Good morning everyone. Good morning colleagues, Dixster staff, labor partners, and members of the public. I'd like to call to order the committee of the whole for Tuesday, today, January 20th. Uh welcome back
everyone. This is our first uh I guess board meeting of the 2026 school year. Um I want to start off by um first hoping that everyone had a wonderful 3-day weekend in memory of
Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights leader, humanitarian, and a a human being who fought for justice throughout his life and um for whose life and legacy we honored um yesterday and throughout the weekend. I also want
to give thanks. I hope folks were able to view the Martin Luther King Jr. parade, the Kingdom Day parade yesterday. Some of us were there um enjoyed it with a superintendent. It was wonderful. I also want to thank our all city district band. Um, everyone in
Beyond the Bell, uh, Dr. Tony White, um, staff, bus drivers, everyone who wardrobe, everyone who was able to make that happen. Um, our all city district band was performed, but they also
represented this district at the Rose Parade and in this and in the MLK parade as well. And just want to say they were very proud of our band and all of the high school students who were there representing our district very proudly.
Um, they sound they were great and our color guard and our our dancers. I just want to give a big huge loving shout out to all city who I know are back in school um with tired feet, but they definitely did represent us very well.
So, I just wanted to give them all um a very huge thank you before we begin our meeting. So, as we begin this new calendar year, today's meeting comes at an important moment for our district. Uh the district is balancing budget priorities and we've been having
discussions uh throughout this year and also while als reflecting on how we nurture belonging, stability, respect and possibility across our schools and ensure and in ensuring that every student feels supported, seen and served. Today's agenda reflects that
work and that discussion. We will hear from our labor partners, receive a comprehensive budget update that includes both the legislative and fiscal landscape, and spend the latter half of our meeting focused on how we are responding to enrollment shifts through
best practices and supportive interventions and center students, families, and school communities. Each of these conversations is connected to our shared goal, stability, belonging, and opportunity for our students, families, and employees.
I also want to acknowledge that the broader moment we are in we many in our school communities are carrying fear, uncertainty and grief. And for many that fear is deeply deeply personal. Our communities are under attack. Whether
through violence and loss closer to home, hostility toward immigrant and marginalized families, global events that reverberate locally, or the ongoing strain of economic and social pressures. And these realities do not stop at the
schoolhouse gate. They show up in our classrooms and hallways, shaping how students learn, how families engage, and how adults show up for one another. In moments like this, schools become more than places of instruction. They are
places of refuge, stability, and care. And in saying that, and in memory Martin Luther King Jr., I want to share a quote that I think is appropriate for the moment that we all are facing. Quote, we are now faced with the fact
that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there's there is such a thing as being too late. This is this is
no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action. So, I hope we all take that quote into everything that we do and discuss and um as we face our daily lives. That is why today's conversation
matters because the decisions we make here shape whether our schools remain places of stability, care, and possibility for students, families, and our employees. In moments of fear, division, uncertainty, it is often educators, administrators, classified staff, and
school-based teams who provide continuity and reassurance for students and families. As we begin the portion of the agenda, I want to thank our labor partners who are maybe here present uh who would like to say a few words and I want to thank you for
the role you playing in sustaining us your communities. So with that um are there any labor partners who would like to come forward and make a statement? Okay. No, I see no one coming forward. So with that uh that takes that brings
us to our first presentation which is the first section of this meeting, the budget update. Um we are we will now move into the budget portion of today's agenda. We will hear from three presenters who will provide context on the legislative advocacy and fiscal
landscape followed by an opportunity for questions and discussion from board members. This discussion takes place while within a challenging fiscal environment but is also an opportunity to reaffirm our values. Budget decisions are not just financial exercises. They
are statements about priorities about what we choose to protect and about how we align resources with student needs. This segment includes presentations on the budget, legislative landscape, district advocacy and our current fiscal outlook followed by members and by by
questions. So I would like to invite and I see up in the podium Mr. Kevin Gordon from capital advisors group who will provide an overview of the state and legislative context shaping our budget considerations. Thank you. Welcome and the floor is yours, Mr. Gordon. >> Good to be with you, Madam Chair, Mr.
Board President, Mr. Superintendent. It's good to be with all members of the board. Uh Kevin Gordon with Capital Adviserss Group. So, we're a lobbying firm up in Sacramento. We've done work with this district and work very well with your team here in LA Unified on sort of the day-to-day advocacy on
behalf of public education. And one of the areas that we are particularly involved with is budget issues and Prop 98. Um, and so I wanted to, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, the sort of set a context for, I think, everything you're going to hear today. I wanted to
start though by talking about because we look at state and federal advocacy. And one of the things that we know that's going on is stress all across the board. Twothirds of California public school districts are cutting their budgets. There's huge fiscal instability in
school districts all across the state. This district is not uncommon. And so we watch those numbers, both state and federal numbers, really closely. And there's a lot to get caught up in in terms of negativity about what that
landscape looks like. And so starting I wanted to start on the federal side because we got really good news basically this morning about what Congress did what Congress is poised to do because there is a two house bipartisan agreement on the education budget as a part of a four bill package
that will undoubtedly get to the president's desk. Who knows what the president will do with it. But one of the reasons why I think I'm standing here is because our firm typically is pretty optimistic about budget figures generally. we kind of look for revenue
signs. We look at kind of the outlook a little bit. And with regard to federal issues, I've been saying this almost for a year is that Congress was going to have a hard time cutting anything in the education budget because of the filibuster, knowing that you'd have to
get seven Democrats in the US Senate. and that last summer we demonstrated that 10 US Senate Republicans along with all the Democrats strongly objected to the president's unilateral holdback of money. This district was very vocal in
protesting that and we ended up prevailing and why the reason why we prevailed is because of those 10 Republicans and then also the fact that they had those uh the Democrat caucus pretty united. The idea of what happens when they can't get anything done on a
budget in the fiscal reality is we do what's called a continuing resolution. And where you get them every time is when they have to face the possibility of the government closing down. And when that happens, they'll pass a continuing resolution. Well, continuing resolutions
are predicated on whatever we got in the prior year. When you are facing a budget like the one Trump put on the table,12 billion dollars in cuts to education, you like a continuing resolution because you don't get cut. So what has happened,
what's transpired in the last couple of months is a desire by Republicans in both houses to not just do another continuing resolution, but to get to agreement on appropriation bills that essentially form what is the budget. And so much so willing a willingness to
compromise with Democrats because they know any budget that has or any appropriation bill that has cuts in it to education will not get through the US Senate. So amazingly over the weekend Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats got together and then with their House
counterparts and agreed on a budget that ends up having net increase in funding to education. just an absolute rejection of what uh President Trump had put forward in his budget. So with regard to the hesitancy and the the concern about
federal cuts, we sort of live to fight another day is that we'll get probably pretty much flat funding. There's a $217 million total increase in funding uh that we got in the education budget. Think about that. The entire federal budget for schools, 217 million is
nothing. and a $20 million sort of token increase to special ed. But hey, it's better than the cuts that we were talking about. So that represents a really important victory, but it also helps to kind of get us a context of why
we as a firm have had sort of a positive outlook on sort of the fiscal future relative to a sea or a chorus of conversation about impending cuts. So, let me move kind of to the what we've been hearing about at the state level.
What I know you guys have heard a lot about is the possibility of $18 billion structural problem for the state of California. That was sort of made big news last November by the nonpartisan legislative analyst who scored the
outlook over a three-year period, prior year, current year, and next year, and said, "We've got an $18 billion problem." And while that is their number, the thing that I was pretty astonished by that number is it ignores
what we've had in terms of revenue month after month after month, dramatically exceeding what was otherwise expected. So if you take a look at the last uh I think it's 16 months or rather the last
18 months 16 of those 18 months we've had increased revenue by a lot beyond what was otherwise expected and that's what gets you to the point where the governor puts his budget on the table which we think is a pretty decent budget statewide. What we like most about it is
his revenue number. We have some issues about how he spends the money, but his revenue number is $42 billion north of where the leg uh where the in total revenues and the legislative analyst is
$30 billion below that. 30 billion below that. So, and the ledge analyst has said as early as last week that they're still urging the legislature to use their revenue numbers. Well, you can imagine if you use the LAO's very conservative
revenue numbers that sort of deny this track record of increased revenue we've seen month after month after month, there would be cuts all over the place on the mostly on the non98 side of the budget, the non K14 side of the budget. So the other thing I like to say to
people who sort of their hair was on fire when they saw the $18 billion budget gap number is remember we have the tale of two budgets. We have what's going on on the non-education side but because of our constitutional minimum guarantee Prop 98. We have incredible
insulation on that side and it works in a couple of ways. One is they suspended Prop 98 because they owed us a certain amount of money they couldn't give us. This is for the 2324 fiscal year. So they suspended Prop 90 with the idea that they would give us we still got
held even that year, the the succeeding year, but then they were going to owe us money. And the way it works is revenue grows. They got to get us back to where we otherwise would be. So we were watching real closely all the way back to June of last year what was going on
with regard to revenue attributable to the 2425 fiscal year. Why? Any money that would show up in 2425 beyond expectations, we get 94 cents out of every dollar in Prop 98.
Big money. Everything after June, we get into the new fiscal year starting July, 40% of all new revenue that was otherwise unanticipated. Every single month of the current fiscal year, we've had big dollar increases and
it became the cornerstone of the governor's budget. That's why he has a budget which I think is a responsible budget. I do not think it's wildly irresponsible. I think it's frankly a little bit conservative in some ways, certainly not as conservative as the LAO, but it
really establishes kind of a baseline for you to take a look at what are the implications for us in education at the statewide level. It is very significant money $21.7 billion over three years that comes to us in education. The concerns are how the governor so
generally revenue good overall the picture looks positive but then we look at the way the governor spends the money overwhelmingly and this is a product of Prop 98 there's not much we can do about overwhelmingly a lot of the money is one-time billions of one-time money that
doesn't help us solve structural budget problems it doesn't help us with our labor partners it's one time money so when you look at the ongoing money, which there is ongoing money in the budget. Um, the combination still is a
better overall budget than we have for the year. We're in a slightly bigger COLA, which I think that COLA could end up moving up. There are some who think it might move down. Um, and the COLA, by the way, needs to be reformed for the COLA that we get for public education. I'll tell you a little bit about that.
Um, but the point is is that we've got a uh a set of expenditures. So when you take a look at it, the places where there's ongoing new money which matters to us is in that anemic cola 2.41% cola. What does that generate? 2.4 roughly
billion dollars for us as an increase overall statewide. The other big area of of um ongoing money that the governor had a billion dollars of extra money which could have been put into a super cola. He had a lot of choices. he chose
to put it into investing into community schools program. The reason why he did that is the community schools program which has done a lot of good across the state was the only signature initiative that the governor had that was not done with ongoing money. So when you look at
meals or you look at ELOP or you look at TK all of those things long-term permanent commitment in the billions of dollars good stuff but the community school piece was all done with onetime money. So in this last year of his budget, he puts a billion dollars into
community schools. The question is whether that sticks or not, especially in an environment where school districts all across the state want more discretion at the local level and we really need ongoing money, not as much of the onetime money, and we were just floating in onetime money. So you look
at that, then you look at the one-time money. And again, I know that your staff is going to go into more detail about each of these programs, but if you look at where the one-time money is, the biggest expenditure of one-time money right off the top is they scoop up $4.3
billion, our money, and they have to put it into a Proposition 98 reserve. There's this triggered reserve. It's one of the biggest expenditures in the budget and we don't get it to spend at the local level because it goes into their Prop 98 reserve and it's a big
chunk of money. Then you have the $2.8 billion discretionary uh block grant. This past year you had one that was 1.7 billion in the budget that you're in now. That equated to $313 per kid. This block grant the governor
has will be about $500 per kid. And I had been predicting for several months, we're going to be washing so much on one-time money, expect that block grant from the 313 to double or triple or maybe even be four times if the legislature will give us the money
rather than spending it. And so there immediately points up some advocacy that we have to do in that area. But right now, $2.8 billion, $500 um per kid. And I I don't want to bounce around too much, but I do want to focus on one of the areas that the governor did put
money into uh permanent ongoing dollars. And it's kind of little noticed. A half a billion dollars into special education. So, I'd mentioned the billion he put into community schools. He also put a half a billion dollars into special ed. And the way he did it wasn't
to just say there's some unique program in special ed that I want to fund. It's to base rates. Every dollar you put into special ed is like putting a dollar into your general fund. It immediately loosens up capacity
for you on the general fund side just given the the the size of encroachment that we all have. And then the other thing that the governor did that is using up one time uh permanent ongoing money is that and a lot of people didn't follow this in the year we're in the
middle of the cola that we got from the state a big old chunk of it was funded with one-time money and the governor said well we'll figure it out next year. Thank goodness the revenue picture is what it is because he has the ability to now allocate $1.7 billion in order to
fund that COLA that we got in the current year as well as the cola for next year. So you can see that when you start putting all of these pieces together, you realize there's ways that the money sort of escapes without coming here to the district. There's a number
of programs with one-time dollars in it, but there are a lot of little gimmicks in the budget that they had to try to reverse that they had put together last year's budget. Another example is that in June of this year in order to make the budget work this year politically, they were going to borrow from next year
to pay for this year's budget in what we call a deferral. So, what they said is that's probably not a good idea. If we've got the money, let's reverse out that deferral. Well, that costs money and that chews up some of the onetime money we would otherwise get, right? But the biggest drain on the
one-time money that you guys could have discretion over if we were to win this battle is the $5.6 billion the governor just unilaterally holds back. The first governor ever under Prop 98 to
do a hold back of money. That's Prop 98. when we know we score what the Prop 98 guarantee is going to be and it's in his budget. This is the Prop 98 number. But you know what we're going to do is because of uncertainty and because of unstable times, we're going to hold back
some money. He did that in the current year to the tune of 1.9 billion. And keeping them honest, they did put that back into the budget this year, this coming year for the year that starts July 1. But then they do it again with $5.6 6 billion. That's money that should
be in the budget for us. It's part of the Prop 98 guarantee. And what I call it straight up is if you're really doing it because of uncertainty, you'll park it somewhere. And then if we deserve it, we get it. But they're not doing that. They're spending it on the non Prop 98
side of the budget. So if they're that concerned about stability, why would they spend that money? because they are going to blow it on the other side and then they're going to create a burden for themselves in the following fiscal year because they're going to have to pay us that money almost for sure. So,
we're critical of that. Then the other thing that's notable about the $5.6 billion, and this is the single biggest issue I think in the budget, the 5.6 is that the administration says they're doing it because they're hedging against the potential downturn in revenue. Well,
if you look at the budget, it's it's an action that influences the year we're in the middle of that ends in July, in June. There's more likelihood of a downturn next fiscal year, not this fiscal year. You just look at the numbers. One of the
other things interesting about the governor's budget proposal he put on the table is because of the timing of when he puts his budget together, it didn't include the 3.9 billion of extra money that showed up in December that was beyond expectations. By the way, we get
40% of that and that's not in these budget documents. So, in a lot of ways, there's all these numbers and I one of the things that's really important that we underscore to lawmakers is congratulations. The outlook may look good for us, particularly if we win that
$5.6 billion battle, but in local school districts where budget cuts are happening every day. What we want to know is how much of that money translates into solving our problems at the district level. And the only way that happens is with increased discretion over both the one-time and
the ongoing money. And that's what the fight's going to be about. From an advocacy standpoint, some of the key issues that I think are really important for this district to focus on would be cola reform. We have a cost of living allowance for California schools that are it's in the in statute. It's
predicated on the market basket of goods and services purchased by state and local government has nothing to do with education. So when you take a look at the cost drivers for us that go up from one year to the next and someone tells you with a straight face we're giving you a cola to keep pace with inflation.
Who's inflation? Because it isn't what it cost for us to do business the same way we did last year this year because all our costs are going up and the cola doesn't reflect it. So we need an indexed new cola for public education in California. We ought to be doing that.
The other thing that's really critical and I've raised this with your team who have been really supportive about it, we you guys know that you get an overwhelming uh share of money through what's called concentration grant in the local control funding formula. It's because we got a bunch of kids in
poverty. The poverty index of the concentration grants is tied to school meals and school meal eligibility. two things is we went to universal meals and parents and in communities were having a hard time getting people to fill out the paperwork and a Trump
administration that's been hostile to SNAP and other programs that feed families and kids where we establish community eligibility. The combination of those things is making a an artificial appearance because they're not filling out the paperwork. Poverty
is going down. We know poverty is actually going up everywhere. So we need to either argue for a freeze or some kind of a hold harmless on concentration grant so that urban districts across the state who are absolutely losing money and it's big
money because that that tethering of the LCFS concentration grant uh formula to free and reduced lunch is a major problem. We got to get a proxy that does that utilizes some other index to solve
that particular problem. And then finally, declining enrollment. I see there's this opportunity. Prop 98 continues to grow one year after the next and and ADA is declining. Instead, instead of congratulating themselves in
Sacramento, hey, we just scored this much money on the decline in ADA. We can go spend on something else. We ought to let districts keep some of that money to reinvest. So, we're boosting per pupil funding and being competitive with the
rest of the country and globally and understanding that kids don't leave in nice 30 unit packages that when we set the stage for teaching and learning, there's a price tag to that that we've got to sort of recognize when we talk
about uh some of these issues. So declining enrollment, if the legislature knew that they should try to do something targeted and specific around declining enrollment and beyond what is called a three-year rolling average, which they came up with a few years ago,
but something more significant with the money that we have, every marginal dollar of of new revenue that we have, that would be great. So I'm probably Oh gosh, I'm almost right on time. Good. Anyway, so I'm going to conclude there and then I don't know if we'll wait for questions till for everybody or whatever
you'd like to do. >> Yes, we'll um have two more presentations and then we'll take questions from the board. So we want to see great to be with you. Thanks for for the invitation. >> Yeah, that was great. Thank you so much. So now uh we will bring up Miss uh
Martha Alvarez uh chief legislative affairs and government relations who will provide us an update on the governor's recently released uh state budget. >> Good morning uh Dr. Rivas um board members Carvalo and staff. Um I have uh some brief PowerPoint slides to go over
some additional details beyond what Kevin highlighted as a big picture overview of what's happening in Sacramento at this juncture. Um, let's see. In the meantime, I'll just mention where we are. So, the governor, as you know, uh, released the budget on January 10th. Uh, he'll be releasing the
Department of Finance more details u by February 2nd. Uh, it's called a trailer budget bill. Uh, TBL will come out then. That will have many more specifics beyond what you we have with us today. Um, and I'll go over with more detail. Um, the legislature will begin the committee hearing process. Um they'll
have a few oversight hearings um on Prop 28 uh community schools and other topics starting in February and then they'll begin the um overview of the governor's budget uh between February and u April and then they'll come back with the May revise by May 15. So we're just hit
hitting the ground running with this budget uh proposal from the governor uh just a week and a half ago. Um, as Kevin alluded to, um, the we're looking at the budget for the 26 27 year. Um, the the last three, um, bars are the ones that I
would emphasize for, um, our discussion with you today. Um, Kevin mentioned 21.7 billion growth in Prop 98 over a three-year period. That's looking at the 2425 2526 and 2627.
Um unlike our school budgets that it is a three-year budget where we look at the um next three years uh in the forward looking ahead um the state budget actually does u something a little different. They look at um the last year so 2425 revenues at the current fiscal
year 2526 and then the projection for the following fiscal year which is we're talking about 2627. So by doing that three-year review, that's how um they got to the $21.7 billion estimate. Um it is uh as you can see the highest Prop 98
um funding that we have seen in California's history since it inception in 1988. Um and then I'll also underscore um something that uh sometimes um we forget Prop 98 uh is ticket through 12 and community
colleges. Um so it's not all K12. Um it also a share uh roughly between 10.5 a little bit under 11% goes for community colleges. Um so all of the 21.7 billion increase um projected increase is not
all going to K12. Um here as Kevin alluded to uh off the top once the the Department of Finance pays off the deferral the $ 1.9 billion that was created in 20 526 um they uh by
constitution passed by the voters several years ago. They also have to put money into the the state's rainy day fund for Prop 98. Um that Prop 98 rainy day fund is for TK through four uh 12 not community colleges. Um and at the end of the three-year fiscal years of
2027, there would be a balance of $4.1 billion. Um this is impressive because even though it's putting aside a significant amount of the available resources, um the Prop 98 reserve had been depleted last year. Um it had reached close to$10 billion in recent
years. Um and then during the the some some uh what economic downturn they needed to um use some of those resources to pay back um towards Prop 98. So we would uh see minimal impacts to schools. Um so first off the top they've have the.1 four $4.1 billion and that's based
on a formula. Um they would not be able to really make many adjustments to that. Um I mentioned uh one other payment that they're giving back to schools is $1.1 billion subtle up. Um that was um a proposal from the governor last year that the legislature agreed to. Um
started off to be um in January at 1.6 by May revise went down to 1.3 and then at the final budget adoption in June of 2025 it was 1.9 billion. Um basically withholding some funding that they would pay school districts the following year uh which they're they're doing in this
upcoming uh 2627 uh fiscal year. Um I mentioned and Kevin alluded to it as well. I'll just go back um so we can you can see here the uh 2526 um of Prop 98 level that the Department of Finance who work for the governor uh
they're proposing to withhold $5.6 billion um so instead of the one $121 billion um it would be more around $115 billion um that would be provided to um Prop 98. They're doing so as uh really underscoring um in in the department of
finance presentation and also in their documents um given the risk of the state the volatility of the state revenues uh they want to be able to preserve um some funding putting it aside and then give it to schools in the following fiscal year um next year uh should the funds
materialize. Um they do indicate the department of finance that they can revisit this number. Uh there could be changes um come the May revise when the uh revenues come out again uh up updated projections u by May 15. Um so we could see um what happens. Uh one point that
before I go into the specifics um in the legislative um uh statements made by legislative leaders uh right after the governor's proposal came out. Uh my team looked at the various statements. Not all legislators put out statements shortly after the governor's release of
the proposal. But um surprisingly and maybe it is um you know members were still figuring out what it meant. Um many of the members who did uh mention education in their statements, they were praising the governor for the highest historic level funding for um schools.
Um only one Republican member and no one from the Democratic or our LA delegation members mentioned any concern about the 5.6 billion um settle up or deferral. um the only member from the uh Republican, Senator Choy, um who is on the budget
committee was the only one to raise concerns. Um again, this is when the governor's budget first came out on January 10th. Um so we have a lot of learn education and learning uh to share with our uh legislators represent our schools and those across the state for them to understand what that means um by
them um by if if they were to be okay with the governor's proposal to withhold that funding. Now into some of the specifics. Um, and Saman will go after me and he'll go into more about what it means for LA USD, but uh, from a big picture Sacramento level, you already heard about the 2.41% COLA. Uh, it is
lower than the COLA projected at June of last year. Um, and Sam will speak more to it, um, during his his slides. Um, Kevin mentioned the billion dollar uh, ongoing appropriation proposal for community schools. Um the department of finance has indicated uh interest in
both uh continuing to support existing community schools. There's over 2500 community schools across California that have received state funding over $4 billion in recent years. Um and then they also want to establish new community schools. Um I really want to underscore that given that the board
approved this as one of our budget priorities for this upcoming cycle. Um there's I I don't foresee how there will be enough money with $1 billion ongoing to sustain the 2500 schools that have benefited from state level of over a $4
billion investment. This is a one quarter of the four billion that is currently has gone out the door for schools. So um the funding um allocation will be really important for us to take a look at how they are proposing uh for current schools. uh whether it be a competitive grant, whether it will be an
allocation, whether it be a lower allocation, if there's a matching grant requirement. Um so more to to be seen. Um but I just raise this with a caution because the dollar amount is nowhere near the four billion that had already been set up um during the one-time grants given in the last few years. Um
special education rates, which we believe uh will benefit um to some extent. Again, Sam will give those details. This will um equalize or raise um the uh minimum uh special education rate for AB 602 um is the mechanism that we get the majority of our special
education funding um that will be raising it up for all school districts since have been receiving different um base rates um a one-time uh a lot of one-time proposals um as you can see here alluded to also by Kevin previously so I won't be labor the point um but the
discretionary blocker and it is something that we had um asked in our budget letter that we sent in December along with other urban districts, we had advocated that after um paying for the COLA, if there was any one-time funding available, that it should come to schools in a discretionary manner to locally determine how to best allocate
those resources. Um so, as of now, it appears to be the same mechanism that we got the funding this in the current fiscal year. Um there's also a repayment. Um uh this is money that we saw it coming to the district um over the next two fiscal years. Um the
department of finance governor is proposing to allocate the learning recovery emergency block rent in one payment. Uh what happened two years ago they had done an IOU that they would um withhold over a billion dollars of onetime money and they would pay it back over that three-year period. They gave a
portion of the funding this fiscal year. Now they're uh choosing to uh repay the two remaining cycles um u in the 2627 cycle. uh educator residency programs which LA Unified we have benefited through those competitive grant programs. Um so again it's not an
allocation per employee. We have to apply for them and we have received funding in the past and we would definitely apply uh stick to apply for funding in the future again. Uh 250 million um you see here college and career pathways for high school students looking to expand dual enrollment um and
any uh credit opportunity for for high school students. um is not clear yet again and that's why you s have the asterk on the side whether that will be a per student allocation where every student in high school benefits from the dollars or whether it will be a competitive grant of any sorts. Um same
thing kitchen infrastructure and training grant program. Um there's currently a grant program in at the state level. It's been a second appropriation. Um we will be applying for that grant. The application's coming up next week. Um and the governor proposing to extend um that uh one-time
grant um as well um that could be used for uh purchasing locally sourced product um for kitchen infrastructure upgrades and also for training uh cafeteria staff in in different ways. Um ELOP there's a expansion of funding but as I mentioned there most likely will
not be applicable or benefit LUSD. Um the state wants to uh increase the reimbursement rate for what they refer to as tier 2 school districts like San Diego Unified. Um we are tier one. We get over $2,700 per student for the ELO
program. The tier 2 gets $1,800 under the governor's proposal. So benefits those that have a lower reimbursement than we currently do. Um last year the state um allocated $40 million for the student reading difficulty risk screenings. That is for T uh TK through
second grade. It's a new requirement mandated through a bill and the legislature um and governor appropriated for mill $40 million for us to be able to pay for that assessment. This is a secondyear um augmentation for the cost of the screening. Um and I remember
vividly board last year brought up um what about the extra supports that may come out of this screenings? Will the state reimburse us for those costs? Um still no reimbursement for us for any additional supports we need to provide for students out of this uh screenings. But at least this will pay for the cost
of the test. Um and then we are pleased to see 22 $22 million proposal for schools impacted by the LA wildfires from last year. Uh we still don't know the specific allocation and how that would benefit our uh three schools um Palifi charter high school independent
and then our two affiliated charter schools. Um but we anticipate that a portion of this likely would benefit those three schools and others in the region uh from last year. Um, we also don't have clarity at this point because again the trailer budget language won't be available until Febru early February.
