More than 1,000 LA school employees expected to lose their jobs, with more cuts to come

More than 1,000 Los Angeles school workers are expected to lose their jobs after the Board of Education on Thursday approved layoffs and, separately, after the district administration cut off workers without tenure or other union job protections.

The dismissal of workers without proper job security procedures, including some teachers, took place without an announcement but was confirmed by officials.

The Los Angeles Unified board also began looking at a revised “financial stability plan” that calls for more than $3.6 billion in cuts over the next three years — which could lead to massive layoffs, pay cuts for remaining employees and school closings. Estimates of job cuts in that case could be 6,000 or more, close to 10% of the county’s workforce.

Most of the economic pain has been backloaded to take effect from 1 July 2027 – meaning officials will have a year to try to avoid the worst of these consequences.

At Thursday’s meeting, acting Supt. Andres Chait spoke about the employees who will be affected next month when the school year ends.

“We all recognize that power cuts create great uncertainty and personal hardship for staff, families and school communities,” Chait said. “I want to make it clear that this action does not reflect the performance or dedication of the employees, but it is a difficult and necessary response to the financial situation.”

District officials attribute the need for the cuts to declining enrollment: The state’s second-largest school, with about 390,000 students, is about half of what it was in the early 2000s.

Other factors include the expiration of COVID relief funds, inflation outpacing government spending increases and the payment of labor contracts. Recent bargaining agreements with labor unions, which include major raises, will add an estimated $1.5 billion in annual spending to the county’s budget that stood last year at $18.8 billion.

The school board’s vote was 5 to 2, with officials determined to follow the legally required steps and timelines, set out in union contracts, to proceed with layoffs.

“Yes” votes were cast reluctantly by board members President Scott Schmerelson, Nick Melvoin, Sherlett Hendy Newbill, Tanya Ortiz Franklin and Kelly Gonez.

Board members Rocio Rivas and Karla Griego voted no.

“We are making it true that our schools will be more disrupted than they were,” said Griego. “To me, this still feels like a long way off.”

On a percentage basis, the June layoffs are likely to come down the most from Local 500 of the California School Employees Assn., whose members include clerical workers and librarians. The union has 254 workers on the layoff list.

“Why are essential workers — people who support students, teachers, school grounds, technical operations, transportation, nutrition services, special education and daily campus operations — treated as expenses?” said Ruben Alarcon, an IT support representative who spoke to the Board of Education standing in front of his CSEA colleagues. “These workers are not the cause of the problem. The reason for our schools to continue working despite the difficult situation.”

“The support staff is down,” added Alarcon, who is on the layoff list. “Eliminating so many positions will seriously hurt the situation for students and families.”

The upcoming layoffs also come down heavily on Local 99 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents the largest number of non-teaching workers, including low-wage workers, in the region.

The target positions include farmers, bus conductors and other transport workers. More than 200 computer support workers from Local 99 were also on the list but are expected to be reinstated based on recent contract payments.

The board’s vote on Thursday was effective at 657 employees, but a district spokeswoman said the hope is that the number will eventually drop to 150 — again, based on agreements with unions and on naturalization and transfers of those affected to existing open positions.

Students walk through the school yard this year at Hobart Boulevard Elementary School. The LA school district is cutting staff to maintain these outdoor areas.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Not part of the board’s action Thursday are workers without union job protections, including long-time part-timers.

Among these employees, the district issued “non-renewal notices” to 291 with teaching credentials, including 181 elementary teachers, and, at the middle and high levels, 15 English teachers and 45 social science teachers.

In addition, 51 student resource and school visit counselors with part-time contracts will be let go, according to the district.

Among the additional non-teaching staff to lose their jobs will be 114 campus assistants, 107 community representatives, 143 teaching assistants and 336 school assistants.

Area 99 Executive Director Max Arias vowed to reverse the layoffs of his remaining members, saying the district violated due process laws.

Despite the cuts, the new union contracts include some expansions, such as more mental health workers and counselors and reduced class sizes.

It’s a bad idea

The three-year budget project was a list of unintended consequences. Melvoin described it as a dung curse.

Proposed cuts include the complete elimination of special aid to high-needs schools and a separate program that provides academic and emotional support to Black students and others with similar needs.

In addition to the thousands of layoffs, school employees would face seven days of unpaid leave and must begin contributing to their monthly health insurance premiums.

The financial stability plan is part of a balancing act that requires the district to prove it can stay afloat over the next three years — despite uncertainty about the state budget and the economy that is fueling it.

If the country’s economy remains healthy, many but not all of these costs will decrease over time, as long as the state continues the current grants and that the general funding of state-funded schools continues to grow every year. However, state laws do not allow county budget planners to consider such a positive outlook.

Area 99 leader Arias dismissed the need for a three-year consolidation plan.

“I don’t think it’s considering the potential new revenue,” he said. “We still cannot believe that there are so many financial problems that such measures should be taken.”

The final financial stability plan is scheduled to go before the board in June.