Comments
A STUDENT'S VIEW -
Every financial disaster has a moment when someone could have stopped it.
For the Los Angeles Unified School District, that moment came on June 12.
That was the day every member of the LAUSD Board of Education received a written warning that approving massive employee pay raises could push the district toward a multibillion-dollar financial crisis, force thousands of layoffs, and leave its budget in an unsustainable position.
The warning was explicit. The consequences were spelled out. The danger was impossible to misunderstand.
Four days later, the Board approved the raises anyway.
Now LAUSD is staring at a projected $3.6 billion negative reserve balance by 2029. District projections call for eliminating approximately 4,900 positions during the 2027–28 school year, followed by another 1,035 positions the following year.
This was not an accident.
It was not an unforeseen economic downturn.
It was a deliberate decision made after Board members had been warned in writing about the consequences.
That letter is the smoking gun.
The Los Angeles County Office of Education did not offer a vague suggestion or routine budgetary caution. Its June 12 letter described the district's fiscal concerns as "severe" and urged Board members to weigh them carefully before ratifying the labor agreements.
The county office warned that a projected negative ending balance of such magnitude was neither sustainable nor permissible.
Yet four days later, under pressure from the threat of labor unrest, LAUSD approved compensation agreements that will cost the district more than $1 billion annually.
The contracts include pay increases of up to 24% over three years for some support employees, nearly 14% over two years for teachers, depending on experience, and almost 12% over two years for administrators.
Teachers and school employees deserve fair compensation. Many are under enormous pressure, face rising living costs, and perform essential work every day.
But fair compensation must still be financially sustainable.
Approving raises with money the district does not have is not responsible leadership. It is a political decision that transfers today's obligations onto tomorrow's students, employees, and taxpayers.
The issue is not whether school employees deserved raises.
The issue is whether elected officials knowingly approved contracts they had been warned the district could not afford.
The evidence suggests they did.
LAUSD Board Member Tanya Ortiz Franklin has acknowledged that the Board understood cuts would be necessary to authorize the raises. She said the district adopted a Fiscal Stabilization Plan before approving the labor agreements and knew reductions would be required.
That admission should alarm every parent and taxpayer.
The Board did not approve the contracts believing the district had discovered a new source of revenue. It approved them knowing that layoffs, program reductions, and other cuts would likely follow.
In other words, the Board chose short-term labor peace while accepting long-term financial pain.
The timeline is devastating.
June 12: LACOE warned LAUSD that the proposed agreements created severe fiscal concerns.
June 16: The Board approved the agreements anyway.
July 2: LACOE issued another letter criticizing the district's handling of the labor deals and stating that its Fiscal Stabilization Plan reflected "mismanagement of the collective bargaining process."
The county then placed LAUSD under heightened fiscal oversight and demanded a revised plan showing how the district would restore financial stability.
This was not a minor accounting disagreement.
This was the county agency responsible for financial oversight warning the nation's second-largest school district that its strategy was unsustainable.
Parents were right to be furious when the June 12 letter became public.
Sonia Reiter, a parent of two LAUSD students who obtained the letter, said she was terrified because the numbers appeared to point toward one outcome: massive layoffs.
She called the situation "bad management" and said the looming cuts could have been avoided.
When nearly 6,000 positions are projected to disappear, students may face larger class sizes, fewer counselors, reduced academic programs, and diminished support services.
Union leaders argue employee pay is not the cause of LAUSD's financial problems. While the district's fiscal challenges predate these labor agreements, that made caution more important not less.
The responsibility belongs to the elected officials and senior administrators who approved the agreements despite the written warnings placed before them.
LAUSD officials claim they complied with LACOE's instructions by approving a Fiscal Stabilization Plan before ratifying the labor agreements. But approving a plan on paper does not make the underlying numbers sustainable.
The public deserves to know whether parents, employees, and taxpayers were fully informed about the projected consequences before the vote.
LAUSD's leaders now face a county-imposed deadline to produce a workable plan for balancing the district's books.
But no fiscal plan can erase the central fact of this controversy.
They were warned.
They knew the agreements would require painful cuts.
They approved them anyway.
History may remember this not simply as the year the district approved employee raises, but as the moment elected officials knowingly traded long-term financial stability for short-term political peace.
The warning existed.
Every Board member received it.
The consequences were clear.
The vote happened anyway.
That is not simply a budget failure.
It is a failure of leadership—and students, employees, and taxpayers may be paying for it for years to come.
(Shoshannah Kalaydjian is a young Jewish student who writes about education, identity, and the challenges facing the next generation. Growing up in today’s climate, she has witnessed firsthand how rising antisemitism affects young people in classrooms and on college campuses. She is committed to sharing the perspectives of Jewish youth, amplifying student voices, and encouraging leaders to create safer, more inclusive environments for all students.)