Um, but there is an increased proposal for one-time and ongoing funds for home to school transportation. Uh, we benefit from the reimbursement from the state. Um, but it's not clear if that's only going to be for meeting the current demand of the program or if it's going to be for increasing reimbursement to
us. Uh, so more to to u be said in the coming weeks. Um the big proposal that a few legislators uh did uh start chiming in already is on the proposal to um uh change the structure of the department of education and specifically the
oversight uh currently that is overseen by the state superintendent of public instruction elected by the voters. Um this is a major proposal that uh was uh released in uh late fall 2025 by a research institute um out of Stanford uh
Berkeley, UC Davis, USC and other universities. Um the governor is um honing in on those recommendations to amend uh current law and shift many of the responsibilities uh from the state superintendent over to the state board of education. the state board of
education there are 10 members 11 members with the student but there um all 11 board members um appointed by the governor so this would become a new uh responsibility of the executive branch which would better align with the uh future funding and policy u priorities of of the next governor in 2027 since we
will be in election later this year um so more to come but uh uh it's um been so far uh come up with um the state superintendent has raised concerns about the proposal um it would not eliminate the SPI I uh constitutional office um but again significantly would diminish
their oversight responsibility. Charter school accountability and there were several bills that we uh were monitoring closely and engaged on last year. Um one of them was vetoed by the governor um and um what we're seeing now the governor is proposing to uh bring
some oversight and other requirements accountability requirements um through new auditing uh processes. uh there'll be more language likely coming out again in early February and we'll evaluate that accordingly as the largest authorizer in California. One area also
that will be of interest is um the proposal to use verified data for charter school renewal process. Um the we were uh the verified data ended for low performing school and middle average schools um June of last year 2025. Um so
this would be um a new possibility uh should the legislature adopt this change uh for two more years. Um the legislature as I mentioned in my opening remarks they'll begin uh committee hearings in the coming weeks. They'll um evaluate every segment of the
governor's budget. The LAO will come out with recommendations and alternatives to consider um in lie of the governor's proposal. um what my team and I put here together some ideas for where the legislature may want to create and reassert its legislative um powers as a
legislative body. Um one uh Kevin alluded to some of this already, but um there is a bill in Sacramento that's being considered AB204 by the chair of the Assembly Budget Committee on School Finance, um David Alvarez from San Diego. um AB204 would make some changes
to LCFF and I will be briefing the board members on LCFF um at a different time. Uh but essentially these are some of the examples um that are being considered in Sacramento. They would be very costly to implement. Um so there may not be enough money in this year's budget to go in that in this direction. Um but there
might still be an opening for a conversation in Sacramento. Uh so increasing the cola, establishing a regional cola which has been an interest and priority of ours. Um the bill has a minimum 4% cola for all school districts. Um there's a proposal to
increase the base grant just keeping the formula is intact and then just increase the the funding which would therefore also increase the concentration supplemental grant appropriations. Um there's different perspective about modifying the concentration supplemental grants. Um even uh creating a gradual
increase for those districts that are not at the 55% threshold for concentration grants. uh being able to allow them to um start earning some funding uh gradually as they get close to 55%. Um there's part of the bill talks about including um right now it's
only a current law it's only for uh English learners, low-inccome and foster youth, maybe adding homeless students, maybe duplicating that if you're prior to LCFF under economic impact aid. Um if you were an English learner and low income, you could have funding twice. Um that proposal could also explore that.
Um there's been recent uh research that has come out from the public policy institute of California and others um that has priced out each of these components and other ideas. Um so again that this could be right for conversation in Sacramento uh 11 years after LFA was created. Is there any um
discussion and appetite to make some reforms that would take away some of what the governor's proposing and put it into LCF reforms? Um the state superintendent uh uh Tony Thurman has come out with uh several interest areas to continue on in his last year in office. One of them is expanding
literacy efforts which was uh we did see funding this last in the current budget year. He wants to do more. Um he has a five-year literacy plan uh for how to close uh reading gaps and and other learning disabilities for students. Um so there could be a a continued effort in trying to put more money toward
literacy supports. Um he also has a proposal or interested in uh bringing back what we sponsored several years ago to make kindergarten a mandatory grade level. Um that uh could be between 200 and $600 million and ongoing cost according to the department of finance estimates. So that could be an area of
interest to the legislature should this bill u be reintroduced. Um funding for all or some of the childcare reimbursement rate reform uh is currently priced at over a billion dollars. So again, the legislature could try to come back uh use both Prop 98 and general fund uh to try to get um to a a
more equitable reimbursement rate. Uh closing achievement gaps. Um that could take different uh different uh programs or different proposals. Um the California Schoolboard Association, CSBA, um they have a big campaign trying to make this a focal point of advocacy.
Um there's no concrete proposals yet. what would it look like to close achievement gaps? But again, there could be more funding um towards this this effort. Um the statewide ethnic studies graduation requirement AB 101 was signed into law in 2021 is never been funded.
Um while we have our local uh mandate um through the schoolboard resolution from years ago to do ethnicities at the graduation requirement, the state requirement has not gone into effect because there's been no ongoing appropriation to uh hire more teachers to do this c new course level. um is
estimated over $270 million on an ongoing cost in order to be able to pay for ethics at the state level for every year. So again, through the legislature want to fund that mandate, they would have to appropriate money. And then there might be other ideas the legislature may may want to put more money towards that we'll get to see in
the coming months. Um uh where we are, I mentioned uh we'll wait for the April 15 tax collection receipt. that will help advise the governor in form the May revise um revised proposals. Um legislative negotiations will begin between May 15
and June 15. Um there is a new senate prom that just got sworn in a couple of weeks ago, Monique Lemon. She's a former school board member from the Santa Barbara Ventura County area. Um so it will help having um someone like her that understands schools budgets um at the leadership on the Senate and of
course Speaker Reeva who's now in his second year in as a speaker um with the governor in his final year. Um we'll have the budget discussions through the board um in June and then uh the legislature will be adopting the budget right at the same time which um in the past has created an opportunity to come
back to the board in uh late mid August for any revision of the budget that the board approved in June because it would not have had included the the final budget details um that are adopted. So with that I'll invite my colleague Saman Bravo Kermy to um talk about the local
what it means to us. Thank you, Miss Alvarez. And before um Miss uh Mr. Saman Bravo Karimi uh presents, uh our superintendent would like to start off. >> Thank you very much. Uh good morning board. Good morning community. Just uh a
couple comments in advance of uh of San's presentation. Let me begin by acknowledging and and uh thanking both Martha and Kevin for your very insightful, very informative presentations. Um, I want to begin by by
assuring this board that our commitment uh to striking a balance between fiscal solveny, multi-year fiscal solveny for the district while protecting to the extent possible uh programs uh schools, students and the workforce uh is of
paramount importance to us. Um that is what we do is ensuring that high-quality education uh equitably delivered uh to our community uh remains a priority. We are mindful that this is both a an ethical but also professional
responsibility that we live every single day. We are keenly aware of the challenges ahead. Um that's why today's presentation conversation is important is in light of the governor's uh budget proposal. uh what does that mean
specifically to Los Angeles Unified? San will detail that based on what we know even though there are a number of uh current unknowns. Uh secondly, I think it is important regardless of the economic pressures upon us for us to recognize that for
people to live in work in the Los Angeles area uh we need to provide fair compensation and protections. Uh that is a vital importance. It is also important to uh consider that uh we are committed to working with
our labor partners uh through direct and mediated conversations to arrive at settlements that strike that fair balance of fiscal sustainability, fiscal viability long-term. in addition to providing uh workplace conditions and
compensation and health protections that are indispensable to today's workforce. Um we believe in a number of things and as the presentation uh rolls out you'll see
that there are a number of of mentions in the presentation. None of them are new to you, but we certainly don't want them to be a shock either to the consumers of this information, particularly our workforce members. Our starting point is and has always been
transparency and calm. Nothing we do should be interpreted as meaning to create panic. We speak truth in a transparent way. So, we are planning responsibly based on the information that we have considering the fiscal pressures. uh not reacting in panic and
and are and will use always equitable practices in every decision we bring to the board. I think this is a priority of the board whether it is in terms of impacts to schools should uh reductions be necessary impacts to workforce uh those will be treated in the most fair
and equitable way based on need. The board has a strong history of developing policy that drives funding based on those principles of equity. A reduction in force is is something no one wants to hear, no one wants to
contemplate. However, someone will detail for you when the vast majority 90% of our funding is tied to personnel depending on the final outcome out of uh Sacramento or the current conditions
we're facing. That uh horrible horrible practice may not necessarily be avoidable. Our commitment to you is that a riff is a budgetary and staffing mechanism. It
is not a for conclusion that people will lose jobs. Uh in most cases, riffs are about reducing or eliminating positions, not necessarily people. We're not sure if that can be avoided in full, but I'm
here to tell you that staff is working around the clock to minimize any and all impact. Any and all impact who will be guided by principles of equity. This district has a history of having advanced rifts and uh when it did so the
vast majority of the individuals impacted were either reassigned, transferred or placed in other vacancies. The rate of attrition position departure from the workforce in our district is aggressive and we will utilize every
available opportunity again to minimize impact to our dedicated workforce. We remain committed committed to eliminating or reducing disruption to employees, classrooms and and school communities. Our highest priority will
be to continue to protect classroom stability core services and our workforce members to the greatest extent possible. That is why uh we will continue to engage with our labor partners in transparent and very honest way through
direct communication as well as mediated solutions. And I want to be very clear. Preparation today gives us more options tomorrow. Failure to take some steps today reduces significantly the options available to us tomorrow. So we will
guide this work in a most honorable way guided by the principles of equity and striking a balance in terms of what is best for our dedicated workforce. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Certainly the impositions through a
fiscal lens that we are facing uh the concerns we are facing the destabilizing challenges that we are contemplating may to a certain extent be reduced should uh the governor's proposed budget once
massaged by both chambers in Sacramento fully utilize the revenues available to them. You heard it now multiple times. There there's about5 billion dollars of opportunity that right now is not being acted upon. That will require collective
advocacy. And I'm here to commit to you. We will work alongside you and alongside our labor partners in that joint uh advocacy in Sacramento. So with that said, uh I want to turn it over to to San to proceed with a with a
presentation uh understanding the deep commitment of this team to continue to work uh in every available way to equitably reduce impact even when it is unavoidable to ensure that actions are
taken uh elevating the dignity and the dedication of workforce and with the utmost desire of protecting programs and protecting students. Thank you very much. Thank you. So today we're going to go we're going to pick up where we left off when we
presented in mid December on the first interim report. And just to kind of pick up where we left off and show the impact of of new information on our financial forecast, we're going to give a summary of the impact of the state budget that was well described by both Kevin and
Martha. uh the estimates of the impact on us on LUSD specifically um and then in in turn the impact that that would have on our on our forecast on our financial projections and then we'll go over the upcoming milestones in the
process in the weeks and months to come. I know since the budget and fiscal stabilization plan was adopted in June, there there's been a lot of interest and uh rightfully so on the impact of changes in allocations on on schools on
preserving the equitable allocation of resources on exploring options to reduce um outside of our our our labor costs. And as I think we've shared over the last few weeks and months, um the team
has been working with the board to um to get feedback on that analysis and certainly in the weeks and months to come, we will continue to provide updates and information on um e student equity as well as uh maintaining our workforce. But today, given that the
governor's budget is uh hot off the presses um and is of great interest to the district and to the public, we're going to focus this presentation primarily on on that. So, we covered this a little bit at first interum, but obviously the the the dark blue at the top are the the main
sources of funding. Those kind of funnel into different funds within the district's finances. Uh the area that we focus principally on is not just our operating funds which includes the general fund, our special reserve, um the adult education fund, child
development fund and cafeteria fund, but even within the operating funds we always focus very heavily on the general fund. and within the general fund on general fund unrestricted. And the reason for that is general fund unrestricted is how we pay for our core transitional kindergarten through 12th
grade programs, our schools, our teachers, our counselors. Um, and so that is why we focus so heavily on general fund unrestricted. All the funds are important. All the funds represent important aspects of the district's finances and operations. Uh but the general fund um is is where again we
fund our our core uh TK through 12th grade uh programs. Additionally um when the county and the state are are reviewing uh state finances and and the fiscal health of a district and as Kevin mentioned unfortunately twothirds of districts like us are facing a very
difficult financial outlook. Uh but when the county and the state looks at a district's finances to assess their health, they they also focus very heavily on the general fund and specifically general fund unrestricted. So again picking up where we left off, I think at first interim we shared that
before adding additional solutions, the fiscal stabilization plan, use of other available reserves that from June to first interim, the multi-year projection had slightly deteriorated uh had deteriorated all the way from through 2728 uh from a projected negative balance of
$1.6 billion to about $1.75 billion. But again, this is before several of the solutions were put forward and and uh certified in December. In summary, those solutions included the release of $634 million of funds that
had been originally intended to be contributed into the OPED irrevocable trust. This was done in June. And so that $634 million has been fully released. um and an additional almost $500 million of remaining fund 17 balances. So those
were also fully released back into the general fund and $1.4 billion of the updated fiscal stabilization plan. So in June that plan was totaling $1.6 billion. Uh come December it was uh about $200 million
lower at $1.4 billion. And what that allowed for was not only for us to certify positive adverse interim, meaning that we had positive unassigned unappropriated ending balances through 2728, but also allowed us to set aside
almost $800 million, $796 million for workforce stabilization. And as we described in December, the those funds are set aside to pay for the cost of uh the ongoing labor negotiations for many of the offers that we've already made to
our labor partners. So, as a quick summary, this is again just detail that we shared at first interim showing an update to the fiscal stabilization plan, how we got from $1.6 billion in June to about $1.4 billion as of first interim. And then what we
shared also was once we incorporate so the blue again is where we were in in June. The green is where we were at first interim showing that positive balance of $10 million at 2728. But also mindful that in addition to that $10 million positive balance we had almost
$800 million in workforce stabilization funds. And so what we showed at first interim was what does it look like once we incorporate the cost of offers that we'd already made to our unions. And if you remember back in December, we were projecting that once those costs were accounted for, but also fully utilizing
that $796 million that we were projected to be negative about $351 million by the end of 2728. And why that number is different is uh that was a snapshot in time and subsequent to first interim uh some additional costs have been
reflected here that incorporate again the costs of of offers that we've already made to our labor partners. And so now that updated projected balance is $41 million to the negative at the end of 2728. So again, this is utilizing all of fund 17,
all of the OPED funds that were freed up in June, $634 million, fully incorporating the full $1.4 billion of updated fiscal stabilization plan savings and all of the $796 million of workforce stabilization funds. And so
obviously what this means is um you know before the governor's budget was was released that that we still had work to do to identify additional solutions on top above and beyond the fiscal stabilization plan to be positive through 2728. Again importantly something that this does not include is
a projection for the 2829 fiscal year for the 2829 school year uh in June. That is the first time we'll be required to include that that new fiscal year. Um and given the slope that you see here, the trajectory of ending balances you see here, we do expect that 2829 will be
very substantially negative uh as well. All right. So, always important to highlight the things that are not included in that first interim projection. So, not included in any of those figures that I showed, including that negative $41 million are any uh additional changes in compensation
beyond what we've already offered our labor partners. um any potential reductions in federal funding and and Kevin gave a very good update on the newest information from the federal government, any new major programmatic investments, any unrecognized claims and importantly any lower enrollment that
pre than previously projected for the 26 27 school year and beyond. So first interum we mentioned that we did reflect the negative revenue impact of this year's enrollment being lower because we this year had already started. We had already had norm day, but that first term number did not yet reflect any
lower enrollment than previously projected for next year and beyond. And so that is not reflected that there's very very good reason because of this year's enrollment being so much lower than previously projected that that will be an ongoing impact. So we've all we've
had declining enrollment every year for over two decades. And so the key in our forecast is how do changes compare to what we were already assuming. Okay. And so that is why this year's enrollment being lower had such a negative impact and why we do expect that to continue
and and of course that would be reflected uh at second interim and then of course in our June budget. Also though not included is the governor's proposed budget. And so over the next couple slides, we're going to give a quick summary of our current estimates
for the fiscal impact of what was released by the governor. So first I want to start with the cola. And so Kevin and Martha both mentioned that the cola for not only next year but the following year is lower than previously projected. And so for the 2627 school
year, it is projected to be at 2.41%. Uh so that is about 6 percentage points lower than what we were previously assuming in the multi-year projection which is about 3%. And so the impact of next year's cola being lower and the 27
28 years cola also being lower than what we were reflecting at first interim. You'll see that that we expect that to have about a $36 million negative impact next fiscal year and another $56.7 million negative impact in the following
year. Now the reason why the negative impact is larger in 2728 is because the negative impact of this year's cola being lower carries forward for every year thereafter. Okay, it's a lower baseline. So it's compounding and then another year of it being lower just adds
on top of that. So that's why you see the negative impact go from 36 million to about $57 million. Now through the multi-year projection period, that's about a $92.4 $4 million reduction in estimated revenue for LCFF only. Okay, that is only the impact that we expect
for LCFF. The other news from the governor's budget, as Kevin and Martha mentioned, it is better than what we had reflected at first interim, but the vast majority of that is in the form of one-time funds, which has been a very common practice over the last several years by
the state. So, first the student student support and professional development block grant or what we're referring to and Kevin referred to as discretionary block grant because it is very flexible and and it the proposed grant is is to be very flexible. We are estimating at this time about $185.5
million of one-time funding from that grant. I do need a caveat as Martha mentioned we will get the TBL the trailer bill language in early February. will get a lot of the details that we would that we rely on as a district to calculate uh firmer estimates, but based
on the most recent discretionary block grant that we got this year, we expect it to be about $185 a.5 million. Learning recovery emergency block grant also again we're soon going to get the details, but we expect that to be almost a little bit over $68 million. Uh the
special ed rate increase, which is an ongoing increase to the special ed rates. So here you'll see a com two impacts combined in one line. First there's the higher rates but sped revenue AB 602 revenue is also subject to the cola and so the cola is lower
than previously projected but the rates are higher and the combined impact of that lower cola but higher rates is a positive impact on our revenue and so we expect it to be about 25 and then $24 million for a total of almost $50 million through 2728.
Below that you'll see listed a lot of additional revenues, some one-time, some ongoing. You'll see a lot of TBDs listed there because we don't yet have the detail that we need to tell us how much we will be receiving. In some of these cases, we know as Martha mentioned, the
ELOP revenue we will not be getting because we are not a tier 2 district. But many of these cases, there will be funding. Some of these are going to be restricted for very specific uses, but in some cases, some of these revenues could benefit general fund unrestricted either directly or indirectly. And so,
more to come, but we don't expect it to be uh as substantial in size given what the statewide totals are uh as as substantial in size as the student support uh the discretionary block grant. Okay. So netting over the next
two years, the good news and bad news related to the cola is about a $210 million of revenue additional revenue beyond what we were projecting uh at first interim. So in net it is more revenue than we were
expecting but again the lion share of that revenue is one time. Okay. So next kind again building off the multi-year projection that I just showed. So, we have the adopted budget. We have first interim in green. In orange, we have uh incorporating the
cost of labor offers we've already made, but full use of that $796 million of workforce stabilization funds. And then we add that estimated revenue that we just shared on the previous site. So, about $210 million of good news through the 2728 school year. And you'll see
that brings that projected negative ending balance for 2728 to191. So certainly moving in the right direction. Moving in the right direction. Obviously we always want to see those balances be positive. Um so
that is good news. However, just through 2728 and only incorporating the offers we've made our labor partners to date which has not led to to an agreement. Um we would still have work to do to balance our forecast through 2728. And
again, this is before even adding the 2829 school year. And this again is assuming that every dollar in the fiscal stabilization plan, that updated number of 1 billion, $1.4 billion, that every dollar of that is fully realized.
So on the next slide, I'm going to show the impact hypothetical. Okay, it's a hypothetical of if the district were not to move forward with the reduction in force. And I just want to emphasize uh some of the comments that the superintendent made.
Staff is working to as always to minimize the impact of a reduction in force on our employees and on our schools. And that in many cases a reduction in force will not lead to employees being laid off from the
district for the same reasons the superintendent mentioned. retirements, separations from the district or vacant positions where positions are available in order for people whose positions were reduced to go into these new positions whether either reassigned or transferred
uh sometimes at a different classification when then they were working in in in this year. And so while we can't know yet that there will be no impact on employees, we know based on re historical data uh based on on other practical
experience that most folks whose positions are reduced will remain with the district. Okay. So that is is happening that will always happen. We always want to ensure that we are minimizing the impact of any
of these actions. Um but it is still important to highlight in this hypothetical what the financial impact is of not acting. Okay. And so the financial impact of not acting is shown in that in that bright red the the final bar graph which is I add the state
revenue right the good news from the state budget. But if we were not to move forward with the reduction in force we would not be able to realize the savings from the fiscal stabilization plan. The fiscal stabilization plan that I'd mentioned is insufficient to cover the costs of what we've already offered our
labor partners. And so there's an estimate we would be projected to be negative in this hypothetical nearly half a billion dollars just through the 2728 year if we were not to move forward. Another thing I want to add is that um and and many districts like like
Kevin said about twothirds of districts are are facing a similar outlook or are are moving forward with reductions. Many have already moved forward with reductions last year that delaying action will only increase the number of reductions, the size of
reductions. And again, as the superintendent mentioned, 90% of our revenues are spent on on staff, which makes sense. We're a school district. We serve students and families. And so the it'll be much harder for us to say
publicly and to you that we will be able to absorb the impact of reductions in force if we don't move forward now because that number the size of the reductions 12 months from now will be that much larger and will be much more difficult to absorb and and to protect.
And so that is just a really important point that that I wanted to make about uh not just the financial impact of not acting but um that we will also have a harder time absorbing folks through retirement and attrition um and
vacancies uh if we delay action. So, next steps, uh, of course, continued good faith engagement with our labor partners. Uh, school budget development, uh, budget development's ending at the end of this month. And so, by the end of this month, we'll have clear view of of decisions made at the local level by
schools and and other budget holders. And then come February, uh, there would be the the statutory requirement for board authorization for the preliminary reduction in force notices to go out. Again, preliminary notices, as you know, go out in in March 15th. And the board
authorization, of course, must always precede that. I did want I did emphasize that word preliminary because this is the statuto requirement is kind of the first step in in a in a monthsl long process and it's preliminary and it and it's it's one it's a legal requirement as we've discussed previously but it's
preliminary because once over the next few months as we approach the end of the fiscal year uh staff continues to do the work that both the superintendent I and I mentioned um looking at the retirements looking at the vacancies looking at the separations from the district and assigning folks in into new
positions questions uh whenever possible. So that is the conclusion of the presentation and happy to now answer any questions that that you have. >> Thank you. Um so now yes now I will open
the floor for my colleagues to have any questions for any of our three presenters here who would like to start wants to kick it off. Yes, Miss Ortiz Franklin. >> Thanks. Um well I really appreciate the presentations from everyone and in particular seeing the riff assumed on
these slides. I think this is the first time we've done this publicly right assumed. Um I just wanted to double check some of the numbers. So the 796 workforce stabilization uh is about the labor offers we've already made. Does that include the health benefits we've already offered at this point as well for the additional years?
