The Los Angeles Unified School District is facing backlash after disregarding a critical letter from an expert within the district, which warned that a proposed significant pay raise for teachers might result in thousands of layoffs, according to reports by the California Post.
On June 12, the Los Angeles County Department of Education (LACOE) alerted all school board members that moving forward with the pay increase would bring about “serious” budget issues. This warning, unfortunately, seemed to have gone unheeded.
Just four days later, under the threat of a massive strike, the district approved substantial pay hikes for several employees, including an increase of up to 24%, with teachers seeing a boost of around 14%, depending on their experience levels.
Currently, the district is attempting to eliminate a negative reserve balance of approximately $3.6 billion by 2029. However, this new pay agreement is estimated to impose an additional $1.2 billion annual cost on the district, funds that simply aren’t available.
Frustrated parents have voiced their anger over the decision to ignore the warning letter, describing the potential mass layoffs as a result of “mismanagement” by the district.
“The financial concerns mentioned are serious,” the LACOE letter stated, urging the Board to reflect on these issues before ratifying any agreements.
In the letter, LACOE stressed that a negative balance of this magnitude is neither sustainable nor acceptable.
Amid heightened scrutiny from the county Department of Education, LAUSD has been directed to submit a revised budget within 45 days to address the deficit, a deadline that looms ahead in mid-August.
If the board proceeds with its plans, it is required to present an updated financial stabilization plan to tackle the anticipated shortfalls.
Even with these warnings, the board, which initially signaled a willingness to support the raises back in April, ultimately approved the agreement just days later.
Following this, LACOE issued another letter on July 2 criticizing the collective bargaining agreement and calling for a reevaluation.
A representative from LAUSD confirmed that they received LACOE’s letter and enacted the financial stabilization plan while approving the collective bargaining agreement, as suggested.
However, LACOE pointed out in a subsequent memo that the district’s fiscal stabilization plan reflects issues in the collective bargaining process.
To address the budget shortfall, LAUSD’s own estimates indicate that about 4,900 positions will need to be cut during the 2027-28 fiscal year, with another 1,035 following in the subsequent year.
Sonia Reiter, a parent with children in LAUSD, expressed her horror upon learning about the letter, fearing that massive layoffs would follow. “That would be devastating,” she said.
Board member Tanya Ortiz-Franklin acknowledged during discussions that layoffs are necessary to accommodate the pay raises. She remarked, “The Board publicly discussed and adopted the Financial Stability Plan prior to approving the collective bargaining agreement.”
She further elaborated that the cuts necessary to balance the budget will require teamwork with labor partners and LACOE.
Reiter criticized LAUSD’s management, asserting that the cuts might have been preventable and lamented the situation, calling it unfortunate.
Maria Luisa Palma, from a school advocacy group, highlighted the depth of the financial issues, stating, “This isn’t just a small amount, it’s $3.6 billion.” She, along with Reiter, has questioned why LAUSD proceeded with the collective bargaining agreement despite clear warnings from LACOE.
The recent agreement is projected to increase expenses significantly—around $1.13 billion for this fiscal year, growing to $1.44 billion by the 2027-28 fiscal year. This includes a 24% raise over three years for support staff, a nearly 14% increase for teachers over two years, and almost a 12% increase for administrators.
A LAUSD spokesperson reiterated that the board implemented the financial stabilization plan and the collective bargaining agreement as LACOE directed, following the advice given in the June 12 letter.
Even amid the outlined financial implications, the Service Employees International Union Local 99 (SEIU), representing educational workers, contended that these raises are not the root cause of LAUSD’s financial issues. They argued that fair wages shouldn’t be scapegoated for the district’s troubles.
If the district were to go bankrupt, a state-appointed administrator would assume control, stripping authority away from both the Superintendent and the school board.
California Public Instruction Superintendent Sonya Shaw criticized LAUSD’s decision, describing it as “reckless governance” and identifying it as part of a broader issue where school boards prioritize special interests over student needs.
LAUSD faces a deadline of August 7, imposed by the county, to present a viable plan to address its budget challenges.
