pickup, and an evening public comment session.

Yet despite more robust planning, some of the sessions Monday were sparsely attended.

The board visited International Academy of Denver at Harrington, an elementary school in near northeast Denver, and DSISD, as it’s known, a high school in the central part of the city. The level of engagement differed at each school. ��’s a trend that will likely continue this week as some school communities mobilize to fight back, while others, resigned, look toward next steps.

DSISD is the smallest school on the closure list with just 60 students. Dozens of parents, students, and teachers described it as “the best kept secret in DPS,” “a once-in-a-lifetime school,” and a safe haven for LGBTQ and neurodiverse students.

“The amount of bullying that my child and many others have faced in a regular DPS school is heartbreaking,” parent Susan Klopman told board members gathered in the school’s library, her voice wavering as she began to cry, “and it’s not happened here.”

She and others said they understand that it’s hard for the district to keep a school open with so few students, especially since Denver funds its schools per pupil and backfills the budgets of schools with low enrollment. But they questioned whether the monetary savings of closing DSISD, which is located inside another school that will remain open, is worth the human cost.

“Some of us just literally won’t make it in larger schools,” said freshman Owen Bucca.

Over the lunch hour at Harrington, more than a dozen teachers filtered in and out of the bright school library, where three board members sat waiting for them.

The teachers asked why their school was chosen for closure. Harrington, they said, does an excellent job serving a high-priority population. Fifteen percent of the students are Black, 70% are Latino, and nearly half are learning English as a second language.

Based on its state test scores, Harrington is rated yellow, or “improvement,” which is higher than some of the surrounding elementary schools. It was also an early adopter of “science of reading” literacy curriculum that the district is only now rolling out to other schools.

“These students are thriving,” said fifth grade teacher Kristen Smith, who has taught at Harrington for 10 years. “Is it worth it to allow them to have a small school?”

The board members’ answer was financial. When Denver schools have fewer than 215 students, the district helps pay for the basics. At 122 students, Harrington is one of those schools, receiving more than $600,000 in additional funding this year, according to district data. (DSISD received about $868,000. DPS’s total budget is about $1.5 billion.)

That money, board member Michelle Quattlebaum told the teachers, “has to come from somewhere.” For the past few years, federal pandemic relief funds, known as ESSER dollars, helped buoy the district’s budget. But that funding dried up in September.

“There are not enough students in the building to sustain what you’re doing here,” Quattlebaum said. “For the past few years, to make that happen, your school leader had to apply for budget assistance. Guess where it came from? ESSER dollars. Guess what we no longer have? ESSER dollars.”

She added, “��’s not fair. And if I can just be honest, it just sucks. These are hard conversations. They’re hard and difficult things to experience. But please know — please, please know — this is not just about the numbers. We recognize this is impacting people.”

While board members said the morning session at Harrington was better attended, no one from the school came to the afternoon meeting. The only person who signed up to speak at the evening public comment was a parent from another school.

The board will hold a larger public comment meeting on all of the recommended closures on Nov. 18, three days before the vote.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at