>> Yeah. So the health benefits offered are already included in the multi-year projection. Yes. >> Okay, great. And then on slide 11 with the the hot red um that that is the hypothetical if we don't uh you know issue the riffs the numbers don't seem
completely to line up to me with that riff assumed table. So I just want to understand the distinctions between them. Um so slide uh yeah that's slide 11. And then in comparison to sorry we're looking at a couple of things here. Um, slide six,
I guess I would understand the um, where it says riff assumed on slide six all of those numbers to match that hot red if we don't implement the riffs. But but there's some distinction. So for example in 2627
um the the total on slide six I think where the riff is assumed is about 669 million whereas the hot red slide is negative 123 million for next school year. So there's like a big distinction there and then the following year it's
smaller 475 to 491. I don't know if that question is making sense exactly. Not not this slide that the hot red that's like a dark red. I don't know what you call it, but yeah, that one compared to the table. But do you see what I'm saying? Like this slide where it has the riff assumed, the dollars don't exactly match up here. So there's something
that's not accounted for. So just to try to understand that. >> So the fiscal stabilization plan table includes two fiscal years. And so that assumes reductions not only for between this year and into next year, but additional reductions the following
year. What this hot red graph assumes is only no risks >> this year >> this time. And so the reduction in force given the size of our financial outlook uh given what all district most districts are facing in the state and
given the vast majority of our resources are as they should be spent on on staff. Uh it will need to be done at some point. um in particular something that the superintendent and others have highlighted repeatedly that we did see a large increase in in staffing levels
through the pandemic. Um and so those are the reasons why um it will eventually be necessary. Um and so this is just assuming not delaying by one year and not realizing the savings of about $300 million here. Even if you look in the
physical stabilization plan just the first column and the riff impacts, we're making an estimate. This is an estimate of what the impact would be of not riffing of about $300 million. Once budget development is finished, we'll have a better sense of what that dollar
amount is. It could be higher. The neg the impact of not doing riffs could be greater than $300 million. certainly could be less because what happens in budget development is not only do schools and budget holders set new priorities with the the the
allocation levels that they've been allocated. Um but even in a normal year where there was or in a year where there wasn't a reduction for example in in SENI or a reduction in carryovers for certain programs, schools still make decisions as as we encourage them to do based on their needs assessment, based
on their student data. Even those decisions in in a time where there are not lower funding levels often involve positions being eliminated that have incumbents that have somebody in them. And so that happened from last year to this year.
That's why the FSP includes the elimination of those unfunded positions. There were about $60 million of positions just from last year into this year that were eliminated that had a incumbent in them but that weren't rifted. And so that uh those positions had to be restored in the cost paid by by the district.
>> Okay, that that makes sense. And then by June we will see the 2829. Now we can't submit this to LEO, right? We can't be under the line. >> So for second inter you mean? >> No, for June
>> for June. Um well there they'll require us to submit a fiscal stabilization plan. um they will if we were going into the June adopted budget with uh numbers this negative and again we would be adding 2829 which we do expect to be
substantially more negative than this uh they will they will almost certainly require like they did this last June that the district submit an additional fiscal stabilization plan which identifies reductions above and beyond the current fiscal stabilization plan
because this already incorporates the existing fisc fiscal stabilization plan. So that that's what we expect uh the county to require. >> Okay. I think that that helps with the district side of things. And I have questions for the the state. Um and I don't know if uh Martha or Kevin will be
better to answer this, but um I guess generally if the revenues are looking more positive, why didn't we get a greater cola? So on the cola that of course again we're all it's all about timing right sequence. So the governor could have if
he wanted to and he's actually I think done it once in his tenure could have said we're not going to do the community school thing and I want that billion dollars of extra money to go to supplement the cola. He could have done that. He didn't. So it's just a sort of
a bunch of priorities up there. Now, repeatedly the legislature has done this as more revenue materializes and particularly the outlook for ongoing increased marginal dollars in ongoing money where the legislature gets to the
May revision and they have that conversation and they've done and they actually have done it two or three times where they've done what's been called a super cola and super cola, you know, is debated all over the place about that terminology. To me, it's discretionary money. you get to decide how to how to
use. >> And that that's the thing I just want to add is when the state determines the cola, they're looking at economic factors, um inflationary factors to make that determination. They're looking at what's the prior year revenue for the state,
what are CPA, what's the um consumer price index. there's a number of indicators that they use to determine that particular cola for for the 2425 or 2526 uh year. The super cola is usually a discretionary allocation. It's the
state and policy makers going beyond what the indicators say. And so there is a choice that's being made by the department of finance and the governor's office and saying this is what the factors are actually indicating what the cola should be and they're right sizing for that and then they're looking at
outyear projections tied to that as well. >> Yeah. A billion dollars funds a whole percent increase in the cola. So they spend a billion and a half dollars each a billion on community schools half a billion on special ed. I like the special ed piece. It's nice. But what
Mr. Salceto is saying is right is that I mentioned a little bit earlier. The cola itself is driven by a formula that has nothing to do with our increased costs and every governor plugs that number in. Tell me what it is. It's out of the US Department of Commerce. It goes in. The debate about whether we supplement it or
make it bigger is usually a debate that happens at the May revision. Once in April, they have a much better idea about what green money actually showed up. You know, my argument over the last several months is a lot of green money showing up, but budget plans are not
reflecting a lot of that increased revenue. Now, it is in the governor's plan, but significantly one-time money, but there are some nice pots of some ongoing money that are better than nothing. So, >> the only thing I would add, which is an important point, is and I think it's it
was tangentially touched on. So COLA is the most certain way of recurring future investments. Once a COLA is added to a budget, uh it's not going to be pulled back. So why would in a year where the
governor touts legitimately so it is true significant increased investments into education? Why isn't the cola higher? Well, number one, it is mathematically driven. And I'm here to agree with Kevin that the mathematical computation of a cola for the state of
California that fails to regionalize impact is flawed. It disadvantages high cost of living areas like Los Angeles. But the reason why is considerably higher level of funding, but the vast majority of it is invested
in one-time ways, not through COLA. Because the COLA ties you to recurring investments. That 2.4% 4% starts this year, it's forever and next year's COLA will be on top of that. Uh it is the safest way when you lack the
predictability of future years is to stick to the computed cola, not use additional revenues to create a super cola because you're afraid of what the following year will be and the year after that. So to inflate in the budget,
you invest one-time money uh whether it is through grants or uh community schools investments, additional money into special ed areas that do not necessarily recur. >> Yeah. which I I appreciate uh talking through because it seems to me that you know we could have benefited probably
more if the billion dollars would have gone to cola than to community schools even though both are a priority of ours because generally we think you know eight or nine% of the overall you know $98 will come to us but we don't actually know if we're getting eight or nine% of the community schools grant but we would have gotten the eight or nine%
of an additional billion dollars in cola right and that's the discretion that we would have and so you know this is ongoing conversation about stepping away from LCFF so all of the one-time investments ments that were listed on on Martha's slide for with the special ed and the educator residency and the discretionary block. All of that is
still within Prop 98, right? And it's all decisions that are being made at Sacramento of what we can use that money for if we're eligible rather than coming back to us directly. And and I just fear that, you know, the the challenge is how do we bring our legislators back to the vision of LCFF and and protecting, you
know, school districts like ability to make better decisions because we're closer to the solutions and closer to the challenges. So, um I appreciate the statewide context and you know, lifting up your uh advocacy opportunities and where we might plug in this spring if there's a chance for a super cola. that
seems to me like an opportunity for us or um revising how cola is computed for public education given that our costs are different from some of the other things that you mentioned. These these seem really ripe for um the discussions before before May. >> If I may add um when uh Mr.
and I had meetings with the department of finance and others in Sacramento in November leading up to our letter budget letter in December. Legislative committee staff from the budget assembly and senate they indicated super colola is was a one-time thing but I don't foresee them the legislature obviously
they're the elected officials um wanting to go in that direction because superintendent Caraval mentioned that's a higher threshold for them meeting that cola in the future. Um what I will also say um I had a slide uh purposely um for the board to understand the legislature
may have other priorities that they'll want to fund. So they may redirect the governor's one-time proposals for other one-time proposals. Um but the big one is the $5.6 billion that I mentioned at my earlier comments. Legislator not talking about that and that we need to get them to talk about that. Um, but
should there be an opportunity for us again to hone in on LCFF or other ongoing resources for the school district, um, that would be part of our no categorical put that back into the LCF formula. Any new increases in the funding? >> I appreciate that. I'll I'll pause for
now. Thanks. >> So, the governor's proposing $59 million for special ed. Do we have any idea what the federal government is proposing for special ed? Any idea at all? >> Um so as Kevin mentioned uh this morning
uh we learned that the uh house and the senate they put out the fiscal year 26 appropriation bill. Um the funding appears to be uh level funding. So no increases to what we received in the p past year. There's only very small uh like $20 million uh for title one. Um
but it's 20 million across the country and that's a minuscule amount but for IDA it appears to be at at this time uh level funding level flatfunded. >> Okay. And one more question if I may. Um the $und00 million for college and
career pathways. Do we know how much is going towards uh college pathways and how much is going towards CTE pathway pathways? Any idea to figure that? So the I mentioned that and we'll get more details on February 2nd when the trailer budget language comes out. Um it's not
clear on two fronts. The distribution method whether it will be a per student amount that we receive or whether it'll be a categor competitive grant whether we have to apply for the funding and then receive uh you know if competitive enough receive a portion of those funds. Um what I will say based on the details that we have seen so far um it does not
seem to include CTE. Um it's for dual uh enrollment uh dual credit community college um access for students in high school. Um so CTE at this point doesn't seem to be um too much uh focus but we'll see in the details and there'll be an opportunity for us to advocate should
we want again should we want to play along with the governor's proposals and say we appreciate the proposal but we wanted to see the money be broadened we could do that. >> Thank you. just briefly like to add on the question of federal funding. Um while it's
unambiguously good news that there seems to be uh movement towards level funding um and that no cuts is good news in in in the recent context of what's happening at the federal level. Um in terms of multi-year projection though we
we did assume kind of current level of funding. And so while it's still unambiguously good news, it doesn't translate into federal funding levels beyond what we've already been assuming in our in our projections. >> So Gordon, did you want to um add any
more? Okay, great. >> You're on my left. Any question? Carla, >> thank you for your presentations. Um Mr. Gordon, regarding you mentioned the $5.6 6 billion that the governor is withholding is actually not going into some savings account. It's actually
planned to be used. Correct. >> What are some of the things that it's it's being planned to be used? >> You know, it's it's kind of hard to tell. The governor doesn't outline where he's putting. He just has a bag of money he's spending on the nonprop 98 side of the budget, right? And then there's
ours. And we know the 5.6 is missing and it is being spent there. The nonpartisan legislative analyst has suggested as an alternative to the governor that he actually put it into the Prop 98 reserve. The reason why the governor will not want to do that is because if you put it in the Prop 98 reserve, it's
the equivalent of spending it on us. He might as well give us the money. If he uses it on the non-prop 98 side, every dollar means less cuts on the nonprop 98 side of the budget. And I've talked to the prom and other people in the legislature about it. This is not going
to be easy for them because every dollar that they sort of agree with us on and give us back means they're going to have to cut some of the very families and programs for kids on the non school side of the budget serves our kids in LA
Unified, right? So, it's really not going to be easy. Every time they give us a little bit, it does make their challenge harder on the other side. The reason why it's so important though for us to try to defeat this is because it is not a good president. I mean, this is
$5.6 billion he uni unilaterally takes away from us and he's our friend. I mean, you get somebody into the governor's office that's not necessarily predisposed to supporting public education. This is a tool that could be very, very badly used. And but we've
seen it. We've lived all kinds of manipulations Prop 98 and this one is a big one. So, >> thank you. >> One other thing that I'll build on with Kevin's comments. Um, I don't see the legislature wanting to put it into the Prop 98 reserve also because that once
they put it in, there's four conditions that they would have to meet to take the money out. So, once it's in the reserve in the Prop 98, they wouldn't be able to have the discretion to take it out. Um, so I don't foresee that being a one of the alternatives that they would consider. >> So, Martha, do you think that this is
one of the things that we should be advocating for between now and April? let's say >> yes um so in Sacramento there's already discussions that are underway with the education coalition which is the management associations the labor associations and PTA um within the we are part of the education management
group which is all the advocates for school districts county office of education um and uh for public schools and there's a discussion about doing a letter uh a coalition letter that would be asking urging the legislature to reject that proposal um the LAO will come out with their own recommendations
for the legislature to consider sometime in February So, also be interesting to see what the LAO's um position is on the issue and and um what the legislature could consider doing is suspending Prop 98. Um that requires a two-thirds vote of both houses. Um but that gives the
legislature discretion to determine um if they don't want to appropriate um Prop 98 at the guarantee minimum guarantee level. Um the legislature could choose to do that. It's only happened three to four times since 1988. Um so it's a high bar to meet but they could have other alternatives to consider than to the governor's
proposal. >> What are you suggesting for us to do as board members? >> So um as I mentioned beforehand uh meeting with our delegation and I'll provide to all of the board members uh the uh all of the names uh there's too
many of them for me to mention them right now of our LA members who are on the budget committee. Um we have 25 total members of the legislature who um are assembly members or senators in in who represent our schools and our interest. Um maybe about seven or eight of them total are in the senate or
assembly budget committee. Um we have Senator Gonzalez um who is from your area. Lena Gonzalez from Long Beach and represents LA Unified Schools as well. Uh she's the chair of the budget subcommittee number one on the Senate budget. Uh new role that she has.
Senator Sasha Perez who uh has one of our schools. She's a chair of the um Assembly Senate Education Committee and a member of the Senate Budget Committee on School Finance. Um so there's a lot of other members that I can follow up and provide to you all. But uh if you are meeting with legislators u bringing
up um our priorities, our concerns um and the need for those resources to support students um now um and then the other piece uh we will be doing coalition building with parents with community based organizations here locally. Um just last week as an example, we sent a letter to um uh
Congress uh over 67 signitories um LA school districts and other u CBO nonpart partner um nonprofit partners um supporting um funding for for this upcoming fiscal year at the federal level. So we will continue to do that but um uh we'll have lobby visits with legislators and then also local meetings
here where you all can also engage in our advocacy. How can we we all have parent a base of parents um that we connect with on a regular basis. How can we get them involved in this? >> So I am actually meeting with several parent groups um this week um with I'm
meeting on Friday uh I think with the CAC or there's a few different groups. So, I mean, I think I'm with the CAC or another group, uh, maybe the pack. Um, but, uh, what I can provide to the board members is, um, an overview, a short just something that's, uh, plain language for parents. Uh, if, um,
appropriate, maybe a call to action. Uh, we could provide information where they can reach out to their elected officials. Um, they all have a website where you they have a button that says contact me and you can create a form and send them an email. Um so so we can uh provide information to you all should
you want to get it into your newsletters and uh any call trash to your own uh community members. Um >> all right that's it for now. I have more but I'll I'll let others ask. >> I also want to mention that um CSBA California Schoolboard Association is
also taking a strong stand on the 5.6 billion. So I know that they will be also lobbying and getting all the uh school districts involved. Yes, Mr. We did want to add and it's really significant. Remember that this tactic was done in the year we're in 1.9
billion. They did it once and they kind of got away with it. One of sort of the sort of sleeping giants that did not get into the fray over that because again if you look at the balance of the whole budget for whatever reason they didn't get in the middle of the fight was our friends at the California Teachers
Association. They've been very aggressive about this 5.6 billion. they will be a really important partner. All of our labor partners are going to be important in their voice. I think honestly that's going to make a big difference in terms of the outcome of this in the budget process.
>> Thank you. Um I'll now move to my right. Um Miss Newendi or Malfoy. >> Sure. Um thank you all uh for the helpful presentation and my colleagues for their their questions and commentary. Um and you know just a a few
framing points and then just some clarifying questions. I think one of the things that we're trying to work through are some of the paradoxes inherent in both the state budget and the district's picture. I think on one hand when I look at the charts um on uh Kevin and Martha you're you know the the
governor's state budget over the last few years like when we look back on what we were advocating eight for eight years ago we basically doubled the per pupil rate which is on one hand um really remarkable and on the other hand we're still talking about that not being enough and employees not being able to live and having to do rifts. A second
one is the paradox around where this revenue is coming. And we see I think the discrepancy between at least one of our labor partners, UTLA, their analysis and ours is about a billion dollars um and and in what we think we're getting even before some of the the potential
release of that um 5.6 billion. And then the third is just kind of what I hear out in the field from constituents is just the kind of inongruence between salary raises and riffs and like so why are you giving raises when you're also talking about layoffs and what so so
that I think is this the three of the I'm sure there are more of some of the tensions that we're working through. One of the questions I have for the slide two, the overview of the governor's budget. Do we have any of these charts that adjust for inflation um to actually show kind of purchasing
power when it comes to what you know uh what the difference is in the last few years because I mean and Simon you made this point too but and Kevin you did as well but like kind of by the nature of a growing economy every year is historic record highs and so when the governor talked about record highs in education that is just kind of by the nature of
the way the economy is growing. what does that actually mean in terms of purchasing powers for school districts? So that's my first question. >> So to to use your term like that it does it is a bit paradox uh paradoxical because publicly there are these statements
factual statements made about record levels of funding for for Prop 98. Um and it's for the reason that you highlight it's every year is almost a record depending on the year. The trend is always up because the economy continues to grow. Um, but when a school district is calculating the impact on the revenue, it's always compared to the
most recent time that they estimated it. For us, that was just a month ago. And so while the state budget could be at a record level for education and there could be over 20 billion dollars of additional Prop 98 funding over that three-year window that Martha described
above the previous levels, we can't simply say because we are about 8% of the state that we're going to get 8% of that 20 plus billion dollars. It's for all the reasons that that both Kevin and Martha mentioned. One, there's $5.6 billion that's uh held back. There's
over $4 billion put by law into the rainy day fund. Uh there's a portion of it that goes to community colleges, so on and so forth. There's grants and revenues that LUSD will not receive any of, not 8%, 0%. And so that is why not
just LUSD, but all districts in the state, they rely on the details of the governor's proposed budget. Now, right now, we have not all of the detail. As we've mentioned, the TBL, the trailer bill language will be released in early February, but we have enough confidence
to start providing some estimates, right? And especially on some of the big ones, like we provided estimates on some of those big statewide numbers. And so that is kind of the way that you know while while it's better than the revenue levels we were expecting a month ago it's not nearly as much as we were
hoping for and even less than what some of our labor partners are estimating I guess. So when are we going to understand the allocation methods and what might be coming to LA Unified because I think there are two in each presentation I think it's or I know it's slide four and I guess Martha and
Kevin's and slide nine and yours that look at these um discrete state investments and I think we for our projections and we understand why and we need to be conservative but um we our TBD leads to zero and I think
um we know we're going to get something um and again I think I don't know if they match perfectly but like you know there's there's 2.8 billion in the student support and professional development there's 100 million in kitchen kitchen infrastructure and training etc. So at what point and can you just walk us through the next few weeks to figure out how we figure you
know some it might be zero but some it might be 8% some it might be 40%. I mean what so how how do we do that and then how do we you know if we're acknowledging that maybe some estimates are too rosy this also could be argued as too conservative because we know
we're going to get something. >> So I mean the briefly it's with the trailer bill language where we'll get a lot of the information about the methodology for allocating resources. Um and so the kitchen infrastructure and training that
that would be going into the cafeteria fund. So that one regardless of the amount we know it's not um going to benefit the general fund. Still very important, useful uh you know put to good use by the district. Um but that's another example of one that that won't benefit the general fund. Some of these
>> but that's actually an important clarifying point too which is that when folks if they're just doing an 8% of everything, not only is your point that the 8% is it It's a rule of thumb, but by nature of like what those are, it kind of maybe a back of an envelope. But besides it
being different, there are certain funds that are articulated here that like even if it was 8% aren't off the table for general fun. >> I I have a perfect example and building on someone's comment about the kitchen infrastructure and training uh one-time grant funding. So, it's proposed $100
million. I mentioned currently there's $150 million in the in the current budget year that will be applying to the the grant deadline is due on January 30th. So, we're getting the application submitted this week. Um that for example, $145 million statewide available. It has a cap for districts
our size of not more than $2 million out of $145 million statewide appropriation because they want to be um equitable for the other thousand school districts and the other 1500 charter schools who may apply as a competitive grant. But that in itself is not an 8% allocation of 145
of the current available resources. There's already a built-in cap that if we are deemed competitive enough, and I think we will be able to hopefully get that grant, it would be only a 2 million, not an 8% allocation. Um, community schools, um, as I mentioned already by the three of us beforehand, a
billion dollar ongoing uh, proposal in the governor's budget. Um I will be very surprised if they're able to maintain the existing allocation for the 2500 schools that have benefited from community schools um but up until now because again it's only a billion
dollars whereas there's been a four billion infusion of funds in recent years. So the math doesn't add up one billion versus four billion of sustaining what we currently have and giving new money to schools. So, um I will um caveat some comment that yes, we'll have more details in the trailer
budget bill in February, but even then we'll be making a lot of assumptions about what that means for us because for a lot of this one time, it will likely be competitive. That means we have to apply for it and that means we don't know how many districts will apply, how many charter schools will apply and then
there might be a per student amount within that competitive grant. So, we will have more details like than the home to school transportation where we can be able to comfortably put a dollar amount next to it. Um, I will say the reading difficulty screening that most likely will benefit all school districts
maybe more such that we'll put a dollar next to that and then possibly the fire recovery some sort of dollar amount next to it. College and career pathways against it depends if it's a per student or if it's a competitive grant. But for anything that's competitive, that would be making a big assumption. has nothing
to do with 8% across the board from California's um allocation methodology. Um it just means the pies this if there's a 100 applicants then who knows how many of them will actually receive the funding. So um I I hate to say it
but there probably won't be really true certainty and until the final budget adoption in June because the legislature will continue to negotiate between now and then on what the final numbers look like and then what the distribution of the funding will be. That's helpful and I but I think that this I mean any sort
of projection is based inherently on assumptions and so that's what I'm trying to understand and so that back and forth kitchen infrastructure and training maybe not a great example because it's not general fund but helpful to know that that one has a cap um and so I could see a world where we we say okay we're going to put in a
strong application we're going to get 2 million now in a budget our size is very small but that that level of articulation I think is helpful in that iterative process and just understanding when things are going to be sort like um when we're going to have some certainty, but but I just I want to have these conversations in public because I don't
want to um the district to be liable of saying like lose credibility because we're saying zero across the board. I think it's much more helpful when we're able to go line by line and say this is a total of this. I mean, just as you and Martha have been articulating. So, that's helpful. I'll note, and I know you're not going to have an answer, but
I know for my constituents in particular, that 22 million for fire recovery, we're already having questions about as we think about hold harmless and um sustainability of staffing. Understanding that there are still folks who have moved out of the area who are coming back. We have some schools that
weren't destroyed, but Paul River Middle School, for example, lost 300 students uh as a result of the fire. Um even though the they're not, you know, directly the the in the burn scar. So, um, that one I just wanted to know publicly. I guess last one kind of before getting to some of the fiscal
status questions on slide six. Um, Miss Alvarez, and I know this is you talked about individual meetings with board meetings, but looking at the proposed LCFF reforms and legislative alternatives, what is going to be the process that we determine as a district which ones we're going to be advocating for?
