First, thanks for all the encouragement many of you have sent as I continue to send these updates. As long as the feedback is positive and they seem useful, I will try my best to keep them going! To wit:
- PSAC members met on Tuesday and got a deep look at '25-'26 centrally-funded positions, with a special focus on those supported by Supplemental + Concentration (S+C) funding, which as I've previously mentioned is being significantly reduced to address the structural deficit.
- We do not yet have specifics around these central cuts coming to S+C for '26-'27 and beyond, but should have that information within a couple days since it'll be a huge topic at the School Board meeting next week.
- The one-pagers (more on that next) are out and have, as expected, built-in cuts for next year that are being included in the touted budget reductions.
- There have been some recent developments (and a new legal fight) over Prop 98 funding, which is one potential source of revenue increase for the district, but it's (as always) a mixed bag of realities and aspirations. More detail below!
- The OUSD Board Budget and Finance Committee had a meeting last night. Nothing new was revealed but via the presentation by the consultants at HYA there were many confirmations of the things you might be about to read below :)
Everybody Hates the One-Pagers
If you're wondering what a "one pager" is: As OUSD determines specific budget allocations for the coming school year, every school principal is presented with a one-page breakdown of their allotment. This is supposed to happen in January (or even December) but this year, for reasons that are maybe obvious, there was a delay in getting them out — so principals have had only a week or two to digest and plan around the '26-'27 one pagers.
Spoiler alert: They really suck this year and everyone hates them.
The bad news is already out there: as feared, school sites are seeing cuts to key positions. There is still time for changes to be made, but I think it will help to highlight what these one-pagers actually are in relationship to the current budget deficit, and the district's confusing messaging about it. There is a lot more context to add here.
The Stupefying 100 or 50 Million Dollar Question
I was invited to participate in a "fishbowl" discussion about the budget last Saturday, with a variety of stakeholders at OUSD including parents, principals, CSMs, and district staff. It was recorded by KDOL and will be available soon. Among many other important insights, it was confirmed to me that:
- The $50 million reduction of the deficit touted by the district is largely tens of millions in reductions that they have already planned, and
- Those planned cuts — including many (most?) of the cuts to the S+C budgets at school sites — are reflected on these one pagers. This is the main reason why they suck.
If you're confused, it's not your fault. I will state here what I said directly to the Superintendent at the fishbowl:
Releasing a statement that sounds like the financial picture is better than first thought was confusing at best, deliberately misleading at worst, and the cognitive dissonance surrounding it erodes the trust of the community at a time when trust is already low but incredibly essential. (insert head exploding emoji after the fact)
With that off my chest, I'm now comfortable in re-summarizing that press release and even trying to frame it in a mildly positive light:
"The district has already made substantial progress in addressing its structural deficit, to the tune of $50 million, by reclaiming unspent funds, re-allocating dollars where possible, and making difficult cuts at school sites for '26-'27, pending School Board approval."
I am right there with anyone who is angry and demoralized by all this confusion, and I count it as yet another link in a chain of problematic PR moves by this district. That said, it is messaging, not policy, and the Superintendent is clearly searching for any positive news to share with the board and community. They overshot the mark here by a lot, but I guess it's time to move on.
Which Would You Like First: the Bad News, or the Bad News?
So the bad news (don't worry, there's a bit of good news after this!) is that, as painful as these new one-pagers are, the district still has a ~$50 million deficit to tackle, and that is structural. The other bad news is that solving many of those structural issues will require fundamental changes to the way the district operates, and that will take years. I will certainly be following up in a different update about what I think that could look like.
All I can say about this is that whatever happens next depends largely on the strength of our community, and the ability of our families to support our schools as we all weather these changes together.
There is a Bit of Good News, but...
(If I were saying this in person, I'd be doing the 6 7 thing with my hands right now)
Let's skip to the end for a sec: OUSD is very likely going to see an increase in funding next year, between $10 and $20 million in ongoing guarantees for Cost of Living Adjustments, etc. and an as-yet unknown amount of one-time funding from the state that could range between $27M-$38M (my rough estimate!) for '26-'27. None of this is currently finalized and won't be until June, but there are more than a few reasons to be optimistic about this.
Why? Because the January 2026 Governor's Budget includes an upward revision of $21.7 billion across three fiscal years ('24-'27) to what is called the Prop 98 "minimum guarantee." I've recently done a lot of research into the history and context of Prop 98, and there are some very very important developments in play right now (Here's a full explainer on Prop 98 if you want to go deep) and won't try to break your mind with all of that here, but read it if you have the juice: there is a ton of money at stake right now at the state level.
The quickest, hottest take on this is that the Governor is currently proposing to hold back $5.6 Billion in "settle-up" funds under Prop 98 (money that is guaranteed to school districts!) to plug holes in other parts of the budget. The money is guaranteed, it just won't be going to schools under the current proposal until probably '27-'28 at the earliest. NB! It is the State Legislature that actually decides what to do here, not the Governor. They have the authority to release some or all of the funds to districts this year by cutting costs elsewhere in the state's general fund or dipping into reserves.
Finally: What Should We Do? / What We Should Do!
I'd like to break this out into strategies for state and local advocacy, because we should all be looking at it at both levels.
- Urge/Beg/Encourage/Bribe the State Legislature to find a way to settle up some or all of the $5.6 billion guaranteed (use that word) to school districts under Prop 98 as soon as possible. The relevant arguments (in my mind) are:
- The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is outdated and the current Cost of Living Adjustments (CoLA) are dwarfed by the actual increase in costs of labor and benefits in California, not to mention inflation.
- While many school districts (and especially OUSD) must grapple with structural problems of their/our own making, allocating this money immediately will help us to retain the staff and services needed to keep our best minds at work to make these hard decisions and stabilize the district to best serve students while doing so.
- The cost of building back the services, staff, and community trust that are being lost in the short term will likely far outstrip the cost of investing in our school districts right now.
Many folks have been looking for ways to engage with this process — I'll add to that a few things I've learned very recently:
- The best possible folks to contact at the state level are our representatives but also (importantly) committee leaders on budgets and specifically education finance. Contacts follow!
- The window for advocacy around Prop 98 dollars is right now. Budget subcommittees are holding hearings now through March about the Governor's proposed plans. It's all horse trading in closed rooms after that so this is our time for public input.
- The Subcommittee on Education Finance is having a hearing about Prop 98 in four days on 2/10 (yeesh), and we have until then to submit testimony into the public record about the settle up. This would be akin to a public comment, and you can do it online!
- The next OUSD board meeting is Wednesday 2/11, and in the next few days we'll be seeing the meat of that presentation, which is a raft of proposed cuts to, among other things, Supplemental + Concentration investments. I strongly urge anyone who wants to speak truth to power to write out a very brief (less than a minute, there will be a lot of speakers) but impactful statement and join me in person at the meeting to make a public comment.
I am currently drafting a letter (a short one!) that I'll be posting to be put into the public record for hearings on Prop 98. To me, this is the most feasible source of new one-time funding (Temporary! One time! But still money!) in the near term. I'm also looking to set up meetings as a PSAC lead with anyone in the legislature who will give me 15 minutes. I will post more on that soon.
Who to Holla @
Our State Reps (phone calls are better than email!)
D7 State Senator Jesse Arreguín
D18 Assemblymember Mia Bonta
D14 Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Committee Chairs
Assembly Budget Committee Chair Jesse Gabriel
Assembly Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance Chair David Alvarez
Senate
Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
Budget and Fiscal Review Committee