Budget update draws broad public alarm over proposed school cuts, AP funding and layoffs

A staff budget update on Feb. 8 delivered both welcome and worrying news: improved state revenue projections created room to restore millions to site budgets, but the district’s structural enrollment decline means painful trade‑offs remain. The public response was immediate and forceful: parents, educators and students urged transparency and alternatives to site cuts and warned that proposed changes would fall heaviest on historically underserved students.

CFO Megan Wallace told the Board that the governor’s January proposed budget raised the LCFF COLA to 5.33% and increased special education per‑pupil funding, producing about a $40 million improvement in the district’s outlook. Staff proposed restoring roughly $35 million to school site budgets (a mix of weighted student formula and MTSS funding) and an additional $5 million to certain centrally funded direct services, leaving other reductions still under consideration.

The briefing prompted intense public comment. Dozens of callers from Sheridan, Lakeshore, Cobb and other schools described proposed kindergarten consolidations, reduced buses, and pink slips for teachers and paraeducators. Many parents and teachers tied program cuts to a tentative UESF contract clause that would swap AP prep‑period specialty funding for one‑time bonuses; students and union officers said that approach could eliminate AP classes and related enrichment supports at impacted sites.

Student speakers summarized the concern succinctly: "This proposed UESF agreement takes vital resources away from students... AP classes are essential in providing a rigorous course load," a student caller said during public comment. UESF officers and staff speakers also warned that reductions to paraeducator lines and centrally funded staff would destabilize school operations and urged the board to prioritize classroom positions.

Staff emphasized the methodology behind their proposals: enrollment‑based adjustments to weighted student formula allocations, a proposed rounding‑up policy to align teacher baselines with class configurations, and a careful review of central functions (curriculum & instruction, student & family services, technology) for potential savings. Fiscal adviser Elliot Duchamp told the board the core problem is aligning staffing to a permanently smaller enrollment: "You've got to right‑size…you're staffed for more people than the number of children you have."

Board members asked for more school‑by‑school transparency before any layoff votes and requested a named point of contact for capacity questions. Staff committed to returning detailed FTE and dollar impact analyses to the board before any action on layoffs.

What happens next: Staff will continue the budget process through March and provide school allocation templates to site leaders for planning. The board asked staff to provide clearer, school‑level impact data and FTE breakdowns to inform further deliberations and any future votes on layoffs or contract ratification.