>> Um, thank you. So, I u my plan of action a few areas and appreciate the question. Uh we've been meeting with the our finance fiscal team uh budget team since the fall just to uh socialize some of the ideas from Sacramento. Uh I'll be meeting this week with Andrew Thomas um
the a um IAU also just being able to help provide some some perspective to this uh meeting with the board of members to uh make sure that you all understand the nexus between LCF our budget but also what are the some of these proposals um you know look like. uh we'll be providing some
recommendations to the board for consideration where we believe um our strongest um uh funding um increases might be for the district to benefit students. Um, and then, uh, um, this will be an interesting, um, experiment because, uh, typically I don't come to
ask the board to tell me exactly what we vote on on on this bill, for example, but, um, be able to just get your general feedback and see if you trust the recommendation from the staff and what we focus our advocacy. Um, I can tell you, uh, regional cola at this point is not a topic of interest to
people in Sacramento, uh, CSBA, CASPO, the business officials, and others. Um there's a funding coalition that supports um suburban districts. Um they're really focusing around um the increase in the base grant. Uh maybe t tinkering on the edges, adding more um
student groups into the categories. Um but some of these areas that we would be benefiting and be of interest to us are not ones that others are going to be advocating for. Um we have a urban coalition uh that uh we started years ago. Uh previously when I was at San
Diego Unified over a decade ago, we started working with urban districts more holistically in our advocacy on budget and started with LCFF. Uh we're now up to about eight or nine urban districts um from across the state. And so we'll be looking to do joint advocacy with them as well where we might be the
strongest champions for um some of these LCF reforms. >> Great. I appreciate that and look forward to our meeting and and engaging our constituents as well. Um Simon on the just a few clarifying questions on on the FSP and in your presentation. Can
you explain the discrepancy between um the 496 million transferred out of fund 17 and yet the only 50 million in the FSP um the you know 10%. So
the fiscal stabilization plan since June had always included a $50 million transfer from fund 17 into the general fund. What we also did at first interim so that was part of the FSP that 50 million is part of the 1.4 but there
were substantial additional u balances still remaining after the $50 million and that is that additional almost $500 million. So that is why um they're kind of the f it the end result is that the
fund 17 balance would be zero and every dollar as a first interim is then in in the general fund 50 million as part of the FSP every penny dollar remaining uh part of first interim action taken by the board. >> And so where would we find that money in
terms of the bucket that it lives now outside of the you know the other 450? So it's it's in our ended balances. >> Is it in a workforce stabiliza? Like where >> it's you can think of it as indirectly funding that workforce stabilization fund. There were all these different
actions that had the same impact which was increasing our balances. The the fiscal stabilization plan itself, all of fund 17, the $634 million of OPED, um all of those, the 1.4, 4 the 500 of
fund 17 the 634 of the OPED funds that were freed up in in June all of those are now in the general fund unrestricted. Yes. >> Then at first interim >> all but 10 million of those balances all of those combined balances. So all those were needed just to get out of the
negative. Right. And so after all of those actions were taken at first interum all but $10 million were assigned to pay for the cost of offers we've already made our labor partners. And so that's why there was a $10 million remaining balance in unassigned, but still that almost $800
million additionally. And so one another way to think of it is that $800 million is possible because of the combination of the withdrawal of fund 17, the fiscal stabilization plan, and the OPEC funds from Jim. >> Um, one question that I've made or that I've asked repeatedly is just number
nine on that slide, the central office reductions. I know um that I think individual central divisions have been asked to identify their cuts and maybe that was the initial delay but it is not something that we the board has seen yet where those cuts are um and I think it's important you know as we be because of
the riffs and the bumping um understanding where we're closing positions and um 150 million is a good chunk of savings and understanding where and how that will affect school services if it all I mean I think it's easy to say not easy but to say we're going to cut central office which we have
consistently But uh so I just want to make that public request. The other thing I'll note um before turning it back to our chair is I have asked you know I know there's conversations that the board is having around equity in in riffs and in staffing um and as we think
about the financial impact and so I have asked for some of the per pupil staffing levels um by the last few years by school broken down by cyban priority school status classified versus certificated just as we think of um of supporting our equitable funding formula and our highest need schools and then
also So um have asked for more information you know before a February 10th board meeting where the board would have to take action on the expected number of riffs which categories of employees and geographic distribution um as we think about uh not just closing vacant positions but the the bumping
factor um and understanding what the impact might be at the school site and most importantly of course on kids. Um so just want to make those requests in addition to the fire one public uh because I know we're hearing from constituents about that. So, I appreciate it. More to be done and I know that we have folks as we speak at
the table trying to urgently work around some resolutions with our labor partners to avoid any disruption to kids who have had a lot of disruption over the last few years between strikes and the pandemic. Um, but I think these are the par, you know, and I want to give credit
where it's due to the team for more robust budgetary conversations both with labor partners and the board and the public than at least in my tenure. Um, to try to understand these paradoxes, kind of record level of spending and yet folks can't afford to live. uh revenue
increases and yet why are we still talking about the third year and then kind of salary increases and a workforce stabilization plan at the same time that that schools might be losing employees and um I think the more that we can articulate that as as we're trying to do now the the more helpful we'll be in
coming weeks. So thank you back to Dr. Rubis. >> Yes, I appreciate all the questions and and your comments. Um so I yes I went really quick and then I will come back before I forget my question. So I have a quick question clarification for Mr. Gordon and then
I'll pass it over to Son and then I have another question for Mr. Gordon. So you mentioned in your presentation for 2425 there is an amount of money that's going back to prom 98. How much was that exactly? So the it's 94 cents out of
every dollar of unanticipated revenue for that year is what ends up materializing in the totals that the governor has in his budget. And like for example when we got done we looked at June the LEO's estimate in June and
that's that year was like 2.2 2.02 billion of additional revenue that we would get 94 cents out of our dollar that increase. And I'm like, well, hold on a second. What about the income tax that gets paid late for LA County, Ventura County that's attributable to
that year? Can't we expect some kind of bump in that? Well, when everything was said and done, they now have a number that's, I think, $3.2 billion that's attributable to that year. That's really important, and it's what creates an increase in the amount of onetime money
that we have. So yeah, but it all goes into that one time >> basket of all those chunks of money that we are getting and they are planning to give us minus the 5.6 >> in this year. Okay. So that so for for next year. Yeah. >> And for next year
>> yeah it's attributable to we they always look at over look this thing over a three-year period prior year current year next year. And so 2425 is important because of that added money that we would get. There's 40% of all the money that materializes now and their forecast
for next year and all of it they have estimates of how much they think will be that ongoing and the and the one-time stuff. >> So that so the 2024 funds that you mentioned are going to go have already been placed for this for next year. >> Correct. >> Right. And then that's where the the
budget is coming from. So it's not where it's not like we're going to get some back pay from 2024. It's funny you mentioned that because a lot of people think, okay, if that money was attributed, then where's my check? >> Right. >> And what governors do is, and the legislature does this, is when there's more money that materializes that would
otherwise be owed to us, you'll see it in the next budget cycle, and it materializes as one-time money, and that's what's happening. >> Got it. Because it's money that came from. >> Um, okay. So, I guess that question, you know, I'll slash in since he answered that. So, just Mr. Mr. Gordon, based on
your um knowledge of other school districts and and what you've heard here from the presentations, um so given the L USC size and re reserve structure and reliance on multi-year planning, what are practical steps that you would
advise the district to take between now and the May revise to res preserve flexibility and avoid premature or irreversible decisions while still meeting our cash flow and oversight obligations? What would be your >> right I mean obviously you guys have a very extensive plan that's in place
that's before the board that you guys are working on but to me all the chips are on the advocacy that happens about any marginal change in those dollars maximizing what ends up being given to us for ongoing purposes maximizing and
winning that fight over that very substantial amount of money that would be one time I mean think about what's at stake so if the block grant right now is 2.8 billion and it's 500 bucks a kid. Imagine if we get that additional 5.8
billion or 5.6 billion dollars. We're victorious on getting that. What that means in the magnitude of one time money and again onetime money doesn't solve your structural problems but it's a lot of money and it's worth fighting over. So it's it's two-pronged effort. And
then Martha had mentioned those conversations about analyzing every opportunity. So if any serious conversation really happens about doing something about LCFF, it's just straight up running the numbers. What benefits
this district than some other proposal and being strong advocates for those particular solutions? And this board, I mean, I know you guys get it, but you guys have incredible amount of influence in that process. No other district has a
delegation the size you guys have and particularly with people in really strategically important positions on the budget and policy committees. I mean you guys have the chair as she was mentioning of the ed committee. You have the brand new chair of the budget subcommittee in the Senate who
represents your schools. So you guys are in a very good position to influence that and and I think you know hopefully we'll we'll see some positive movement in the next few months. Thanks. That definitely gives us some hope. Um and my last question for you um as you've heard
here today um you know in in terms of um layoffs um if the priority is well it's mentioned you know layoffs are unavoidable but at least not to affect um or to have the the least um a possible effect in our
schools. What levers are districts sometimes slow to pull or reluctant to consider? Whether timing related, accounting based or policy driven that could meaningfully delay or reduce the need for workforce reductions.
>> Right. Uh that it's a it's a hard question to answer because again it has so many nuances in terms of the complexity of your own budget. You guys are a major enterprise compared to most districts in the state. So there's a lot of nuances and it sounds to me like what I'm
hearing is you're you're pretty much looking under every rock and that's why you know doing taking the steps that you guys are taking and I really appreciated your remarks Mr. Superintendent at the beginning of this conversation because I think you outlined very well the kind of steps you guys are trying to take that's
sort of a sensible uh and balanced equitable way of approaching this. Um the one thing that's always a challenge is that in March we have the required by statute uh you know mandatory layoff
deadline that we have to meet March 15th. And it's really important for everyone to know that it was our labor partners who got that into statute. So that painful demarcation point we have every year I think it shouldn't exist. I think we ought to have a layoff date
should be much later when we actually know how much money we're getting. But at the same time, you know, from a planning standpoint, because you do have to adopt a budget obviously uh before the end of the fiscal year, it creates that kind of tension. So, anything and
everything you can do definitely learning from other districts. You've got a great CBO plugging into CASBO which I know that you guys do and some of the statewide associations to learn best practices but in a lot of ways you guys are leading that work. >> Thank you for that. Okay.
Um yes, Miss Newell Hindi. Yes, you had a question. >> Yes, it's still morning. No, it's not. Um good afternoon. Um thank you um obviously for the detailed report. some questions already asked and wanted to
just clarify some things. Um when you mentioned um and since you're here you mentioned with the cola good and services goods and versus services or good and services can you just give a little more detail as how that works where it should be.
>> Yeah. So it's it's this index and there's lots of different indexes and the the background is is that this cola that we have was written by Jack Oonnell. Some of you guys know the former state superintendent who's my co-founder of our firm wrote that some
many years ago. And when he did it, he did it because we used to have a different kind of index that we used and it was constantly generating a very pathetic amount of money year-over-year. So he had 10 different indexes on his
desk. The one that generated the most amount of money consistently over the prior 10 years was this thing called the implicit price deflator, the market basket of goods and services purchased by state and local government. Even though it had nothing to do with education, it was the best index at that
time. So he wrote that into law and it's been there ever since. Now, you know, all credit to Jack, we need to revisit it because it has just so fallen behind on reflecting the year-to-year cost increases we so it doesn't recognize
those unfunded pension cost obligations that we have. It doesn't recognize the exponential growth we have in serving kids with disabilities. And you just go down the list. You guys can name it better than I. all of those things that from one year to the next build costs
into your obligations that if you don't uh if you don't get funded for them, you have to make cuts somewhere else. >> Yeah. Um, you mentioned uh we talked about
our fiscal stabilization plan and we went through a list of items here and I know strategic closure of school positions is already listed here and then for 26 27 27 28 there is nothing there and so can you give a little more
understanding to what school positions were closed in order to achieve 2627 that was adopted. >> So the updated fiscal stabilization plan showed that actually we were not expecting any savings from that strategy. Um whereas in the June there
was an assumption that it would be hund00 million every year. And so because the carryover policy for general fund uh school program and and SENI is set at zero that is the mechanism in which any savings from a vacant position
will already be captured because they wouldn't then carry over like they had at least in part over the last several years. And so we don't want to double count um th those savings. we're already capturing them uh so to speak as part of
a 0% carryover. >> Okay, see my other question here. >> I think you mentioned this before. um um backing up a little bit here in protecting um Prop 98 because I think that's something that we've talked about and he mentioned how do we definitely
make sure we're protecting Prop 28 and that may be a Martha question that may be a you question. How do we make sure those protections are in place >> or Prop 98? >> Yeah. >> For education funding. Well, um I mean Martha can certainly add. So, I think when
the district benefits from the funding being in the local control funding formula, the biggest part of of kind of education funding in California, and I think board member Ortiz Franklin uh was alluding to this earlier in her in her comments that let me give you an example. If we were to get our share of
a billion dollars in LCFF as opposed to let's say a billion dollars going statewide for community schools. Now, we all, you know, community schools are very important, you know, and it's definitely a huge priority not just for the state, but but for us as a district, but one by putting that same billion dollars statewide into LCFF, not only
would LUD be guaranteed our share of that total, but we would have the flexibility to use it for community schools or for any of our other priorities. And so that is I think why why Martha regularly emphasizes the
importance of LCFF and why we prioritize so much not just in our advocacy but but as a as a kind of statewide uh the district that that benefits so much from LCFF why it's such a big part of our advocacy and and and our priorities is
because one you not to be crude but one because we would get more funding as a district but that is very important um but also the flexibility to use it for the same purposes as maybe a restricted grant may have been used for. And so I I don't know if you want to was that the the nature of your question?
>> Yeah. And then if Martha because the next question is to add to that is of the list of items mentioned, what would be considered general on slide? What was that? I think you mentioned in
the list of the one-time funds, those one-time funds, are there earmarked to restricted or general unrestricted? How do we look at that? Because I know we don't have the actual dollar amount because obviously it has to be calculated, but when we do calculate it,
what would go into restricted and what would not? >> So, I'll defer to someone to that question. Um, and if you want to answer then I'll come back to the Prop 98 question. >> Sure. So just going to run run down the list if that's okay. Um so the lower cola affects general fund unrestricted.
The discretionary block grant given that it is going to be discretionary, we we do expect it to be in general fund unrestricted. Special ed is by definition restricted, but as Kevin mentioned earlier, because the revenues we get for special education are not enough to cover the
costs. Um, it has basically an indirect beneficial impact on general fund unrestricted dollar for dollar. Home and school transportation, even though it's TBD, we do expect that to benefit general fund unrestricted. kitchen infrastructure and training. We expect that to not only not be in the general
not only not be general fund under restricted but not be in the general fund at all. Uh and instead in the in the cafeteria fund. Um the others community schools the others more than likely I think would all be restricted except for the fire recovery which will
likely be unrestricted >> then with our and go ahead. I'll just briefly mention with Prop 28, uh, Prop 98. Um, so again, it was passed by voters in 1988, it was modified in 1991. Um, the legislators, um, even though in
their biographies, u, my team and I have gotten to know them, their priorities, many of them talk about the priority for kids for education, their support for, um, our public school system. uh when it comes push comes to shove, there's a lot of concerns about the non-general uh the
general fund as nonprop 98 because um legislators see school districts as being a winners under a Prop 98 because it's a guarantee. It's a minimum guarantee. So, it's a floor, not a ceiling, but they see it always as a floor. Um because otherwise, if they were to give us more money than what the minimum guarantee, it's just a precedent
for the following year where the higher um uh guarantee level needs to be at. um this this fall um in November um there will be an opportunity should it qualify for the ballot um there will be uh possibly an initiative to sustain um
taxes that were income taxes for the higher income earners um in the state of California that were passed first in 2012 um and then later on in 2016 that were extended prop 30 was in 2012 Prop 55 was in 2016
um those taxes are anywhere between 5 and 15 billion dollars that support and benefit u Prop 98 at the current uh level that we see to sustain the funding. Um so that would be one way um uh uh to continue to support um the current funding that we receive. But
it's a ma mathematical calculation every year uh once Prop 98 guarantees um computed the rest of the funding goes towards the non K14 side. So for infrastructure, for housing, for health care. So a lot of the legislators
despite again their priority u saying that they care about schools and students um they also have a lot of other concerns about how to pay for the other infrastructure sides cost that have nothing to do with schools. So it's a balancing act because the revenues are not sufficient for all of the needs in California.
>> Got it. And with the I know you said that the breakdown is we we talk about certain funding community college getting 11% is that other 89% TK through 12 or is that also broken down? >> Um so the it's roughly between 10.5 less
than 11% for community colleges um is not in constitution. So that could the legislature could modify it in any given year but historically they between 10.5 and 11% for community colleges. on the other side um the bulk of it so not a breakdown but the bulk of it comes
through LCFF uh the majority of the funds from that uh 89% comes towards LCFF and discretionary local funding >> you know one of the things Prop 98 has all kinds of nuances to it but I always like to say it's what constitutionally defines the bag of money we have for for
K12 K14 education and that when you when the legislature sits here and says how do we spend Prop 98 money? And they put money into LCFF, which is indeed a big part of the expenditures of Prop 98, at least for K12, it is. Um, but there's special ed, all special ed funding is in
that. Everything they decide, the only thing that's not in Prop 98 is what we call state operations. So the state superintendent of public instruction, state board of ed, but every dime that goes to a district, every dime that goes to a county office ed to a community
college district is all Prop 98 money. The issue about protecting it is that we've seen all kinds of manipulations over the years. people come up, I call them, I call it evil genius in Sacramento where they kind of figure out some new way of trying to figure out how
to give more of the money that comes to us in education to the non8 side of the budget. And my heart goes out to him. I get it that there are a lot of vital great programs that are on the non8 side of the budget, but we have a constitutional minimum guarantee. And to
your point, Martha, it's really interesting. Prop 98 established a minimum, not a maximum. And I was always concerned the minimum would become the maximum. And essentially it has is they don't under this governor with the billions of dollars that he's invested
in education, it's been great. He has this governor has never once exceeded the minimum guarantee in what we're supposed to get under the Constitution. To me, the mark of somebody that has education as their top priority is how much beyond that minimum guarantee were
you willing to go? and he actually articulated that early in his administration. We got to make sure this isn't this doesn't end up becoming a funding cap that we ought to be willing to go beyond that rock bottom minimum. And so far it's been very rare when we've seen it and it's been under prior
administrations, not this one. >> Thank you. >> Good. Thank you. >> Yes. Now we turn it to Miss Gonz. >> Uh thank you so much. I really appreciate the presentation and um obviously the state budget has been in
the headlines, but I think it's really important to to be able to dive into the nuances and understand um even though overall it's a positive budget picture um the the differences really matter um including kind of that ongoing cola and
and the lowering of the cola. So just to ensure I I understand it sounds like the greatest opportunities for LUSD advocacy and I certainly um want to be an active part of this is a restoration potentially of of cola to where where it was in in June of 2025 potentially and
then that 5.6 billion that that's currently not included in our education funding. Does that does that sound correct? I see knots, but maybe you could verbally say yes. The >> thing about and again we talked about a little bit about the cola is it is an
index and Mr. Salce did a great job of talking about all the different economic variables that go into defining it. >> But just on a straight up fairness basis is to say you guys know you know it is not covering our increased costs. So to pick a number
>> and say go back to this number you pick your number and say we want at least X >> you know The cola needs help. We think it needs reform which would get us to a different number rather than just picking some arbitrary number like a year that we like the number. I would
say if we do some of the characteristics that the superintendent has mentioned and others have talked about that would help build a cola that really sustains us. But the other issue clearly both of those issues are great. The other thing I would not forget to mention because I want them to hear it over and over
again, legislators got to do something to provide relief on declining enrollment and it's got to be discretionary money. >> Could you talk more about that actually because I I think we've spent a a little bit more time on the COLA reforms and certainly that that is very
consequential. It's an an amount that we really rely upon as as well as as it comes to our labor conversations that is very impactful. could you share more about um what might be possible to help support on the enrollment decline? >> Right. And you know it's we you know we posed the issue which is
that as Prop 98 yearover-year seems to be growing and it is enrollment is declining. Here's this golden opportunity to raise per pupil investment at the local level. We know where we've been across the country in our competitiveness and it's not a good
story. Now, we've definitely improved over the last few years, but the point is is to say, if we want to be competitive with the top investing states in the country and around the globe in terms of what we do for kids, we can do better. And to me, the declining enrollment doesn't mean,
again, like I said a little bit earlier, is aha, we've saved money because this district lost kids. when we've got an operation to sustain and we should be pouring that money back into the districts, letting those districts hold on to some of that money instead of ripping it away to do good things for
kids. So to me, it's the posing that argument over and over again to legislators to get them to understand you can and should do more about declining enrollment because again, look at where we've funded across the country and look at what you're doing. you're taking money away. And we all know that
this ADA versus enrollment debate still rages. They're probably not going to fix that. But what they could do is one year over the other, give us some marginal increased ongoing money that recognizes declining enrollment relief. And I think if you do that, we can get creative
about how to do it. >> If I if I may add, um thank you Kevin. Um on the 2.8 8 billion discretionary block grant. In the governor's budget summary, it actually um acknowledges that the purpose of the discretionary block grant is to support with declining en impacts of declining enrollment the
impact of immigration on attendance. Um so that's the intent of the $2.8 billion uh discretionary block grant of trying to provide some additional cushion. That's a multi-year grant. So the governor's perspective very cleverly is that it would build in some um some additional cushion over those uh years
of funding. Um, I will say in addition to the two points you brought up, Border Bone is um supporting u restoration of a higher cola uh despite being an uphill battle with the legislature having to find ongoing funding to pay for the higher cola. The um 5.6 billion dollar
giving it back to Prop 98 as is due in 25207. Um I will also say that uh part of our advocacy will be important. If we like anything in this proposal, we should be saying it. If we like the billion dollars of community schools ongoing, then we should say that. If we like the
special ed um equalization, we should say that with the caveat that we also need the legislature to provide more money, ongoing money for the cost of um supporting servicing kids with moderate to severe disabilities, which is very costly and we don't get reimbursed appropriately from the state or federal
government. Um so, anything we like in the governor's proposal, we need to say it. we should not take it to assump assumption that the legislature will approve that because that's where they're going to negotiate between now and and and June 15 adoption. Um and along those lines, um I will find it
very difficult for the legislature to be willing and I could hopefully I will be wrong, but that they will be willing to go above a $2.8 billion discretionary block grant to give us more discretion at the local level. The legislators, they are elected officials at the state level. They want to be able to come to their communities and demonstrate they
did something a priority of theirs. So they may want to put more money for school greening and which there's some general fund money for that. They might have other priorities that are in align with our local um priorities of discretionary funding or other purposes you want to spend money for. Um so we
need to be sure that we have an idea um should it go towards LCF the COLA and then after that um is it back to the discretionary block grant or something else? um because the legislators will will have a lot of ideas for how to spend that money. >> Yeah, that's super helpful context and it is an election year for them. So, um
that that may also uh play into how how they behave and wanting to be able to show something for their constituents. Um >> if I may just add one quick thing, I think something that Kevin just said critically important >> at a time of declining enrollment here in LA USD but across the state as well.
