Many news outlets (S.F. Chronicle, Mercury News, Cal Matters, ABC, NBC, Oaklandside and more) are running articles about the deficits of many school districts, most prominently OUSD, WCCUSD, and SFUSD.  Most stories go like this:  Extra pandemic funding is running out and budget cuts will have to be made. Higher pay for both certificated and classified staff, declining enrollment and ‘too many schools’ are always cited as major reasons, and closing schools and laying off staff are featured as the solution.  Like the previous wave of ‘fiscal cliff’ warnings these articles hide at least as much as they reveal.  Let’s look at the issues:

The Cliff is Not So Tall

The ‘structural deficits’ in all of these cliff scenarios are not really that tall.  The basic OUSD deficit of $24 million amounts to less than 3% of the District’s budget. An additional $27 million is needed to pay for raises that the district agreed to in contracts. It’s true that the federal pandemic assistance and some of the one-time funds the state gave schools under Prop 98 because its tax revenue skyrocketed during the pandemic are ending.  What’s never mentioned is the increase in permanent funding that districts have gotten over those same years.  Districts got 20% more in permanent funding over three years; that amounts to almost $200 million for Oakland. Notice that $51 million < 200 million.

Blaming Raises 

Permanent funding went up and inflation went up. Salaries went up too— by less than the funding or inflation. (Have you gotten a 20% raise over the last four years?).  So in inflation-adjusted dollars districts have more permanent funding than they did before.

OUSD and WCCUSD pay staff less than more affluent districts, and recent contracts have done nothing to close that gap. The talk about spending money on things that “really benefit students” rather than raises is laughable. WCCUSD has hundreds of positions left vacant or filled with permanent substitutes because of its low salaries and difficult working conditions. But apparently filling those positions wouldn’t benefit students!

Closing Schools

Closing schools does save some money, but not nearly as much as is often claimed. The students go to another school which then needs more teachers, counselors, paras and custodians. Other students go to charters and their funding is lost completely.

The schools to be closed are almost always the schools with more poor and Black and brown students.  Why?  Because these schools have been hollowed out by charters and by gentrification— the new residents have less children than the old ones.  Because schools used to be smaller everywhere, the smallest schools are in the oldest neighborhoods. Because older schools have been under-maintained for decades theycost proportionately more to operate. Because schools in more affluent areas get more parent money and time and have higher test scores, parents want to send their students there, filling all the seats. So the schools that ‘must be closed’ are in the poorest communities. The ‘logical’ and ‘fiscally prudent’ and therefore ‘fair’ way to cut the deficit turns out not to save much money and mostly works to reproduce existing inequalities.

The ‘fiscal cliff’ turns out to be a way to justify lower pay and continuing inequality.

      David  de Leeuw  OEA retired