This is really the golden opportunity because declining enrollment has nothing to do with Prop 98 revenues coming in. Those revenues will come in. The question is, do they make it to the districts? So, there are two key issues that could be tackled at this point,
particularly considering the excuses or reasons we've heard from Sacramento as to why we cannot move on these policies. One, as you said a number of times, and I fully concur, it is absurd that there is no regionalization specific to cost of living adjustments. I understand the
state relies on a cost of living, but a lot of states based on that federal computed, state computed uh cost of living, then they apply a formula um a weighted formula based on very specific
economic conditions in different areas of the state. uh pecuniary items, basket uh services, goods, things that cost money, whether it is gas, milk, eggs, a haircut. Uh it spits out a multiplier
to adjust for the specific regional cost of living issues. This is a golden opportunity, particularly considering the surge of money, to actually move in that direction because you don't have to have a takeaway from other districts. you actually have enough money to fix everybody. Meaning, you're not taking
anything away from anyone from this surplus of Prop 98 funds. You can make an additional investment into those districts whose cost of living is higher than the state average. Point number two, we've heard time and time again in Sacramento that the state's over
reliance on enrollment versus in on attendance versus enrollment uh cannot be fixed easily because it costs money. and we know exactly how much it costs. This is the time to actually fix that without taking anything from anyone. It's a simple
reallocation of dollars to buy the solution for the way the states fund education, which again is very very disparit from the way most states in the union fund education, relying more on enrollment rather than attendance. Recognizing that districts like Los
Angeles Unified where asthmatic conditions, respiratory conditions, and many other issues keep kids away from the schoolhouse, elevating absenteeism, then punishing all kids, including those who attend school consistently because of lower uh
attendance uh attendance rates. This is the time and I would strongly suggest for the board and and to Martin and her team that we incorporate these speaking points as part of our uh as part of our advocacy platform. >> I agree. I'm glad you jumped in. Um and
I think there are in inherent inequities in the system that are impacting the the very students who I know matter a lot to our legislators here in the LA delegation. Um so I and that was a question for me as well whether we intended to pursue kind of our budget advocacy items in concert with the
structural reforms um in this upcoming uh budget cycle in Sacramento. Martha or like what is what is the pathway on on the structural reforms I guess and how urgently might we be able to move? So we we need to be able to include into our priorities not just the short-term but
also the long-term priorities like the regional cola the moving from enrollment based attendance to enrollment based funding. Um unfortunately the LAL's uh report that came out um at the beginning of this year is not favorable to that conversation. Um they raised concerns
around uh absentism and uh believing that school districts will not do right by following up with kids and making sure that they re re-engage in school. Um so despite the LAOO's um uh recommendations of not moving to enrollment based funding, it is our opportunity to continue to build up a
case for why they need to to move in that direction. Um I've spoken with Andrew and again I'm meeting with Andrew Thomas um in the coming days. Um he has some ideas to provide regarding um enrollment based funding and our other arguments that we can continue to make. Um so we will be incorporating that into
our advocacy platform. um the legislature, they may only have a willingness to look at the short-term near-term uh decisions they need to be making, but there's legislation like I mentioned AB 1204 um and should there be any other ideas um to move forward. Um as Schultz from our delegation, he has
expressed interest in an enrollment based funding formula. Um we will be engaging with his office now that the LO report came out to see what would it look like. Um so because right now the LCF reforms does not include enrollment based funding. it would be based on ADA funding. And so I would say everything
should be at the table knowing that um the opportunity for changes may be smaller, slim given that is the governor's last year in office and he may just punch to the next legisl uh next governor, the next state superintendent. And on that note, uh my last comment will be on this. Um it is
an opportunity for us to be working towards our 2027 uh platform uh for any new administration in Sacramento. there'll be a new governor that will start in transitioning um after the election in November of 2026. Um they'll have a very short time around for them to come up with um what is their
governor's proposal two months later. Um so it is an opportunity for us to bring up the ideas of uh areas where the governor fell short in being able to accomplish in his eight years in office that we would like to see the next administration pick up and and go from there. >> That's super helpful and Assembly Member
Schultz overlaps with my district. So please let me know if I can be helpful on that front. I think he's great and will be responsive. Um the only other question I think you mentioned it Martha with regard to the um the block grant in terms of support for school districts in dealing with enroll increased enrollment
declines because of the ICE rates. Um is there anything contemplated within the budget beyond that to help support those specific school districts? >> At this point that is the only reference about immigration related impacts to attendance and funding. Um there may be
um alternative proposals from outside entities. Uh I've been in touch with a few different groups in Sacramento uh children now Californians together and others. Uh they may want to pitch and we may also joining that advocacy for dedicated targeted resources for uh newcomer students. Um but as of now this
is the only proposal that would try to address the impact to immigration. There was a bill that the governor vetoed um in October um I think AB 1348 by Senator Baines from the Central Valley that was uh trying to provide a hold harmless um when students um when school districts
have a material decrease to attendance due to immigration impacts. Um the governor vetoed it had concerns about the use of independent study for that purpose and tying it to back to funding hold harmless. Um, so I think it'll be very healthy conversation to have. Senator Gonzalez is the chair of the
Latino caucus, um, a member of our delegation and and she's been a champion of, um, our immigrant student population along with many of other members of the legislature. So, uh, we will continue to assess the numbers for us to be able to make a compelling case for why they need to address this concern. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that would be
helpful and we know that it is impacting our schools not just currently, but that that will have a compounding impact in future years. So, um I think really important to to raise to our legislators. And then just the last thing, I think that the um efforts to engage our community in legislative advocacy are really exciting. And I
think in addition to parents to the whatever extent we can include our student leaders as part of that conversation as well as employees and work with our labor partners, um I think that we have shared interest and um our students in particular can be really powerful voices for why these funds
matter to them and their education. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Um, this conversation is is exciting on the one hand because there is more funding coming through but also frustrating when
we're talking about um potential riffs, right? So, um that is and then also in in the context of our test scores coming up so great this year, but then we may not have um the same uh staffing levels
to support uh the continued growth, right? So, um I I want to just advocate for uh when we advocate for uh funding, I do like the idea of increase per people funding. I think that's very important. I think Mr. Gordon's
arguments were very compelling that when we want to support our students and we want them to to continue to grow, well, we need to make those investments in them instead of taking back the money that was not used. So, I I would say that we advocate for both per pupil funding increase as well as um an
enrollment formula. You know, regardless of whether right now the legislature is uh willing to hear that, I think that we should be uh planting those seeds and um speaking to that. Um, regarding community schools, I think um, that's
certainly one of our priorities in the district and I would advocate for more uh, the money to go to existing community schools so that they can continue doing the great work that they've been doing and then maybe not expand right now just because we don't
want to take funding away from them and then everything just goes back to the way it was, especially when our general funds are going down. So, how can we continue supporting them? So I would um advocate for that. And then regarding um
the slide presentation um Simon on page seven when you're talking about um not page seven is it no the last slide that has all the reds and orange.
Let me see which one is it. >> 11. Yes. Um and it says multi-year projection with governor's 2627 proposed budget. So does that include the 5.6 6 billion expected to come back to us as
you know >> it does not no it the the >> it only includes what >> the revenues that we have been able to estimate thus far which is the even though it's even though it's only a proposal the discretionary block grant it's not a final grant because it's the
state hasn't adopted their budget yet but it includes the cola impact the negative impact of the cola plus the positive impact of the estimated discretionary block grant and the learning emergency recovery block grant and the special education revenue. >> Okay. So, it does not include the home
to school, the kitchen, the reading difficulty, none of those. >> It does not include home to school transportation. It'll never include the kitchen because that >> because it's restricted. >> Yeah. Because I won't be in the general fund. >> But, but we don't expect our share of the other revenues that will be in
general fund under compared to the discretionary block grant because that is statewide total 2.8 8 billion where some of these other are are much smaller at the statewide level like 300 million things. Uh so even if we were to get 8 10% of it, it's going to be a much smaller sum than our
share of the discretionary block grant. >> Okay. And then um why are you not showing us the restricted and assigned total budget numbers? the so the assigned the $800 million that was previously assigned at first interim has been fully
reflected here. And so that $796 million of assigned balances for the workforce stabilization, which at that point is like almost all of what was still assigned by 2728 that is assumed to be fully released in all three of the figures you see here in all three of the
different bar graphical. >> So that assignment is here. >> It's been unassigned if you will. has been moved into unassigned, but it's still not enough to avoid these projected negative ending balances. And the reason why restricted is not included, it's they're they can't be
used for they have to be used only for the purposes in which they're legally restricted. And so the reason why we focus so heavily on unassigned ending balances is one because that can be used for any educational purpose. Um it's not restricted by law. And also it's what
the county and the state look at when they look at districts uh finances to determine their fiscal health. >> But it is helpful to see the restricted because I mean that money is used for something right it is used to to for the different restrictions that exist which it includes personnel it includes
programs right >> Carla may I just ask him to give us a couple examples of restricted so the audience would understand better. Yeah. So, examples of restricted are, of course, special education funds, both state and federal, title one, all the different titles from the federal
government, uh, ELOP, expanded learning opportunities program. And so, you're bringing up a really important point, board member Grigo, um, in these graphs that we're showing here, all of which include the cost of compensation that's been offered. the cost of compensation that's reflected
here is only the cost that would impact general fund unrestricted. >> Okay? Because you're right, there are positions in those restricted grants in title one, in special education, of course, um in ELOP and so in in in even outside of the general fund, in the
cafeteria fund, in the child development fund, in adult education fund. And so we don't reflect a cost that's going to hit the adult education or it's going to be charged to the adult education fund here. >> Okay. >> It's all h otherwise that would be would
be incorrect. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and then regarding the um the riffs. So um it's going to be very important for me to understand um
which positions are getting rifted. Um where do these positions resi reside? Do they are they central region schools? How are schools going to be impacted by these riffs? And um yeah, I need you
know so when I don't know if you have that information right now, but I would like to know more about that. I think the public will want to know how this is going to impact their schools. >> Yeah. So I don't have it for today, but it is going to be shared very very soon because you're right, it is extremely
important. Um and it's actually required that we provide that level of detail in the resolution that the board would be voting on on February 2nd. must include the classifications and the number of positions impacted. >> Is that when we'll know? >> No.
>> At the February meeting or when will we know? >> In advance of of the February meeting because we know how important it is to to the ultimate decision. >> Okay. And um there's something else. Hold on. Um regarding the the
uh fund 17, I'm I guess I just want you to explain again. Sure. It's not the 496 is not reflected in the FSP plan, but it was at one point. I mean, I don't know if it was in the in the first interim
that I saw that you actually had put the 496 in the following year and I had said, why don't we use it for 2627 instead of 2728, but now it doesn't show up in the FSP. So the fiscal stabilization fair from June always had
50 million yeah of the fund 17 about 10% of the total at that time but at first interm not only did we transfer that 50 million as part of the FSP but also every dollar remaining so the the balance of the fund 17 and whether it is
done in 2526 26 27 or 2728 the impact that it has on our ending balance by the third year is identical. So it has no makes no difference that for example on just the table that we're looking at here with the cost of compensation
offered plus the workforce stabilization whether those fund 17 funds and this is true for any of the other funds that that were released as well for example the the any other the reserved balances that that are released as part of the FSP um that will still be negative 401
whether the fund 17 is again this year next year or the year after that would still be negative 400 >> I understand that but I just don't understand why in the fiscal stabilization plan that we see now there is a dash under updated FSP FY2728
whereas I believe in the first interim the amount was in there. >> Yeah. So I think you're bringing up maybe it would have been more appropriate to have included the balance of the fund 17 in this table but it is at first interim the board authorized
the full release of fund 17. So it is in the multi-year projection. While it's not in this table, the updated FSP, it was a separate action in addition to the FSP. So if you see here on the summary
of of solutions, it is separate from the $1.4 billion. It's on top of the $1.4 billion even though it's not in that summary table. >> Oh, I see. Okay. All right. Um, yeah. And then can you explain um when
are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those are? Is that what you're going to give us in a couple of weeks? I hope. >> No, sooner. >> No, sooner than that. Okay. And then lastly, um, one of the things that we've heard from at, um, you know, parents
and, um, and labor partners is that a lot of our our deficit that is where what we prioritize in terms of our our funding, right? And some of the things that have come up by that has been uplifted by parents is that our increase
in professional contracts has gone up and professional services. And so I've asked you know you and our previous um um uh CFO um you know for this these contracts
what are these contracts where you know which ones are district which ones are are school what I district I mean central district and which ones are school-based contracts like where is our money going and people want to see that as we are making decisions about our
priorities and make and especially making decisions about cutting positions or closing positions that inevitably will impact our students. So when can we have that information because I I think we've been I think it's been almost every meeting we bring it up and we haven't received it
>> and it's also in in the resolution that was approved in June and so we we we have been working on analysis. It is going to be information. So what we're focusing on is of course contracts because that is of particular interest. But when a district
is facing the type of outlook that we are like twothirds of of districts in the state are, it's important to look at everything that's non- labor. And so that includes not just consulting contracts, but all kinds of other things like equipment and uh supplies. Yes. Um,
and so we we're doing an analysis kind of historical look to be able to describe the change in the spending levels that you've that you and other board members have pointed out >> and of course to to describe why the trend is what it is. And then ultimately
though, it's to to result in decisions and priorities like like you mentioned. Um, and so it it that is going to be coming up at at future either committees as a whole or board meetings or other opportunities for us to provide information to the board. Um,
>> okay. Well, to me, that's going to be very important to see before we make a decision on riffs. >> Sure. >> So, another thing I should point out is the central office reductions of estimated $150 million are well the majority because most of our spending is on people. Um, while the majority of the
$150 million is in positions, there are still material decreases in non- labor spend at the central level. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I know we've spent a large portion of time on on budget, but
it's an important qu important conversation questions and I I do thank um everyone. One last question for Mr. Gordon before we say ado. Um so just really quickly so for the revenues for October, November, December
of last year, how much did you say? Do you know the total amount that uh revenues went up in those last three months? >> Yeah, in the last three months it was multi-billion. I mean December alone was 3.9 billion. I think November was two billion maybe plus. I can't remember the
exact number, but it's an important question because the legislative analyst number that got all this press around the state about their $18 billion gap that um that did not they finished that report, it never obviously reflected
November. The governor's own budget with the block grant we're talking about, it doesn't include our 40% of that 3.9 billion in December. So, you know, my sense of it that block grant's going to be going up. Now, the point was made earlier, and I think Martha made it.
It's a really good point on block grant money. The emergence of one-time money may be going up. Whether the block grant goes up or not is another question. The bigger the block grant, the more temptation legislators have to go get their pet project funded. But I will say
under Jerry Brown, we had a couple years where we had block grants that were bigger than this. And so it all and then one of the points that uh member Gonz mentioned earlier was it is an even numbered year. So there's more likelihood I think that we could end up
getting a bigger block grant this year than we might otherwise. But it's all going to be about advocacy. We'll see. and any revenue increases in 2026 2026 right now say for instance all the way to the May revise could those revenues
also be absolutely included in in any >> current year and it will it will have an absolute effect on increasing and a lot of people are talking about you know if you read the LAO report they're like not another dime of money is going to be coming in the track record has been
pretty remarkable the last few months the question is whether it will continue through to the end of this fiscal year and if it does in May look for it there's going to be more onetime money in all likelihood I think >> and that's the optimist but you can ask there's a number of other people
probably tell you the opposite yeah >> well I wanted us to leave obviously enough positive notes so I wanted to make you know ask those questions so thank you again for being here for your presentation for your you know sharing your knowledge and experience with us um so thank you I appreciate I know you're
very busy at this moment. Um, and also thank you to Miss Alvarez and also uh Mr. Sang uh Bravo Karimi for your presentations as well. And I do want to mention that in February we will continue the conversations particularly in um the FSP and the equity an analysis
that we're still awaiting. So February and then we'll have more information about the trailer bill and more um sort of um more numbers on all the you know the grants and funding we're getting. So thank you so much. I appreciate you. Thank you. And also for your staff for
their work as well. So now we will move on to the our last part of our meeting um for the committee of the whole which is on enrollment and best practices and um what the district is working on in um
and u bringing in enrollment to the district. So I want to ask Mr. uh Dr. Andrew Thomas up to the podium. Um, so just as he gets uh ready up here, I just want to mention that enrollment ships are not just about numbers. They
reflect family trust, student experience, and whether our schools are meeting the needs of students in meaningful and responsive ways. Today's discussion focuses on how we are responding thoughtfully using evidence-based practices and supportive interventions that center students and
threaten strengthen school communities. um and addressing the educational needs of our communities and how we can bring that uh um aboard in our districts. So, the floor is yours whenever you're ready, Dr. Thomas. >> Thank you, Vice President Rivas, uh
President Schmurson, um and members of the board of education. Uh I know this was a long budget discussion, so I'll kind of I'll try to be snappy, but I'll also start off maybe a little bit slowly and let some people return. Um but I want to thank you uh for the opportunity
to present findings um from the independent analysis unit on enrollment stabilization and attendance improvement strategy. So we're going to be focusing hopefully after this discussion on a little bit more optimistic like revenue generation and as um Mr. Gordon uh put
it uh um turning over all the stones and um I think the good news is that that a the district has been turning over stones and b though and what I'll be talking about a lot is that the stones are are researchbased. So a lot of the things that we are already doing the
research supports and I'll talk about some of the money that hopefully will will will show up under these rocks that we're turning over. Um, but I do want to talk about say that that this presentation is about one of the most significant long-term challenges facing
the district, which is persistent enrollment decline and its fiscal impacts. And today we're going to talk about what the data tells us about the the enrollment decline and then the evidence of what works to attract and retain students. Here we go. Okay. So, I've got um six
key sections. I'll start with the context showing you the magnitude and and trajectory of LUSD's enrollment decline compared to California and national trends. And then I'll spend the bulk of time and I'll also talk about the fiscal impacts. And then I'll spend the bulk of the time on the research
what strategies actually work to attract students to improve improve attendance and graduation. And um we'll look at both district level strategies and state policy levers. So there'll be a few additional state policy levers that that haven't come up yet. And finally, I'm going to outline uh specific
opportunities and areas where we need a deeper analysis if we're going to move forward strategically. So, let's take a look at declining enrollment over the last 20 years. We've been tracking this for many years now and the decline since 2004. So, the these these are the sobering facts that
the the enrollment has declined 43% since 2024. I mean since 2004. So, it's not something that we can ignore. and it goes down at an average annual rate of 2.6%. And I'll add to that, unfortunately, we heard in late November
and December that um the current rate is actually lower than that due to mainly um fewer newcomers and more um immigration enforcement is really the big driver here. Uh I'm hoping that that that won't be sustained, but that's just a hope I have. That translates to um
20,000 and this is in the budget that was adopted in the fall, 20,000 students lost o over the next two years. Uh and let me show you some some graphs. So here's the declining enrollment over the
20 years in California, Los Angeles County, and LA Unified. And you can see that that there are downward slopes. Um, one of the first things you notice is that the downward slopes for LA Unified are m much steeper than either California or the county. Um, we've also
divided it in to um, district schools, which are the dark blue, the lighter blue, which is all public schools, including independent charters, and then private schools. And the district schools are by far the steepest decline. So, on the far right, you see 43% for traditional public schools. And charter
schools, independent charters have only gone down 31%. still substantial, still going down, but less. Uh, and then kind of interestingly, the red line goes up and down. So, even though there are fewer students overall and fewer students in in private schools, um, the
private school enrollment is actually trending up at the moment and it has gone up and down. So, this is interesting because it's actually an opportunity for us and I'll talk about that in a little bit more detail here. So this is our this is our famous um bar chart that that tracks enrollment in
different kinds of um schools over the last 20 years, 20 plus years. And several things to notice about this. So this this has bar colors for traditional public schools, affiliated charter schools, independent charter schools, private schools, and home schools. So all of the different kind of schools
that students can attend in LA Unifi. And one of the first things to notice is so the the whole length of the bar is the number of school-aged children available in the stock available to us in LA Unifi. And in 2004 there were more
than 860,000 school age children in the LA attendance area LUSD attendance area and now there are only 609,000. So that's kind of the hard that's kind of the hard fact and that's because of lower birth rate out migration linked to
affordability issues. Those are the main drivers and then less immigration. So we have over 200,000 fewer students to draw from. So that's that's the the the biggest fact here. Um but another part
of it is that in 2004 traditional public schools made up 77% of that stock. And now traditional public schools only make up 61% of the stock. And the biggest bar that has grown over that time is independent charter schools. However,
independent charter schools growth has stabilized. So it's really not it's not going up anymore and um affiliated charters have stayed the same. But the fact that there are different color bars represents opportunities for additional
enrollment. we can um if you will, maybe this is a crude way of putting it, steal from the other bars uh in order to add to our bottom line to a certain extent. I'm looking at the 12% of private schools really. Um but the big thing to to emphasize is these
are demographic trends and um there's there's school choice trends. Okay, so let me connect it to the enrollment to money. So number one we have declining enrollment and again that's because of mainly external factors but some internal opportunities
in there and then we do not as as as was discussed just now um we the district does not get uh revenue from enrollment we get revenue from attendance and that that's why I added attendance to the enrollment presentation the the actual
revenue that's coming in is ADA average daily attendance. So when we have a a smaller stock of kids enrolled, obviously we're going to have a lower attendance, but we can also maximize the attendance to to be as close to
enrollment as possible. Right now we're projecting attendance to be average daily attendance to be about 92% of enrollment. If we boosted that up to 93%, 94%, 95%, that's tens of millions of dollars more and it's closer to our
actual enrollment. So that should be a strategy that the district pursues. Of course, when we have lower ADA, number three, we have decreasing LCFF allocation, less revenue. We've been discussing quite a bit how COLA increases may not cover the cost
increases. Um, and I'll mention, um, also special education. um the special education population of students has stayed the same roughly in the district which means that the that as a proportion they take up more of our
budget and um so that's a that's a cost pressure. Now, let me bring up this point, which is that although the the decline has been long-term, the district has really been shielded from the full impact. And the point of this graph is to say that
and part of this is because of the pandemic and the hold harmless provisions that are part of state law. But as our ADA has gone down, our revenue has not gone down in step with the ADA. So looking for example at 21-22
we lost actual ADA current year ADA 73,000 students but we were only credited we were only lost according to the state 21,000 in the ADA that was funded. So there was a big gap post pan
immediately post pandemic between what the number of students we were actually losing or not attending and the number of students who we were getting dinged for losing if that makes sense. And you can see the the gap between the light blue line and the and the dark blue line
gets smaller and smaller over time. And so what what we're saying here is that it's caught up with us. We were we were shielded from the effect of lower ADA and we are no longer shielded. So this explains some of the what board member Melvin was saying the paradox
of having more money but it's but but still having to make cuts. we're we we had a lot more money, one-time money, and we were shielded from the ADA reduction, and now it's it's catching up to us. So, that's why it's an it's an
issue to talk about now. And um the changes we make now can make a difference. All right. So, that's that's the reality of the situation we're in. I want to move on to talking about um uh the major strategies that we have for dealing with this. Um there are four
major strategies strategic responses and this presentation is going to focus on just two of them which are the the revenue generating side of the equation. So maintaining and growing enrollment and improving attendance and I do want to um emphasize that and it'll become
clear as I talk about the examples um growing enrollment and improving attendance are also are fiscal strategies. I'm talking about them as fiscal strategies, bringing more money into the district, but they're also instructional improvement strategies. So, when we talk about growing
enrollment, we talk about improving our services, improving the options available to to students and and when we do that, we're improving schools and that brings in more students. And um when we improve attendance, we know that attendance is linked to academic
achievement. And when academic achievement goes up, attendance goes up. So it's a virtuous cycle that goes that um that serves the district. And so you can think of it either as bottom line policy or you can think of it as academic improvement policy. It's really
handinand the same thing. There are two additional policies that are not the or strategies that are not the focus of this presentation. Uh but they sort of were the budget presentation. So that's managing costs and then additional strategies about more um efficient use
of facilities which can be discussed on another time. So I want to talk about from the research best practices to grow and maintain enrollment and some of the the major categories here of the best practices and again the the district is
pursuing many of these strategies um already but what I'm here to tell you is that research shows that they work. So the first big bucket of strategies is attracting students with highquality innovative programs. This is known as program differentiation and it's things
like dual language immersion programs which has strong evidence of both effectiveness and um parental demand. We know that there's demand for dual language. We know that there's of course demand for magnet. Uh we've created the transitional kindergarten which is
really a whole new grade that has been added to the district. So this is a way to attract students, grow enrollment and then um career technical education programs. Um what the research tells us about these all of these differentiated kinds of
programs designed to attract students is that they need to be high quality and they need to be real. So they require investment. They're not free. Uh and then they also need to be marketed. And one of the best examples is transitional kindergarten which we has created the
transitional kindergarten um initiative from the state has created uh eligibility. Many families are eligible but we have not filled our transitional kindergarten yet and we have to do that through strategic marketing making sure more parents know about the enrollment
um timeline and know about the availability of transitional kindergarten and also make a cultural change so that we have more four-year-olds in our schools. And there's still room and I know we've been working on this since I've been here in 2017 uh starting in 2017.
There's still room for streamlined enrollment um a portal that works that works better for students to uh and families to choose different options and know exactly how to apply and how to get into schools. So that's important for
the first bucket. Um the second bucket and I'll talk quickly about this is um improving attendance. And there are many ways to improve attendance and you'll hear more about them from LC Rosado shortly. Um and the district has definitely prioritized improving
attendance with the IT attend program and so on. But there are two new things uh they were also mentioned in the previous presentation that are worth highlighting. One is the changes in the one-day independent study, which allows us to recover every single absence, and
I'll show you an example of a a nearby district that's doing that right now to reach like 98% ADA, 99% ADA. And then there are changes in attendance recovery, which allow us to use ELOP money for attendance recovery, which is
afterchool interession um programs that that can serve kids who have chronic have chronic absentee behavior and and count all of their attendance recovery as attendance. So
that's bottom line ADA stuff. Um, another thing that comes up in the um uh in the literature a lot are early warning systems and those are systems that predict who's at risk of chronic absenteeism by behaviors. And there there's software systems that that are
used for this and then interventions can happen for these kids before they miss 10 days of school. So that's that comes up in the research a lot and it's u practiced by other school districts. Um and then I'll just mention optimizing
calendar. That's something the district has looked at before and our multi-tered attendance interventions which you'll hear more about shortly. Now the last bucket I just want to emphasize. Uh sometimes we don't think about graduation rate as part of the enrollment discussion. Um but the more
kids who graduate, the more kids who are enrolled, more ADA we get all the way through. And the district can work on graduation, you know, by keeping kids engaged, but also uh dropout prevention. And then something we don't talk about as much, dropout recovery, which is
finding um students who have dropped out already, maybe because of teenage pregnancy or other reasons, and then bringing them back into the system. So that's uh that's something that shows up in the literature as well. Um, none of these strategies alone will reverse the
43% decline, but the evidence is that that many of them work and collectively and strategically implemented, I think they can stabilize enrollment and slow further loss. Um, let's take a look at just a few case studies from nearby districts. We have
the multi-tered attendance support, which is the school attendance review board. And um I found an example from Long Beach Unified that got the award for their all-in team. Of course, LUSD also got an award in 2024 for our uh multi-tered attendance support. And then
I'll jump to the bottom. Green bar attendance recovery. Arcadia Unified is a local poster child for trying different alternatives uh in that. And they're also doing the single day independent study um in order to to
recover all their attendance. Arcadia Unified is a small school district that also uh markets to nearby districts and tries to get students to come into Arcadia Unified. They have an ADA of 99 to 100%. So, they're a little different than we are, but it's an interesting example.
And then I do want to mention in the middle this interesting hub that opened this month in um in San Francisco. It's called the uh Mission Bay Hub and it is a a fancy new elementary school
and a one floor of the elementary school has become this life sciences um health sciences laboratory and it's a patient care learning space and a design and engineering studio with flexible collaboration space. It's for high school students. It's a collaboration
with UCSF and biotech companies. Um, a bunch of it is privately funded, a bunch of it is bond funded, but it's interesting because they're drawing high school students for this sort of career technical style education um from neighboring districts. And so it's a
really interesting example. We'll be watching. It's just opening this month, so might be worth a visit. Um, so that's the those are the big examples. Let me talk about some state policy ideas um that we haven't heard about so much. Uh one is regulatory
flexibility around um around uh scheduling mainly. So there are a lot of requirements in state law right now which can stifle innovation and create rigid high school structures in terms of instructional minutes um
where you can study, when you can study and so on and and making um uh revisions to those regulations could be an opportunity for the district to have more CTE programs and more creative afterchool programs that would count
towards enrollment. So there's some there's some room and this is something that certain um think tanks and policy makers have been pushing. And another thing that I thought was pretty interesting that could apply to California. It's not nobody's proposing it yet, but in Texas, um English
language students who are enrolled in dual language immersion programs generate additional 5% in state funding for their district. So if they're you're an EL in a dual language program, the Texas legislature funds dual language programs at 1.15%.
other EL programs, incentivizing districts to to use dual language as as a way to to um to do English language instruction for emerging bilingual students.
Uh I have a few recommendations here for the district that I think are are are immediate opportunities. Um, one is and and these things again I want to emphasize and you'll hear more about this. The district is doing some of these things but I want to emphasize that it's important to do them now and
to do them as much as we can. Um, marketing TK to reach more eligible children. We have a we have uh a big pool of eligible children and they're not all in TK yet. So that's an immediate opportunity. scaling up the one-day independent study that I
mentioned and the um attendance recovery ELOP integration is something that could be done this fiscal year. Um the one day independent study is is a tricky thing uh that requires some administrative overhead probably easier in elementary
schools than in secondary schools. And then I think this the continuing to streamline the enrollment process. There's a there's a one enroll I believe it's called website that that makes a lot of progress in that direction but more progress can be made. I don't know if people noticed the list um articles
recently that that that try to help parents enroll their their students in LUSD schools and it's a you know multi-pages of additional explanation that that that parents need that that uh is on top of what the district provides because it's a complicated process.
Anything we can do to streamline that will probably improve enrollment. And um I do recommend two additional analyses. Um we have a number of specialized programs that we've mentioned whether it's dual language or CTE. I'm not sure we know which ones are most effective in
attracting new students. So doing that analysis would be productive. And then um same thing for attendance interventions and dropout prevention and graduation interventions. which ones are most effective, which which ones are we're getting the most return on
investment for. Those are my recommendations in that area. I just want to leave you with uh six key takeaways. First, enrollment decline is ongoing. It's driven by multiple factors. Two, fiscal impacts of
decline have arrived. So, we're looking at major revenue shortfalls that will force difficult choices. We can make easier choices now. Three, research shows multiple strategies are effective both in attracting students and improving attendance and graduation for the students we already have. Four,
state policy could help regulatory flexibility and financial incentives. Five, no single strategy will reverse the 43 year the 43% decline. But a multi-pronged approach, research shows, can stabilize enrollment and slow
further loss. It buys us time. It buys us breathing room. And last, to move forward strategically, we need good data on what's working in our own system. So the recommended analyses will help us prioritize investments for maximum return. So the bottom line is enrollment
decline is an urgent fiscal challenge, but it's not hopeless one. Researchbacked strategies exist. We we implement many of those strategies already. The challenge is to implement them strategically, measure what works, and advocate for more state policy
report support. Thank you very much and now I give the floor to Jose. >> Yes. Thank you Dr. um Thomas. Now we will have Mr. Jose Kutierrez to come up to the podium uh to have present us with
his presentation and after that we have Miss Elsie Rosado. So Mr. Dr. Jose Kutterz is a senior executive director of strategy and miss um Dr. Elsie Rosado is from student support and attendance services and they
will be discussing with us um the district strategies and uh then we'll open it up for questions. Go ahead. >> Thank you Dr. Rivas. Board members, Mr. Superintendent, good day to you. While the the presentation is being pulled up, uh thank you Dr. Thomas for your uh
remarks and information which I have read and as you noted there is alignment and we'll touch on that here today. As you noted Dr. Revas, there's more than the numbers, there's the stories and it reminds me of a post the superintendent made in the fall after meeting with his
student advisory council. And I think it's important in our context. Quote, "Our humanity drives us even as our data informs us." and also we've heard from him and the board that our schools are sanctuaries of
opportunities and that we are here for every child every day. These are but two examples of the voices we hear from our our leadership, excuse me, that we must reiterate today for all of our students.
And so with that we are in meaningful relationship with our students and certainly we can learn more to deepen that relationship. So now turning to our first slide. This is information you have seen before in prior budget presentations. So I won't
make many comments on this. However, what I will connect to from Dr. Thomas's report is that the number of students and families that are still choosing public education remains significant. While not all of them may be at this
time choosing Los Angeles Unified, though the the majority are, there are families that are still choosing public education. We need to also learn more about that and also develop those meaningful relationships with them. Next, this slide
is a snapshot of our of our norm enrollment and and it it shows you a stacked bar chart. The orange or the top bar shows students that were enrolled on the prior norm day. It's a snapshot of
that day compared to then the bottom chart, this year's norm day. Okay? gives us a little bit of information which we are digging deeper into but I want to highlight a couple areas that our team uh with our chief of staff have
illuminated first based on let's look at TK which was discussed here we had about 13 almost 1400 students that were in one of our preschool programs prior obviously there was a larger influx of students that were not enrolled
in 2526 Another interesting note is if we look at we see steady enrollment in grades one through five. It's been known and discussed something that we're looking into also with our landscape analysis the drop in middle school grades. But
then we look to nth grade based on this information and our colleagues with office of data and accountability which we are reviewing more deeply. First, the largest share of students were enrolled in LUSD at some point in
elementary school and then returned. Secondly, the next largest are students enrolled in LUSD for the first time in ninth grade. So, we're going to dig more deeply into this. We looked at prior year's data,
two years of prior data, and it generally tells the same story. We are also we have identified the top 25 schools where this uh where these numbers are more prevalent and we're already engaging starting engaging with those
principles. We need to hear from the field. We need to hear those stories. What's that context to inform our strategies moving forward and again I want to underscore the board approved landscape analysis will also highlight some learnings for us. Okay.
Our district is leading in terms of providing opportunities for our newcomer families. As I stated earlier, the board and the superintendent have made a strong commitment to make sure our schools are safe for our students. We want to reiterate to our families who may be listening or hear this this message
today and always. As we see here, the district newcomer enrollment steadily increased in 21-22 to 2324 and we are seeing some declines in 2425 2526. Miss Gon has just recently talked
about some of those factors in terms of of the climate at this time. Our district also provides long-term independent study virtual academy options and city of angels providing
families with an option that they feel they need. And you'll see here that some families are we we've seen an uptick. This is a one-year enrollment change. 2% for virtualmies and 6% for our city of angels. But it does give at least a
brief indication families exercising that choice. Now, while we've looked at Dr. Tom Thomas here at some of the statewide, countywide uh figures, we've we've touched a bit on LA Unified specific figures, but as we
know, our schools and their stories are unique and may vary. So I want to discuss some of the supports that our strategic enrollment and program planning office otherwise known as SEPO in conjunction with many uh teams provides our schools. These are resources that are available to our
schools and this also includes individual consultations as needed and as requested too. So I won't go through every item. Some of these are are are listed there in terms of the support area and the actions, but I'll give a couple examples.
first with marketing and engagement. This is actually an idea that was born out of a conversation at a data dig with the superintendent and regions etc which also informed our iron rolling part pilot which I'll talk about in a moment. But we've worked with our IT teams to
also develop job aids for our schools related to AI using AI tools that are district approved in accordance with policy to also help our schools leverage that resource for their own marketing and engagement messaging for example
being very specific. So we thank our IT partners for helping us with that resource also articulation activities and feeder patterns. We've seen examples from from principles and other school staff in some of our meetings where the connections with
students where they're coming from in terms of our district schools where they may be uh enrolling thereafter those relational pieces with families are critically important. Lastly, I'll note the use of data.
The SEO team develops brief synthesis of data for each school. So that way regions and the school can have a sense of what are my trends, where are students potentially attending thereafter and how can I address that need.
And lastly, obviously our landscape analysis which which the board is aware of. But our our hope from that is based on those recommendations to inform future actions to develop actionable equity centered recommendations to
better serve our students now and into the future. I'll round out my presentation here in a moment. This slide again as I mentioned was born out of a conversation and brainstorming and it's intended to focus on a smaller
group of schools to learn as well as support them in their enrollment efforts. We call it I enroll pilot. There are 23 schools across regions and board districts and they may vary. They they've had significant declines or smaller numbers of declines but they're
also poised to make an impact there with some strategic help. And we're also using this again as a learning opportunity. So with that uh teams are meeting with school leadership. I attended one was very uh inspiring because we learned the
texture of the community from the school sites perspective. I remember very specifically one of the support staff members saying my grandma I grew up in my grandma's house right across the street. and the conversations that took place from what what their perception
was of a school at that time and what it is now and how they can help address those those areas. I share that example as a vignette of we have to know those details. We have to know that texture to be able to be responsive.
And so our team is working with the schools developing their action plans. And there all there is also some one-time funds that are being supported from the central office to help them with uh certain marketing strategies based on a a board contract uh that the
board has approved in 2024. This is more if the schools would have resources they can they can contract with these firms to help them with their strategies. Okay. So to round out this part before Dr. Rosado comes up.
I want to also make a connection. Some of the recommendations Dr. Thomas noted are already as he said in progress. The landscape analysis will be one that will help us look at those pathways. What is being what is where are there gaps? Where are their opportunities? Where are
families making those choices where maybe they're not? And what are the equity factors that we need to consider? Also, he mentioned recruiting and marketing. Beyond the broader district-wide communications approach, there's also the schoolside approach that we're trying to learn from with the
iron roll pilot. And certainly, we're open to the other ideas that he shared uh across various departments. There is certainly much more work to do. It is highly relational. We will continue, Mr. Superintendent, as you said, let our humanity drive us while we
are informed by our data. I now I'm pleased to welcome Dr. Rosada for the next part of this presentation. >> Good afternoon, Dr. Rivas, Superintendent Carvalo, and board members. I'm Elsie Rosado, the administrator of the student support and
attendance services branch. So, I'm going to dig a little deeper in terms of our attendance strategies that we have in place and a and more about our enrollment and how we're maintaining enrollment and how we support enrollment um in our school district. So, I think everyone here is familiar or has seen
our IA attend framework and this is the way that as a district we have focused on reducing absenteeism. Within our IAT attend framework, we have what we call our seven elements and how we do this work. We start with accurate data. We need to identify which students are at
risk of becoming chronically absent, which students are chronically absent so that we can intervene. We've all of our schools have an attendance team that meets monthly and that team is reviewing their data. They're again looking at students that are falling behind and
intervening. In addition to that, we are our schools are creating this culture of attendance, reminding students that school is important and the benefits of of of the attendance, but also creating these uh schools where students want to be students where students feel valued and
seen and heard. We also have our outreach and intervention. So, we are doing our personal personalized outreach to our students and families via our I attend. So we have our monthly I attend home visits that are that our region teams uh visit families, our school
teams and our district support. But in addition, this outreach occurs throughout the throughout the year throughout the weeks. We work with our community partners because we know that as a school district, we can't do this work alone. We ensure that our community partners are supporting our families.
Staff understanding, ensuring that staff know and understand that we all have a role in reducing absenteeism. And with all this we involve in our continuous improvement. So we're looking at our strategies. We're seeing what works. What else? What else can we tweak? And this is really how we have been focusing
to reduce our absenteeism within our IAT 10 framework. We also focus with a multi-tered system of support. We have a strong emphasis on our tier one. If we have a good tier one system in place, tier two and tier three should lessen. So again, similar to what I had shared, we're looking at our
analyzing data, our attendance messaging, our school teams, our outreach, and our ongoing um support for our students. So we know with attendance, it's also connected to enrollment. So what we've done with enrollment, I'm happy to I
think everyone also is very familiar. We have our one enrollment. So we're happy to report that we are now full online enrollment where our families are able to access enrollment at any time. So, this is especially for our working families that can't go to our schools during our regular school hours. They're
able to access their enrollment forms online and submit their application online. We also will still have our paper enrollment options because some families who prefer paper enrollment or due to access to technology, we want to make sure that they have we have that
options. But with supporting enrollment, we know that when a student or a family walks in to enroll their student, they also face may also face barriers. So if we have a family that does not have all the enrollment documentation, we have our affidavit. So if a family is missing
a birth certificate, a parent identification or proof of address, we have our affidavit that our staff is aware and our parents are aware as well. So if they are missing one of those documented documents, that will not stop them from enrolling on time. So, these are ways that we have to ensure that
when a student is coming to our district that we've eliminated all the barriers that could um delay their enrollment. So, once they're enrolled, I shared with you what we do to ensure that we they attend regularly, but we with the data, we also track our students when when
they're falling behind. Back there's some there's a a old I don't know what you want to call it, but they used to call it the 10day rule. and if a student was absent for 10 days, they would check them out. We have said that no, you don't check them out. We want to ensure that due diligence efforts are made.
With those due diligence efforts, we've made contact to every person that we have listed on their emergency contact. We send letters. We go out to the home. So once we ensure that we've really have exhausted our efforts to locate the family, then we withdraw them. At that
point, we continue to follow up. We call them our L8, our students. those whereabouts and known. And so we focus, we ensure that we're following up on those students who have left our school district and have not enrolled anywhere else. We continue to follow up and try to find them. And at times we do find them back and they do reenroll. But just
a focusing ensuring that we are following up on all of our students before we withdraw them when they stop attending. Back in September 2025, we had the child welfare and attendance resolution. Within that uh we uh happy to report
that we had pup we established our region compassionate team. So within that we had we have 20 pupil services and attendance counselors that are focusing on supporting our students that may be impacted by immigration. So our PSA counselors um are working with
families by addressing those barriers that may have been impacted by immigration. So it could be providing them the non-rine transportation, providing them access to some of our community resources and ensuring that our families are aware of the we are one family prepared care package uh to
connect them back into school to ensure that they don't stop attending school because they may have been impacted by immigration. So just wanted to share a couple examples of when we come together as a district and as a community, we're able to support our students enrollment. uh
we had a mother of four lose her job and the f because of immigration she the family fell behind on rent. They lost their home and they were st temporarily staying in a shelter. So then our school and our pupil services and our region teams provided immediate advocacy. They re reached out to the family. They
coordinated with our homeless education office, our family source and youth source partners and they were able to provide those resources for the family. But then they also connected the family to the compassion fund which provided emergency assistance to stabilize the
family. Happy to report that the students remained enrolled and are supported and connected to the school. Another example impacted by ICE. We had a family of three that was impacted because the father was detained leaving the mother as a sole provider without
any income um for their children. So they were temporarily relocated to another home. So with that similar we referred them to our community partners uh to our compassion fund. They conducted our regional compassion teams conducted home visits uh and just that
ongoing contact with the family and our school site staff. They provided clothing and food pantry resources and again due to this collaborative effort the family remained enrolled in our schools. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Dr. Rosalo. Um, so yeah, I
will open now the floor to questions from board members. >> Yes, Mr. Schmelson. >> My favorite topic is middle school. And you see that there is a big drop from fifth grade to sixth grade. And that's
because the kids watch too many movies about middle school and they think that they're going to be dumped in a trash can as soon as they walk into the school. And it's just not true. So, it's so so important for middle school principles to make sure that they have
an excellent excellent orientation program with uh their elementary schools no matter what it costs because that's let them come to the school and see that it's really a nice place and people are nice. Um teachers again I'm biased for
middle school. Teachers in middle school have to be extra extra understanding, extra kind. Uh these are kids who are uh really scared and they are just growing up and they have lots of doubts about
themselves and it's just so important that we make them feel welcome. So, I would advise all of my middle school principles, you know, some principles don't want to stay in middle school. They just want to go to high school and do the sports and all this stuff, but it's fine. And some
people love middle school and they stay there. And it's very important that principles have the right fit in a middle school and teachers have the right fit in middle school because that's the drop. But you notice once they get to middle school, um, there's
no problem going to high school. uh easy, easy peasy, right? So, really important for us to make sure that kids feel safe and comfortable in going to middle school. And the only way they can do that is that they're invited over or as we did at Cochran, we sent a big show
over to the elementary school. They loved it. They enjoyed it. They couldn't wait to come over. So important. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rosa. Well, on that note, I mean, my question is what, you know, how are we doing uh in terms of in um addressing the
enrollment of our middle schools? Because as I go to my board district, that's what I hear a lot that um somehow we lose from elementary lose those students in middle school. So, there is an area there of analysis, right? What is the best strategies, best practices
in that and what are is your is your office working on it in that? Yes, thank you for that and Mr. Schmolson. A couple things. First, absolutely right. This is part of what we're also looking at with our landscape analysis and that really takes a view from the programmatic
elements. What programs are being offered where and how are families responding to those? Are there any challenges having equitable representation of programming? But to Mr. Schmurson's point, the second point I'll make, it's it's it also encompasses a variety of other factors. could be
safety, could be um you know other related pieces that need to be looked at. So with that in the some of the supports that we mentioned from the SEO team in looking at um the vision setting for the school, the articulation that we
just discussed those relational pieces we've discussed um with some principles and some of the support staff that have those events. In fact, we have counselors that are in each of the regions that support schools setting up
some of those events that Mr. SME just talked about to help build those relationships. Our SEPO administrator, maybe he he'd be while he's currently away, was a former middle school principal and he has shared how in his efforts with his team, they have
connected with the elementary schools to make that personal contact. Come visit our schools. come with a coffee of the principal, other support staff that are also making those connections and then also to the high schools. So, it's highly relational and it's it's it's
really addressing maybe there are misperceptions about a school as Mr. mentioned and so it's the data for example about programming and metriculations where are students maybe there there they might be they should be going to this school potentially
everybody has choice so you might think they'd go to this school but they may be making other choices understanding that and then secondly those relational aspects at the school site which do require everybody at the school uh to be engaged because families connect with a variety of staff members at the school
site so those are some of the elements that I share. I'm not sure if any anyone else has anything further. >> Yeah, I think it needs to be more intentional. Um, and you say it's a relational, but I think it's I don't think we need a landscape analysis to know that that's the issue,
right? And um, having conversations with our principles is key. That is where we get our data. Um, and this the training of our principles should be, you know, in in the leadership institute, right? having those intentional trainings of
principles. Um, I think that's the area where we where the district should be really investing. And like I said, I don't think you need a landscape analysis for that. Um, it just seems like a lot of from your presentation, I didn't really get a lot of exactly
what's what your office is working on in enrollment. A lot of it is landscape analysis. And like I said, I can I've gone to my schools and I can know I can let you know and I let um the the the firm that you all hired what we need to do in our schools. And I mentioned you
were there a plethora of areas, right? Middle schools, um athletics, a lot of particularly my high schools and I'll mention one Marshall High School, they've noted that they've lost a lot of enrollment because of the lack of modernized or you know um athletic
facilities. Could they if once they improve that um then they they can definitely get that recruitment in athletics because they'll go someplace else because that is important not only for our students but parents as well. They want when they go to a high school they want say well what you know the
athletics right the other program is um the IB IB program in international balorate a lot of families move to those particular areas where those schools are one case in point in district 5 is um
Eagle Rock High School and I have several and I have one in Wilson High School where parents intentionally go to those um schools um because they like that program. So, I think we do know where our where the choices are and
where our parents are really gravitating to. Um, so I think like I said, we need to be more intentional rather than waiting for an analysis. I think there's a lot of information that you and your office can do right now. um with that
data in hand speaking to our principles and our families that is there it's accessible and I and I can go on on at least in board district 2 and my knowledge also board district 5 having worked in that office previously of where are the areas in our schools um in
our districts that that that families go to another case in point Bravo middle medical magnet that school has a waiting list and they're bursting at the seams um and that is a program that everybody wants to go to, right? Um, and yet
nothing has been really done to really help that school with expansion of space or at least be able to replic rep replicate that programming. And they've they've been very successful and it's a high school that's always in the top high schools nationwide. So, like I
said, we have a lot of information and that's why it's important to definitely um meet with us with us board members because we if anything we know our school is more not that you don't but we're there we have that grassroots connection but anyway I just I will open
it again. Sorry. Go ahead, Miss Franklin. >> I was say I love this inquiry on on middle schools as a former middle school teacher myself. It's a very special place but I was curious if any of the 23 I enroll pilot schools are middle schools. um and or if any of them are span schools because I've long thought
that TK through 8 612 you know might be a better long-term strategy for us particularly as we talk about like what we're going to do to rightsize the district you know we we opted out of the $30 million reconsol or what are we calling it um something about our footprint our district footprint consolidating our district footprint
yeah um so so two questions on the on the span I think from the district's perspective and then you know um from the IAU as well if you learned anything about span schools. I think it's an area where we should be, you know, learning and potentially doing more. F >> first to your first question and then
I'll turn it to Dr. Johnson. Yes, we have elementary, middle, and high school among the I enroll. I don't see span specifically, but the the gamut of the the grade levels. >> I don't have anything really specific to add about about span schools. I think that sounds like a good idea. I I do
think that uh and and this came up a little bit. Um the dual the dual language programs are are uh are proven enrollment strategies and um the big challenge is is including those into middle school. And um I haven't studied
this yet, but uh but uh possibly span schools would be an easier place to do dual language. It's just something that occurred to me. Yeah, I' I'd love to um you know know if there is research on there and um particularly on the independent charter schools. I know some of their model is that that five to nine
model because of the um the middle grades being sought after differently. And I think Mr. Schmolson was a part of this years ago too. We had this like working group about the middle grades. So not six to eight but it was a five to nine. And given how much growth we're seeing in ninth grade, like what should we be doing differently about um that
sixth grade and that nth grade where we're lower, you know, we're dropping enrollment, we're growing in enrollment. Um I wonder if we could take those nth grade strategies and stretch them down to sixth grade if we did sixth to 12th grade uh span schools and then of course, you know, the elementary sustainability through middle schools.
If if the data is not panning out, then that's not a direction we should continue to think. I'd love to be, you know, shown which which way we should continue as we, you know, do engage in the landscape analysis long term. Um, but on the independent charters, because their enrollment has increased a little
bit, I would be curious if we're learning any of the strategies from them as well. um given that there is a certain pool of students available in LA County and more of them over the last few years have gone to independent charters like if there are things that we could be adapting probably we already
are doing or are there things that we can be learning from them I know we've constantly talked about that like the idea of incubating charters was to learn best practices and this idea of competition makes it hard but you know is there a way that um their best practice can become our best practice this
>> a couple of things. One in terms of o over the years in in doing uh over charter school oversight and learning from those practices. What we've heard uh you know a variety of things but in talking to families and parents it's often times could be a smaller
environment. They feel a connection with the school. There's also um they have other uh schools that uh like you you said that have a fifth grade to um eighth grade option. Um but then we also
see various transitions from charter schools to district schools. So I think there's more to learn there in terms of that. Um but those are some of the examples that have come up over the years from talking to families directly regarding their choices for those schools.
>> Great. Well, would love to learn more particularly as it relates to the long-term analysis and and where we're going. Um because it is still in our fiscal stabilization plan to consolidate the footprint for 2728. And so we got to make moves. I've been pushing this for a while now. And how big of those moves,
you know, this board should be contemplating. I I welcome the research to really help guide us in that. And then also a deep community engagement process, which I know is coming. I don't know if you want to speak on it now, but I think it's important to just let folks know that the district is thinking about right sizing our district because of the
factors that you all presented today. Um, and we need community voice to help us do it in a way that is responsive, um, respectful and, you know, not just fiscally sustainable, but also going to result in really good outcomes academically for kids. >> Rosio, may I just mention something?
Ninth graders are special, too. Uh, just like the fifth graders are special. Yeah. uh this is the first in fact many schools have a special academy for ninth graders because they need so much attention you know this is the first time that they're get earning credits no
more playing around you know you're earning credits you don't pass because you just come to school and sit down and it's very important that kids learn this in nth grade I'm glad that we do isolate them in inmies to make sure they understand that this is the beginning of
high school so thank you. >> Hi. Yeah, just quickly on the small class class sizes, small school environment because I shared this when I was interviewed by the uh person doing the landscape analysis when they asked us like what are some of the things that
parents like? What are the things that they want? And that is one of the things that parents like what you just mentioned and I think it is something that the charters have been doing for a while is having these small they they they advertise that they had small class sizes and that was one of the reasons why parents went to their schools.
Another one was that it was a small uh school environment and that their kids were known that teachers knew them. And it's the same thing with private schools right they have small class sizes. There are schools that have 14 kids in a class and that's what parents like. And so I
honestly think that we should be looking at that as a positive instead of thinking of making our classes bigger and and thinking of right size as a a size that is smaller that is more responsive rather than bigger than like
it was when we had high class class sizes. I don't think we want to go back to those days when our class sizes were so high and our schools were so big that we had kids in bungalows. Our schools were not meant for that. So, let's remove the bungalows and let's keep our
kids in the buildings and let's keep our class sizes low because that's how it is that the kids are going to get that personalized um education. Right. You said relational. Everything is relational. How do you build relationships other
than by knowing the kids, knowing their stories, knowing the parents? And those are the schools in my district. Those small schools, the ones that really are are are are doing well are those small schools. I would hate to close those
schools just because they're small and they don't fit in the bungalows anymore. Like there's no let's let's go small. That is a good thing. And I just think that it it brings me back to the conversation of funding. Part of the reason why we're stressing out about,
you know, the the low enrollment is because of funding. Well, we should focus on the kids that we have right now and say that they deserve just like the gentleman in our earlier presentation said that our kids deserve fully funded education. So let's change the narrative
now instead of giving into this scarcity model and that we we you know somehow we have to live in this manner and accept that low enrollment is it's causing you know low uh funding. No, let's shift it
to say that it's it's okay, that it's actually could be good for our kids, that maybe we'll see more academic improvement when we have smaller schools, and maybe we will see higher attendance when our kids are seen and heard and their teachers know them. Um,
so just want to address that. And then in relationship to the some of the proposals that you put in your report, a long long time ago, around the time that our kids were leaving our district and going to charters, the district um
sent out a lot of marketing toolkits to schools. And the expectation was that the schools were going to be doing this work. And I have a problem with that because I was at a school where everybody was expected to do this on top of the regular work that we were doing.
And as we're moving into uh a period where we may have less staff, well, no, we will have less staff in our campuses to put this on our schools to start marketing themselves to do all of this work to me seems not the way to go. They need to focus on on the students right
there. However, what can we do at the region level, at the district level to support um marketing our schools or showcasing the great programs that we have? Um what can we do to expand some
of these programs? Um I know that it requires funding. You know, the the the 2 by8 schedule is a very popular schedule that parents like because it gives kids opportunities for electives. As as a parent, I love kids having
electives and so but that costs money and in fact we're reducing that. The IB program, which is a very specialized program that I know for a fact prepare prepares kids for college, it's very limited. Not everybody has that program.
in my district. It's only one school in the northern part of my district. So, there's a lot of art, education, all of these things that parents want. Um, but what can we what can we do to make sure that that um it's at our schools and
that our families know about them. And then lastly, regarding the the compassionate regional compassion teams, um the PSAs that do this work and the SSS counselors that do this work, were are these additional PSAs that we hired
or were they moved from one division to to do this work or is it more work for the PSAs that were connected to a program already? >> I wouldn't say it's more work. It's part of their work already. So they are our region-based PSA and SSS counselors that
I think when you look at the work of PSA is to eliminate those barriers to attendance. So we already have the region compassion teams which is our operations or school mental health and now as part of when they're working with families if there is a family they are now connected to those PSA counselors
that are at the region. So it's part of their scope of work. >> So we already had region compassion teams but now we just added PSAs to it. >> Correct. >> Oh okay. And then the other thing I just want to say that from my own personal experience in doing the I attend I
noticed that when a teacher participated in it was so powerful and those kids came back there's something uh well it's obvious the connection between teacher and a student but when that happened and I know that it might be challenging to be able to do that districtwide but I
wonder if we could pilot it in some some uh schools where a teacher can actually if again I don't I know if that has to do anything with labor agreements or anything like that, but um I know that that's a powerful connection. >> Yes, we actually did do that last summer
and this summer. We went out and we actually did it by feeder patterns and that was a very nice experience. So we had high school, middle, and elementary. And we went out and visited a high school student. And sometimes it was their sibling that was at the middle school or the elementary and they were able to see one sometimes their former
principal or their former teacher and their uh upcoming teachers and staff. So that was very very powerful. So yes, I agree. So we did it last summer, we did it this summer. So I think we'll probably continue doing that every summer. >> Thank you.
And to your prior questions, board member Grego, I'll say two two brief things on the first. You talked about the school sites and the work. This is a delicate balance and certainly even in the Iron Ro, we're learning about that dynamic. First of all, central office, the communications department with the
district-wide marketing efforts that will continue to be key. Secondly, the work with regions as well as central office supports counselors that are also in the regions will continue to be critical in terms of helping our schools with these marketing and outreach
efforts. Certainly, as we've learned and as you've shared, the stories that the school site, the experiences those teams have with their communities is absolutely critical. our regions share that information. And so those are ways that there can be supports to the school
sites as best we can. Uh but certainly the voice of the schools and their experiences will be key as these additional supports are being made. So a couple comments on that. I think we're going to have to continue to learn in terms of the best ways to balance the central office regional supports to to
support the schools and not overload the schools, but their voices are are critical in that. Lastly, to your to your point, >> may I may I Dr. Rivas add one thing to that. Yeah, please. >> Um uh it's very I agree with you board member Grigo that we can't give the principles one more thing to do. They're
already overloaded with too much. I'm a you know big big believer in that. So that's why we ask for principles to tell us if they wanted to be a part of this and this is why the iron roll is a pilot because we want to hear from them where do you want us to support you since you know your community a lot better than
anyone at central office and then where do you want to take the helm? So that's why this is a pilot so that we can design it in a way that truly helps the principal and the district as a whole. Recruit, not only recruit but also retain the kids that we have. Because on
that bar chart, one thing that Jose said pretty briefly, but 71% of those kids in nth grade in that blue section of the graph were here before. They were either here in elementary or middle or combination and then left before. So we also need to really focus on retention.
But I agree with you that part about not giving the principal just loading on them. We're that's not going to happen on our watch for sure. That's why we're having a pilot. I'd like to address one other thing about the um the right sizing. Also completely agree with you. This is not about the landscape analysis and what comes out of that um which is
about which do we have the right programs? Are we meeting the needs of our current students? Secondarily will be enrollment, right? But first we need to serve the students we have better. And in that there will be some opportunities that we see because your school is so small you may not be able
to offer what could be offered to a student like are you combined classes that kind of thing. So for me the and this will be up to the board but the criterion that we're thinking of in terms of it does it make sense for consolidation is not by a size like if you hit that number we're going to check
you off but it's student driven. are we able to offer given that size everything that the students need? So I just wanted to say that I agree with you also on the right sizing not you know we're not like machines where we have a number and then we close the school. So just you know
have confidence in that too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um did want to say appreciate the one the enrollment online enrollment um as a parent uh that is always been an
issue. Um so appreciate that. Uh some of the things that have already been mentioned here, but the criteria for our 23 schools that were selected, are you able to share how these schools are selected and whether these schools all had increasing enrollment, declining
enrollment, what put them in this 23? >> Yes, in terms of enrollment was certainly a factor. So looked at some of the historical data and the vast majority well all the schools have had decline in enrollment certain from different um levels. However, some you
may have seen 16% or higher enrollment. You had some that may be closer to a a threshold where they may be potentially losing staff. And so they're looking at if you if you're continuing to reach students, you have opportunities uh based on your local context. for example, you know, that you may be
losing students to other um schools in the area. Those are some of the factors also that our region's considered to be able to help those schools make an make an impact. Um those are some of the the the factors that were were considered. >> So a board member I'm sorry also to add
to that also wanted representation of grade spans as well as board member districts as well as tiers. So we looked at it was kind of an algorithm that we looked at various things but the one of the most important we worked with the region on principles who wanted to be involved in this as well.
>> So one of the top criterias is obviously decline enrollment. Okay. And then on the opposite side of that, to Tanya's point, which I'm going to continue to say, what do or have we learned from those schools that have improved
um enrollment? And we've seen the increase or the uptick and have we analyzed that to be able to say to these over here that we're now looking at in this eye pilot that you know what, these strategies here have worked and this is why. And if you implement those
strategies or one of five of these, this may improve. We don't we can't guarantee, but is that something that's going on as well? >> Yes, we first we're still learning from the iron roll pilot. However, apart from that, our our team presented at all the
principles uh meetings in the fall for example to share the toolkit resources that that I presented about. And so from that other there have been other collaborations with the schools for example consultations to go through that to show here are some of the practices
that have worked for example one of the spokespeople for this is our SEO administrator who did this work at a middle school in articulation vision setting etc. So sharing some of those examples other team members have also supported schools. So uh I don't want to
quote numbers that you know here however we are seeing uh schools organizing themselves in a way with the support from the central office and the regions to implement some of these strategies. We have to continue to study this to see those impacts. Uh so they're not only
these lessons isolated to iron roll. We want to be able to provide the toolkit and supports to as many schools and obviously through the regions as possible. >> And the length of this is how long are we looking at this study? >> Well, we're look for the Iron pilot. >> Yeah. >> Well, for sure this year, but it may
take and to to uh Miss Spay Gonzalez's point, we want to learn what's working as we as we want to roll out a broader effort. So, that timeline may go from one year uh and into the next year as we're learning the es and flows of the enrollment, etc. Now, the one thing
we'll note is certainly with our our fiscal situation, we'll have to assess any other supports there. Right now, we have some one-time funds to support them. We want to build that foundation to support these schools into the future, >> right? Because I I believe too that it may not be dollars that makes the
impact. I think we all discussed there a lot of the relation, right? And I say that because when we talk about leadership, someone mentioned leadership earlier and not having the right fit at a school and some of the schools I know that are within my board district have
seen turnover. I mean, in 10 years could have had five leaders and that could definitely be a tributary to it and wondering if you're looking back because obviously the leader that's there now doesn't have the history of four other
leaders ago. I'm not sure how deep this analysis goes to see how to be able to correct it. >> Right. As Ms. Spe Gonzalez noted, part of the discussions with the regions in terms of the pilots would be the the
leadership um status at the school, some of that history. Now, in some cases, there are still candidates that were put forward with some more recent um uh transitions. However, there are also other school members on that team that have historical knowledge that has been
very helpful. As I mentioned in the one that I attended early in the fall, you had staff who are from the community, know the community, and some of those transitions to inform those action plans. Each school develops an action plan that is continually supported and
monitored. Um, so it is it is a a group of team members uh that are part of it to help inform the full picture. >> Got it. And do we have a list of those schools that within our board district? >> We're happy to provide that to you. >> Yeah, would be helpful. And then to the
point we made earlier, is there a report of the charters and that uh information as far as how that enrollment the transition being able to see those enrollment increases and be able to say, you know, what in what allow that to
happen? Do we have that data? because I know charters within our district is not brand new and those schools that have been around you know for at least a decade are we able to look at that in a report to be able to see the trends of those schools we can we could let us let us take that back and see what
information can we put together in terms of enrollment information for example in years past we've seen information of students who have enrolled in the district from charter schools and vice versa uh and then we'll have to assess what more we have in terms of information we
put forward in terms of the different um reasons why. >> Okay, >> got it. And then also with that if you can I mean obviously in your depth whether you find out why they left and why they returned if that's a part of that as well. Um and class size we know
um uh yeah I'm not wanting to go back either as a classroom teacher um and my classroom had 70 to 80 students. So yeah, not wanting to wouldn't want those numbers. Yeah. Um, yeah, physical education, that's where you have it. Uh,
so um, so our class sizes would naturally decrease because obviously the number of students that we have within the district has shrunk as well. So I am with you with that. One of the things with and to Andrew, you said that we're implementing some strategies already.
Are you able to share what we're implementing and what we should be implementing? So we kind of know as a district these are things we're already doing and then these are the things that will be upcoming. >> Well, what what I was referring to was much of the the the strategies that that
uh Jose and Elsie um presented in terms of what we're implementing with enrollment strategies. Um but I am hearing uh I am hearing something that I'm not sure we know about which is
across the district which um which differentiated programs are the most attractive. So we've heard a lot about IB for instance or or magnets or dual language. Um and I think the landscape analysis will kind of show where they're where they're
available and where they're not and maybe where the demand is. But I'm not sure that we know what is actually attracting uh or what has attracted in the past more students. So there may be something that's very appealing. Maybe we do.
>> Well, we we in looking at the demand meaning is there a waiting list or is there no one in the program? Like there are a few that have you know two or three people. We can kind of guess that. Then this kind of um sort of dubtales into what board member Ortiz Franklin said earlier. We're also doing very deep
community engagement. So if you include and we're combining it with the strategic planning so we're not out there hitting the same people multiple times and you know taking way too much of their time. So we are asking the communities both those who got in and chose not to come those who left the district as well as our current families
what do and based on the communities what do you want to see what this looks like this you know program X has got a great demand but but let's talk about it let's talk about what about that so we are going deep not only with data but what but also with the qualitative piece of it so we're going as deep as we as as
you know humanly possible on that the the other thing we're doing that has not been mentioned in detail but is was on um Andrew's presentation is complete and this is a combination between the you know the attendance and the enrollment offices but because the enrollment is in different departments so we're working
on that but also looking at this year look documenting everything that every step that a parent goes through when they enroll and then revamping that whole thing I tried to do it this year but I was kind of shut down by by staff because it was too much at one time but we are documenting this year changes to
come next year so it is much easier for a family to enroll with our district because I just did it a year and a half ago and I'm still bruised. So, we we need to we need to make that easier. So, we are also looking and that was one of his recommendations and we're looking at that now. >> Appreciate you going through the process
with us. Um, so I know you mentioned dual enrollment as one of those strategies. Uh, do we know what the barriers are to that or what you know what caveats we have that would help or would not? Um, obviously educators, I don't know who can speak to
that, but if we've looked at the increase in the schools that have dual enrollment, what allows them to continue or has there been a school that had dual enrollment and had to resend that program? Is that some of the analysis that you've already had within our district?
>> So, you're referring to secondary students who are also enrolled in in post-secary. >> I mean, dual language, I'm sorry. >> Dual language. Okay. That's two different things. >> Sorry. dual language is what I meant to say. >> Yeah. Do you know that the people who can speak most to dual language are the
are the med uh are the med people. But I do know that that historically well maybe um uh extending the program uh from from its beginnings in first grade or kindergarten all the way through 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, 12th
grade is definitely the the challenge. uh I don't think that there are really regulatory challenges for that as opposed to um dual enrollment or um uh certain um career technical or experiential programs where we want students to go out and work during the
school day but that's part of their instruction and um so that's different but um >> and that's some of the barriers for dual enrollment >> right that might be dual enrollment or or career technical education >> can I just add really quick on on dual language and I'm glad glad you brought
that up. Um, at least from um Oh, I lost my train of thought. Um, >> dual Oh, yeah. For for dual language, it's because and I know you did a a report on where uh the dual language programs are so sort of concentrated in,
>> right? >> Um, and I I think that was very um illuminating. But for with dual language, it it mainly is concentrated in elementary schools. So there isn't a feeder system, right? So, so a parent who wants to continue or a child wants
to continue either Mandarin or French after middle after elementary there is another middle school or or high school. They'll do world languages or it sort of the the program changes. Um and for instance in in um in Highland Park we
have I have a lot of schools that have dual language. Um, and then we have a high school, Franklin, um, I'm sure a Franklin Middle School that does dual language and Spanish, but they're not going there >> for some reason. So, we have, so there's something that's happening with our dual
language, uh, parents that um, for some reason they end up we're not really emphasizing that there is this program. So, but that is just one instance where we have a middle school that has dual language and it's, you know, not getting the enrollment it should. But apart from that in other board districts we don't
have that feeder. And where do they go? We do have for Mandarin we have Mandarin it has a wonderful at least in my district feeder where we have um elementary and then they they can go to middle school which is in Nightingale and after nightingale they can go um to
Wilson and they have that that but it's not sort of uh evident and throughout the the district. So this is D language and and also uh board member Gokin we we met with a lot of parents and that is a program that a lot of parents are but
then there isn't a where do we go after that um and the a lot of our schools are really um sort of fighting for those students right so there's low enrollment so there's a lot of things a a lot of issues that are really impeding for dual
language programs to really thrive um and also to thrive in an entire district, not in some sections of our board of our district. So anyway, so that is something that has that I've had a lot of conversations with Dr. Strada
and um um and also um Mr. Lydia Aquasa Stevens. So that is something I have been pushing this district to really address and it hasn't and that those schools are really suffering. Um and in the case with dual enrollment, there is a huge opportunity to really elevate
dual enrollment for our secondary particular in middle school and that is an area that hasn't for some reason has has a lot of obstacles and understandably so. But if we can open it in middle school and continue in high school and then I think expanding the options and then that's why we have the
partnership right with our um our community colleges with the community college district. It's expanding that, but it's just that it's it's sort of beginning and I think that it's a huge area that we really need to investigate and analyze and how do we really expand dual enrollment. So, you know, I'm
really passionate about these areas. So, anyway, go ahead. >> I'm with you with the dual enrollment considering that it's been around since 1978. It's not that brand new. >> So, um and and and we just got to do a better job. Um, and talking dual enrollment, one of the programs that I
was able to be a part of, and I don't know how many we have within the district, is our bridge program where trying to connect from middle school to high school and making sure that that as smel uh mentioned that often time when you come in now, you know, life is
totally different, right? You come into high school and you're like, "Oh, wow. Credits. What's credits? I don't even understand credits. What do you mean? I don't just show up and I just pass." No, that doesn't happen. Um, but are we doing a great job with our bridge programs and bridging across different
grade levels? And I appreciate Tanya you mention in span but I I don't know if that is the right fit for us because I've seen in certain and and I'll speak in board district one where we've had span schools and then it's
taken away from the other community school and then that school doesn't have the numbers to give what they need to thrive because if you go from you know 6 to 12 It requires you to have a master
schedule that can hold that and to be able to have classes that you need to go to college and everyone needs to be able and often times you don't have the numbers to be able to do that when you transition
over. So I don't know there are schools that we already have in the district. If we can look at those schools that we have that have done that transition that have transferred over to senior. I know one had to go back to being just a middle school because it wasn't able to to hold the weight of a master schedule
and to be able to provide what they needed for those students to have. And then then you get into the whole uh our labor partners with not having enough courses and teachers are trying three four preps and then you get into that whole thing. So I don't know how well
that works for us, but to look at what we already have is probably best practice for us to kind of see what has been working when it transition has happened. I just know in my board district I haven't seen the best results with that. So in other places it may
have worked better. And then just one of the things when we're talking about rebranding these schools um because that's something that I have a conversation I feel like every day um with some of our schools that are doing excellent and doing great work and but
the narrative is 10 years ago they were not 10 years ago it was something else and then obviously when you plug in you know our good favorite uh greater schools and we look in and they're like oh yeah well it has a you know a four rating or it has a five rating.
I don't know what are we doing to combat that? What are we putting out there to show? Cuz many of our families don't know where else to look. So what are we doing to compete with that? Cuz that's happening today.
>> First, in terms of the grade schools, the grade schools piece at this point, we'll need to discuss that further with our communications team in terms of the district-wide marketing and rebranding. Um so we'll have to take that back but certainly that is a competitive force
out there. Um and then thank you for your note on the span schools in terms of learning a bit more related to those programs. So we'll have to take that back as well. >> And then just the last thing when we talk about ways in which we can kind of
help uh increase enrollment and this is something we did at one school and I'm hoping to do at more of our schools. The community obviously has changed in many of our neighborhoods and many of those come out and because of great schools or whatever that school is not the school I'm sending my child to, right? And so
we did, you know, we invited those families within that neighborhood to come on a Saturday, come check out the school and see what we have. And we partnered with our city council to say, can you help us with this? And they did. And they came out. We had a fullon
auditorium full. And I was like, if all of you guys attended this school, that number would, it was 50 families that came out that did not go to the school. And they came out, they had an opportunity to hear from the principal, hear the program, sign up for tours, and
it made a big difference um for them to see to walk into the campus to see what was happening cuz they didn't know. And so I don't know if that's something that we can start to pilot within some of the areas with our TK program, which is something that is fairly new to many of
our communities. And this is where we we're seeing the biggest number of growth. if that's something that we can do across the district where we're inviting them into the schools. That means you have to go out and knock on doors and make sure that they show up and come out um to be able to see if
this is a a way to increase that enrollment. >> First of all, thank you for that example. And I've heard also from uh region teams and our counselors in the region for example that create flyers, create a whole program uh work with our
cafe LA have some of those fairs at the school site. That does happen certainly could be amplified but I have uh heard of examples from the team about that very um type of outreach. Certainly more needs to happen but that is something that does uh occur.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Mvin, since you're already, Mr. Moin. >> Um, thank you. Uh, I think one of the reasons you're hearing a lot of passion from the board on this is because we know our schools well and many of us for
many years have been talking about this is a great school, why don't we have more of it or this school needs some help, why aren't we? And it feels like a lot of the time we're yelling into a void. And so I do appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation and also the landscape analysis and it's a little premature to have it without
you know but I think as we revisit it because we are now asking those questions. Um you know I'll state the obvious which is you can't market yourself out of like a 400,000 student decline over 20 years. And so I appreciate the other things this board is doing around some of that like um
advocating around the cost of living in this region and uh advocating around immigration and and newcomer supports and all that. Um but we do know on the margins and we see it in this data uh that there are more things that we can be be doing. One question I've had uh and asked a few times and I'm pretty
sure the answer is no, but I'll ask it and then maybe suggest it is do we do any sort of exit interview for families that leave the district? like we do for teachers. >> Yeah, >> we don't do an exit interview. What we do is we track where they left to based
on the lever code, >> right? So, I would suggest and you know, I don't know what our our power is to mandate something, but at least make it an option like we do a lot of surveys to try to get some data. Um, you know, particularly as we see the drop in middle school. But I think, you know,
we'd find it interesting and sometimes the anecdot data, anecdotal data can lead to bigger trends or things we should think about. I mean, one example of many, I've had a few constituents over the years advocate around flexibility for middle school PE um because they're like serious athletes
and they want to waiver and it's a something that like Santa Monica offers but LUSD doesn't and so we are losing some families to Santa Monica or Culver. Again, maybe if it's two or three students every few years, it's not worth it. But if if we see trend lines, it might be worth and that might be a tweak
where um we change the policy at the board level and we're able to retain some families, but also just get a sense of oh, it's because, you know, I trying to validate a lot of the assumptions that the board members have because of our experience, like the reputational hit uh that Miss Candy Nubal was talking
about or like, you know, they're unsure of the class size and and then really advocate based on that. So, I would really encourage folks to look at um an exit survey. >> Something that we do do and we work closely with Jose's office is our interdist permit. So, we do look to see
we don't have an exit interview, but we look to see why our families are leaving and we try to offer them our own option and that's that is a piece of data that I think we we can continue to look at. >> Yeah. And two things on that. one, I'll just say publicly I, you know, I I will always advocate for us to have the most
flexibility with those permits because we never want to capture someone against their will. So, you know, I just I'm saying like when families have reached out to my office and it's if they want to leave like it's I think it's a it's we want the pull factors, right, of like stay because but we always want to give
them that option. So, but that data would be really helpful and I don't know if at a follow-up cow or as part of the landscape analysis you can share that data but like that's a great a great data point is like why are people transferring and is it because of a program that they don't think we have or
other need but like seeing that data would be really helpful you know I'll just I'll just state you know again reiterate a little bit what my colleague said but I think we have we all have in our board districts the same challenge which is schools with weight lists I mean I have some nearing a thousand in my board district like down the street
from schools that are around 100 kids and um and so there is science that and then like a scientific approach but it's also not rocket science like why why people are at certain schools and so I really do appreciate the opportunity to now think through that and replicate you know some one school that comes to mind
is open charter magnet and yes it is a affiliated charter and a magnet that school has been innovating since like the ' 60s7s the principal of that school her mother was the principal like that we should have 10 of open we should have 10 of those schools and every opportunity I have a chance to, I say, why aren't we doing more? They want a middle school. They there there have
just been so many missed opportunities without replicating. And I think when you see innovative schools um that are capturing families, including some new ones like Gala, which I think now isn't um that anecdotally was a was a school that wouldn't have existed were not a principal who was going to go start a charter school. And finally, I think it
was Ray Cortinez said, "Wait, let's try to do that innovation here." And now that's a school that also has a huge weight list and has families coming from the west side, you know, all over the city. So again, it's it's it's I think one, ask families what they're looking
for. Two, when we find the schools that are succeeding, again, I go back to this not being rocket science, like it's, you know, and I'm sure my colleagues would attest to this, it's usually a leader who's been there for a long time, who has chosen his or her staff, who has
built buyin with a group of parents who kind of inculcated a parent community. Sometimes the parent leaders kids aren't even there anymore, but they're so invested in the school. um it's it's programs that they were advocating for for a long time. Dual language, individualized honors programs, um mag
you know what whatever it is. And so we have these success stories like you know Mark Twain Middle School which doubled in size uh in the last 10 years literally doubled and it's because that principal she was at the elementary school literally next door like on the same campus we created the individualized honors program Venice
High School too now bursting at the seam. So I just I say that because I think there are if you do talk to board offices and board members like we could point out as we did in the landscape analysis meetings like these are the schools to replicate or you know and and these are the schools where you could do it and then we still have to do some of
that school consolidation. I also just say to you know I I think that the TK expansion is big and I I love the stuff we're doing around uh um just digital like user friendliness online to get families there. I was playing around even during this meeting like if you
Google enroll in LUSDTK the first hit now is our website and you can do the s search and there's you still then have to like call for the EEC's but it's it's an improvement. Um so I like that. Um you know I think too there are things that we can do when it comes to where
some what some of those independent schools are doing. I think we should offer more Monasuri style uh Amelio Reio like innovative especially at preschool as a way to compete. Um and then I think we just need to acknowledge the tensions and one of them too I mean we talked about marketing I a lot of principles of
mine um had reached out uh to express some opposition to a few years ago when the district was requiring them to standardize their websites because I think again it's like people are choosing their schools because of their their unique character not because they're part of this you know as great as LA Unified is it's not that they're
like I'm at Lost Elementary School number 72 they're like I'm going to open or I'm going to community and So I would I would just say that as we're trying to do things more efficiently and centralized that we have to let schools as we're supporting them like when when schools are are advocating for some of
that flexibility or autonomy we really need to get to them. And that was one example where a lot of them had spent time and yes it takes effort but they had had some volunteers or school staff who was doing stuff around those websites and then when they were told oh it all has to look at this template. Um, and then the final thing I'll say to
Miss Hendy Nouville's comment about the great schools is we did years ago bring a resolution that was overturned about a year later that would have created our own evaluative tool to compete with great schools to say if we don't think that's the right metric what is our metric and we were looking at growth data. I mean, this was 8 years ago and
we had some exciting ideas and then politics changed and but I I do think that either there's a needs to be a conversation with those third party providers because we know that parents are still going there or we need to think about how to create our own tool and market it better. Um but yeah, I
appreciate the conversation. I think the board is pretty aligned on like come talk to us and like we'll give you ideas in our districts at least. So, thank you. Um really quick um on the landscape analysis I um at least how it was presented to us was to look at the
choice to where were as you mentioned and and I want to say this is the first time a chief of staff that I know have but I know why you're here. Usually it's Dr. Estrada or Pedro Salceto but I know why you're here. You're overseeing um this part of of um the landscape
analysis project. um was to look at what parents are interested in in choice and where are the opportunities, right? Um but I know and and when we talk about consolidating, folks are taking our public are taking
that as this is an analysis to close schools. Can you >> um sort of touch on that? >> Yes. Yes. Um, so most districts that I've worked with when it's time for consolidation, they just go in and do consolidation based on numbers. That is not what this board is doing and that is
not and that's exactly the purpose of the landscape analysis. So we are leading with program. So when I say this, I mean it. I know I've said it multiple times, but I'm glad you're asking me to say it again because it's an important point. This is truly to figure out how to serve our current students better. What programs are
working? Which ones aren't? Where are their deserts? where are there students who don't have a good option close to home? We want to fix that, change that. Um and so that that is what's leading this that is truly this work. Um as a
result based on that analysis, based on the community meetings, there might be output, but it's not going to be part of this landscape analysis. But as an output of this might be okay if we want to offer this community a then we really can't continue to have these certain
schools that are so small that they can't support this but it may not. So this landscape analysis is truly not about consolidating but is leading with programmatic change to better serve our community better and then we can see what the facilities need to be and some of it might be changing some of the
facilities we have to better create the programs that make sense in these communities. So there will be multiple facility conversations after the landscape analysis, but the landscape analysis is truly about programmatic equity. >> Thank you again, Miss Gel.
>> Yeah, I was going to say similar to the points that Nick made. Um I have a school that uh when the principal came, one of the things that he did is he went to the other schools that had increased enrollment and asked them like what did you do? And then he went to the
community of the school to the neighborhood and asked them what they wanted. And then he discovered that a big priority for the community was um arts instruction. They wanted their kids to have access to art. And so they became um they applied to become a
magnet in arts. and he has since that happened, he's opened up and really dedicated a lot of funding to art and made it work in spite of um of um reductions. And his community has stood by him all the way. And there's in fact
there's um he was one that has so many kids that he actually called and asked us if we can set up a bungalow to accommodate the number of kids who want to come to a school. He was turning kids away. So, but I think it's important that we do connect with the community as
well nearby the school. I have several schools that have waiting lists and then I have one or two who are close to those schools that have waiting lists that are, you know, in dire need of students. And unfortunately, sometimes it looks
very inequitable the funding, not the district funding, but the fundraising that happens at schools. and um and it's very hard for the school that is small and in need of students um you know to compete when they don't have the same
type of programming or the types of of um engagement right and so my so one I would suggest that you also not only talk to parents individually and focus groups throughout in in the greater district but also talk to the the school
community like the commu the people who live around that school to ask them what they want from their community school. Um and lastly in terms of you know consolidation and the landscape analysis um I would hope that our goal is not to
close any schools period and that if there's any any place where we feel that the programs might the programs may not be available at a school site because of how small they are that then we figure out how we can make a program um be uh
split among two smaller schools in the community because if If we want our kids to be benefiting from their community, then we have to give them the the resources in their community, right? Once we start closing schools, that means that our kids have to travel to another community to get their
education. And we should strive not to make that happen. So, let's try to figure out how we can make the the program be split, be uh shared among various schools. um if that is um something that we arrive at that the
program uh we may not be able to give programs the same type of programs at a school because of its size. >> Thank you. Um just of some things that that not was not were not touched on um based on uh Dr. Andrew's um um report
analysis and also Megan too. I don't want to leave her on. I know you were part of this as well. Um so what didn't hear was about the dropout prevention recovery. You mentioned that, right? So, did you was your analysis
also um did you go further in that on practices and how were we doing it here in the district? because I think that was very very um >> I'm really I we do do some some dropout recovery um uh and it's something I've
I've been curious about and asking about for a while now so I'm not exactly sure >> I'm happy to share as well but you have an expert here as well but there's it's a partnership between the instructional office as well as LC's office to just
make sure that one we are tracking what students are on track or off track, we know very quickly and early who those students are. So, we're trying to improve that within the system. But once we know a student has demonstrated those beginning indicators of attendance issues, uh not passing classes, things
like that, this is when a real wraparound team comes together. Uh and so I'll let her share more about that. And then we also have an element of when we know a student has checked out, we're not quite sure where they went, we also have a follow-up support. This is where our options office comes together. our
adult education office comes together along with this team. So if you wouldn't mind sharing a little bit more. >> Yes. So it's it's a collaboration effort that we have with our division of instruction team and other offices as well. So we have specifically at our high schools, we have our A throughG PSA
counselors that are monitoring the A throughG progress and are meeting with families one ensuring that they know that once they get to high school and if they don't pass their classes, you're uh being impacted by credits. So they do a lot of the ensuring that families are aware of that. Also ensuring that
students are aware of that, but ensuring that they're linking them to the appropriate credit recovery courses ultimately so the student does not drop out. So there's a lot of that work currently being done. We're looking at their data. We're monitoring and we're following up. And then even once I mean that's where in terms of those are the
L8 kids, we do have kids that unfortunately um they do drop out. They do leave our but we continue to follow up on those cohort graduation. So we work with our options teams and then we also have our youth source city partnership program which is one of our partnership with the city of LA. Their
focus is on those 16 to 24 year olds and they are pupil services and attendance counselors at our youth source centers that are following up on those kids that have left our school district and did not reenroll in school. And we partner and we bring them back. We enroll them in school, vocational training, um
provide them with job readiness so that they are able to get back on track. >> Other are some areas um on uh dropout prevention that have yet to be implemented or things that we would like to do apart from all of that work. I don't know if there's any other best
practices that can be can augment that. >> I was going to going to mention an example from Pasadena where where they have actually a charter school that's got a special charter. It's called Learning Works um with the school board in Pasadena. And uh they're they're a
school completely designed for those students who dropped out but who are coming back to um to finish their degrees. And many of those students are either uh dropped out because of parenting or because of being justice involved. So they're they're they're
they maybe got out of probation school or they got out of prison and they're coming back and they and they're there's a dedicated school for them. So it's just an example from a a a a nearby district that is doing something a little different. >> We can probably learn something or or
share best practices. Okay, that would be good. Thank you. The other one was the sectorbased learning hubs. Um I thought that was I wanted to know more about that, right? because you you know I know that you were very succinct in on in in that um what that would look like
and the example of San Francisco but um the and the first thing that came to mind on that possibility was obviously Bravo because we're right next door to USC KEK right and and the collaboration that can happen and how that would look like and I would really love for the
district to really um look at this and analyze and how that could look across the district uh as yeah so I don't know if there anything else you can add on that >> yeah bravo we don't have an example that's exactly like it so I think it is really interesting to to look at we have
a new u and probably somebody knows more about this than I do is it I don't know how to pron there's a new um charter school that's a collaboration between um the the guy from Apple who designed the Apple stores and the iPod
and everything and somebody else who's famous. Anyway, they have a design um uh and like a design tech high school in South LA. So, I'm not sure who's >> it's a district school. >> It's a district school. It's a So, so
it's a in some ways I think it looks kind of like this hub. Uh it's got a different um career focus or professional focus. Um but what makes the hub different is that it attracts students from different districts altogether. So, it's like a a program
and it's um and it's not, as I understand it, it's not necessarily all day. So, it's a program that you can attend a different high school and then this is part of your high school education, but you travel to it. Um and so that's those are two aspects that are a little different and and it's an
opportunity to um to build all kinds of collaborations and the district has a lot of collaborations like this. this is biotech firms and the a lot of the money was raised by their foundation. Um and you know our foundation has been raising a lot of money lately as well.
>> I would like to uh for the district to really delve deeper on on how where are the areas I I've thought of several Bravo Roy Ball film on TV and also um Cortinez Vapa right because that
Cortinez actually supposed to be like the um the premier school in the arts, like the fame of New York. Uh, but it just never got there. And unfortunately, I brought this up to superintendent and and Carolyn as well as to um how we're
really missing and and really taking advantage of what that school was supposed to be and the money that was invested in the facilities and yet it has never really taken off. And I think we're um I know we're doing a big dis um injustice to the possibility of um the
arts um of that school being the premier school. Um and then the last thing I just want to um raise is the last two questions that you raised uh Dr. Thomas. One is um the first question program enrollment capacity and attraction analysis that relates to the landscape
analysis that is being done. But the second one was the intervention and effectiveness effectiveness analysis. Um which of the district's current attendance and dropout prevention graduation interventions demonstrate strongest effects? how can resources be
reallocated towards higher higher highest impact interventions and what gaps exist which as I mentioned earlier. So I think those are something we can delve more into um and in analyzing and maybe working with Dr. Thomas and and looking at that information. So I just
wanted to raise that too. So okay, any more questions? I think that is it. So thank you so much um for all of you for um this very uh another wonderful um discussion and more to come as we at towards the end of this year uh academic
year as we get that report on the landscape analysis. Well now we are moving on to the last part of this meeting which is the uh public comment portion. So now I will um
hand this over to Mr. McClean. >> All right, here we go. Um I'll call first on the folks who have listed themselves as being in person and then the folks who have listed themselves as calling in remotely. So the first speaker in person is Maria Louisa Palma.
I see you out there. Come on down. You'll have two minutes to speak once you begin. And after Miss Palma is Danna Guen and then Isabelle Gonzalez. Come on up. You have two minutes to speak. Why don't you begin? Good afternoon. Long meeting today, huh?
Uh my name is Mar Luisa Palma. I'm here speaking on behalf of the taxpayers of Los Angeles. So what we've heard from all of you today and uh my assessment is that we have many layered factors leading to a very crucial situation here in the finances. Uh it's a excellent
time to have prudent fiscal uh strategy going forward. Uh Mr. Melvoyne, thank you for speaking up about wanting financial stability to be a core pillar for the strategic plan. And thank you, Miss Ortiz Franklin, for talking about the unrestricted net position and your
concerns around that factor. uh we need more information and more analysis like you've done today here with the enrollment uh and the legislative analyst recommendation to keep the funding based on average daily attendance. But you also have an
increasing volatility with health care costs. Although you've already agreed to keep paying full family premiums for all of your employees, that's an increased risk. You have aging and underutilized facilities which cause increased maintenance cost, increased capital
improvement needs. You have the staff you build up, the big increases based on the temporary funding for COVID funds. So despite 27,000 a year in the upcoming budget for next year from the governor and the additional 200 million that was
discussed today, 27,000 a year, the highest per pupil funding. The numbers still don't work. That's what we see here in the presentations from today. You end up with negative reserves. So that tells us that you're living beyond your means. We need efficiencies here with staff. How do you manage to
identify and keep your best employees? The the best and the good schools don't need any promotion, right? You're talking about that today. They sell themselves. So while you can't identify how the use of funds identify the best outcomes, you're at a loss. How will you
get to that? So please have town halls where you board members individually tell us what you think your solutions are to the communities and then open the discussion explain the squeeze that you're under here so that the families really understand from a financial perspective what the issues are not
based on feelings and not how it should be but how it is. Present the facts. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Diana Guen, come on up. You have two minutes to speak once you begin. Miss Guen is going to speak in Spanish. So, if you'd like to hear what she's saying in English as she's speaking in Spanish, please put
your hands up and we'll get you a translation headset. >> Okay. It was a long meeting but you spent 45 minutes about the efficient formula about how to manipulate the
parents into going into the district that's very easy you know how uh academic results is the way all of them that do that have good results and what I would like to say to cargo about your comment about that people like small schools of course we like small schools
with results the L USD who have a few students students. It's not because they have results. They're the worst schools and that's why parents are switching their students elsewhere. So, I know Miss Grigo, you want to fight for the community schools, but
in what is that base that comment? There should be a registry where if all this money that's being distributed in all these schools is working because you want to fight for more employees for UTLA, but you're not
fighting for results. So that's the biggest problem that exists and the funds that are going to be given to the community schools. Put it in the reduction of classes. No, you want better results. That's what you're saying. that may be better compared to a
community school. I don't know one that hasn't progressed academically. Let's put these schools where they have 2,000 3,000 students or a 1,500, but they don't progress. They don't get better. And then they send their kids because they really don't know. And you take advantage of the immigrant community
that don't know that those are bad schools. But when we're moving through the system and knowing them, these we know that these don't provide results. and the charters are winning and taking the baton because they have even smaller
better results with the limited funds they have. So, we need to talk about more about the 90 the prop 98 because you even said too the presenter said that Newsome was talking about how you give the minimum budget about Prop 98
but it's also the minimum work done for the students too. It's mediocre because they have minimum results for the students in our school. Thank you. >> The next speaker is Maria Daisy Ortiz. Come on down. You have two minutes to speak when you begin. Miss Ortiz.
>> And after Miss Ortiz is Clemen Avalos. Good afternoon. My name is Maria and truly these big meetings >> always take the voice away from the people who come here to tell you not
that we underestimate the district but we're not seeing results. And I'm going to start with this phrase that is somewhat cynical. When the students attend, we all win. Well, you win because you have positions. this should
be replaced when the students attend the student wins. And I am in agreement with Miss Guillen said in order to have better enrollment you need to have better results. But since you negotiate with the
labor uh negotiators that are payable because here the ones that are volunteers are the parents and the ones that are being affected and all the actions that you take are our kids. Our kids are not receiving a quality education
because math and English are under 40%. And it's not about money, it's about efficiency to reduce. So I would love to see the budget u explained in the different offices
that only are there to make up and serve you. So imagine the retreat you did the other day. They had a person who knows how much you paid to tell you words about how do you feel with that word about that word instead of asking how
are the students here? We are for the students not your feelings and these are people that already have a salary. So we need to demand efficiencies in the programs. So when it comes to the
budgets when they haven't even finalized 150 million or 150,000 you're reducing in the schools taking away their their counselors and you call that excellence. Please work with efficiency and know
what excellence is. Don't put pretty words over things that don't even have >> Thank you for your time. >> Uh Mr. David Tokovski, I see you're back. Come on down. You'll have two minutes to speak once you begin. And then after Mr. Tokovski, we have Isabel
Gonzalez and then Clemen Avalos. Thank you for a a detailed uh committee of the whole uh one I would not use consolidate. Uh schools talk about repurposing is a much better metaphor and public land. It's public land,
right? It's like the Boston Commons. It belongs to all of us. And so we have to be very careful about privatization of public land. So good discussion, some good insight, but I don't know why we advertise our virtual academy all over the billboards around the city. Unless we want to make the virtual academy
available to every kid in the state. Make it an affiliated charter. You could grow your enrollment from the five six thousand who are doing really poorly in the independent study to like 40,000 and your budget would just grow. It's not a good educational thing, but affiliated
charters, it's a war of school districts against school districts. If you have a and I know we have good programs, we're going to find them all in Ernston Young. Why aren't kids coming from Burbank and Glendale and Compton and Lynwood and Parammont Southgate, the city of
Southgate goes to four school districts. Ours is certainly quite up there. Better than two of them at least. Okay, back to the most fundamental. You guys were great on the budget today. What optimistic times. I don't know how we get the grim reaper discussions, but the
budget is growing. And thank you for pointing out that we the increased revenue in November and December is like 5 billion more. January, February, March, April, May are all part of this year's budget that can go into the block grant. On your chart, it showed the
block grant there. If you advocate to get more money into the block grant, it's already uh put in there by your CFO. Uh 5.6 6 billion is being held back. Okay, CTA will be on that and the whole educational community will be on but you ought to consider writing a
legal letter as well. You can challenge that legally. It is constitutionally owed to school districts. And finally, as you continue to discuss the budget, invite the governor. There's no question. Bring the governor right here. Talk to him, the department of finance,
and let them explain to you what we all think the governor will do in an even number year. As Kelly Gon has pointed out, it's election time and we could really up the money by May. Thank you very much for the time. >> Thank you for your time. Isa Gonzalez, come on up. Miss Gonzalez is going to speak in Spanish. So, if you'd like to
hear what she's saying in English, please put on these translation headsets for the English learners and as a member of the school site council SSC, which I have been for multiple years. That's why I'm here to speak up
on behalf of thousands of parents that have signed in petition for the return of school police at the school sites. thousands of parents. Miss Carla uh in contrast to her, the only monster that is being that is consuming the
school members and taking our kids and our students and the only thing they're worried about in in UTLA SEIU Local 99 is more contracts while our children are unsure if they're coming home due to
bullying, abuse of all types, fentinyl, drugs, weapons weapons, weapons of all kinds. Stop being an accomplice to this. Stop saying there's equity when our kids are being exposed daily. Equity when you're
very well protected and our kids are not. We don't ask for more programs. We that no one goes to or uses. We don't ask for things related to delinquencies. We don't ask for things that nobody wants
or more personnel. what student we want students in classrooms. We're not asking for those things. What we're only asking for is quality education, school police, clear, transparent uh explanations of the funds and
investments. Not what local SEIU99 and all those is not having tampons in the boys bathrooms. Focus on quality education. Stop being the joke
in the world of education with mediocre education and you won't have the the concern of low enrollment. All we want is safety, education, quality, and >> thank you for your time. >> School police.
>> Okay. Uh Dr. Risa Monae, are you here? Dr. Monae not here. Carol Verde, are you here? Come on down. You'll have two minutes to speak once you begin. >> Gracias. >> I come here urgently. I'm not going to
speak quite a bit. I come with you, Miss Rosier. Uh Rosio, the last time that we were here, the superintendent was here. You were all here. And I expressed to you specifically about Thomas Star King School that you need to prioritize the special education because the teachers
are having trouble with the students that have disabilities in wheelchair students with autism, severe autism. And you did not make this an important matter and you just said from that table you said from that seat you connected with the with the administrator. I went to uh knock on the door and you're a
liar. You know what? You are in a place I believe you're in that place because you're a liar and be careful and you all be careful because when when you give a name of a person listen when I go to the principal Rousa and you said you had not
communicated with her you took away the history teacher do you know how many children they have now in the classroom 20 students until you have an accident will you be okay with that it's all the white parents, you have a campaign right
now. And of course, and if I come here and I move the parents as a leader that I am, we will take you away from that position because you are not intervening for the special education, miss. So, please put on that uh your duty and do not be alarmed.
>> Cheryl Kono, I see you're speaking remotely. Cheryl Kono, please press star six to unmute yourself and you'll have two minutes to speak once you begin. Cheryl Kono. Cheryl Kono, I see you're on the line with us. >> This is Cheryl Kono. >> Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Please go ahead. >> This is Cheryl Kono. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Please go ahead. >> Okay, great. All right. Um, my name is Cheryl Kono, psychiatric social worker, and basically I'm sharing about advocacy. I will be introducing a parent
in a minute um who is receiving services. Um, psychiatric social workers are crucial in order to address the needs of the mental health and social work needs of students both at the universal like macro level schoolwide
events as well as outreaching um both in the classroom and out of the classroom providing group work, classroom intervention, individual work, individual therapy, group therapy, crisis intervention, mental health services all the way across the board.
You know, our belief is that all students should have access to these services in order to address all of the rising demand um due to challenges with immigration issues, uh bullying, discrimination,
um just a various variety of mental health issues. And so I have Isabelle who I'm introducing so that she can share about her experiences receiving services. And we want PSWs at every single school site and all the different program specialization from preK all the
way to adult ed. >> Please go ahead Isabelle. >> Hiola is >> Hi, my name is Isabelle and I just wanted to give my testimony about my daughter. She is in 10th grade. She started to see Miss Kono since she began
in 9th grade because she had a lot of anxiety and uh panic attacks. When she started with this, she did not want to go to school because uh she did not know what to do. But with the help of Miss Kono, she has learned little by little
to control herself and not to miss school anymore. Sometimes I had to take her out early or she would miss school when she started with these panics and panic attacks and she missed school even up to two weeks altogether
and the help that she has received in school. She >> to speak when she begin. Karina Lopez Karina Lopez. >> Hello. Okay. >> Good afternoon. My name is Garina Lopez Suna and I am calling
to be able to provide my public comment. Thank you for the opportunity. Yes. Sadly everything that we are hearing the statements, testimony, comments, right, experiences, it is true and more and more and more than what is
being said here that it is being uh evidenced and you know perfectly well that every single word that the people before me have said are true. We do need to increase the number of uh officers,
safety officers in the school. We need it urgently. The services, why don't you seek out someone that provides services that don't work directly with the students because uh academic counselors have you
really analyze how the students are graduating? More than anything, the ones in special education. No, that is not how it's done. That is inhumane. That is a crime, a severe crime. We need to seek out who is responsible of all of these
atrocities because it is horrible what is happening. It is not fair for the families, for homes and even less for children. You are the ones that um benefit from this are the ones that gain the most. And every single time the
students are losing more and more. So it is very important to identify who is truly responsible and to bring them to justice because the divine justice we will no one can escape and we do need
really more dedication and to be compliant. So please do not be like this. Please do not be ungrateful. Thank you. >> On the line, please press star six to unmute yourself and you'll have two minutes to speak once you begin. Marcela Garcia.
>> Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Marcela Garcia and I am here once more so that you are able to I've emphasized our high schools because they need more police officers. They need a lot of care
for the students. You know that within the school sometimes there's threats and how do you take it as when a student threatens another students? Is there strategies that you might use of what to do and what personnel do you use? How to
proceed when there is a threat from one student to another? saying if you say something or if you see something about what you been been see here I will bring a gun and I will shoot you down. What kind of strategies do you use? Because we need more police. We need more safety
for our students. But also safety imagine how is it that students are with their mental health now that one threatens another students are saying them if you say something I will shoot you. So please, I want you to explain to me a little bit what kind of precautions
you take when those uh students are threatened and also we need police the entire time outside of the schools mainly in the high schools because it's students that are older and so they take they're more aggressive and I do need that. I want safety. I want safety for
Franklin for all high schools and for all schools also for parents. You cannot be playing with the lives of children. Another thing the students in special education if are you monitoring so that the students are really
receiving the education that they need. When the students have accommodations like one-on-one, who is responsible to know that if the student does have their accommodation being met? Just as it is written and how it has been assess
assessed by that student, who monitors those things? who monitor students that are in special education. Remember that all students learn in a different manner, but they do learn. There's children that then the parents
that are able to succeed here. You're not signed in either. Raquel Diaz, are you on the line? Raquel Diaz is not on the line. Uh, Monica Razola, are you in the room? Also not online. Clemen Avalos.
Clemen also not here. That concludes public comment. Thank you, Mr. McClean. Um, as we close today's committee of the whole, I want to return to the moment we are in. In times of marked in times marked by fear, division, and grief, public schools play
an essential role in holding communities together. They are places where students can find stability, where families can find support, and where hope is not just spoken about, but practiced every day. The conversations we held today about budgets, enrollment, and student support
reflect that responsibility. They remind us that our decisions must be guided not only by constraints, but by care, by purpose, and by our shared commitment to Los to the to students and the families of Los Angeles. Thank you uh to our presenters uh colleagues, district
leadership and members of the public for your time and engagement today. The next committee of the whole is Tuesday, February 24th, and now this committee of the whole is adjourned. Thank you.