Lee esta publicación en español

Hi families, 

Welcome to another recap. Good news: OUSD might not run out of money. Bad news: "Might not" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. We have things to discuss.

3rd Interim Budget Report

Context:  At the beginning of school year 2025-26, OUSD was spending $100M more than it receives in revenue annually, and leadership at the time expected to run out of money this year or next year. The school board has been working with district leadership to reduce expenses and avoid having to take out a loan, which would trigger a county takeover. (For more detail, see our recent budget background timeline.)

Wednesday night: Superintendent Saddler’s financial team, Tara Gard and Ryan Nguyen, presented the 3rd Interim Budget Report. OUSD’s previous 2 interim reports this year were “qualified”, a rating that means the district may not be able to pay its bills for the next 2 school years. Saddler and team presented an improved forecast, and recommended a “positive” certification. The motion passed with 5 yes votes.

The “Yes” votes:

Brouhard, presumably aware that some in the audience and on the dais would be skeptical of these numbers, made opening remarks encouraging people to be civil, and open to good news.

Latta asked Gard to confirm that these projections include the cost of recent raises negotiated with the teachers union, which Gard said they do.  

Thompson invited Gard to define what a “positive” certification means. She replied that it means we’ll have enough money in savings (reserves), and Thompson agreed, reminding the audience that positive does not mean “we have buckets of money.”

Neither Williams nor Bachelor commented.

The “No” votes: 

Hutchinson spent most of his time demanding an explanation for why the 3rd interim projects expenses to decrease by $100M between this year and next year. In the tensest exchange of the evening, Gard noted “we did not come with a breakdown of every single number” and Hutchinson responded “I'm not asking for every single number. This is total combined expenditures. This is the only number that matters.” 

Berry asked, as she did last meeting, for an update on the original budget stabilization plan, which lists specific strategies for reducing the deficit. “What's the status of each of the budget adjustments and fiscal stabilization strategies that were part of the plan at the beginning? Can we see that in dollar amounts, cost savings, or some measure of impact to the budget?” Berry explained her no vote by saying it's not that she doesn't appreciate the work, but she thinks it's important to acknowledge how much further we have to go to close the deficit.

Our take: Like Brouhard, we wish for good news on district finances, news that guarantees local control and stability for our students. It’s exciting to see the district recommend a positive certification after the budget struggles of the last few years.  This didn’t seem possible in December.  

But it’s hard to accept this good news without more detail. Two glaring questions jump out at us from last night’s presentation.

First, the question Hutchinson posed: how will the district reduce expenses by $100M next year? The finance team has previously reported that their reduction strategies have reduced the deficit by $65M annually (including $40M from March’s painful layoffs).  Where did the other $35M come from? The finance team has declined to explain what’s driving the expense reductions, despite repeated requests from Director Berry for an itemized list.

Second, what is “Board Directed Stabilization”? As the slide above shows, this line item is counted on for $30M in savings (or maybe $18.7M, if state funding is higher as hoped). If we understand correctly, “Board Directed Stabilization” is the district’s delicate way of saying “future cuts we don’t yet have a specific plan for.”  While we must credit this board’s track record of making painful cuts when required, what else is left to cut? Our principals are already telling us “we are struggling to pursue the basic conditions for success.”  We’ve already eliminated critical central office positions, like the folks who were working on increasing enrollment. How will we cut $18-$30M more from the budget?

The Superintendent is technically correct that the district won’t run out of money if we follow this plan, but the extent of the plan appears to be “do something that will keep us solvent.” We agree with Director Berry that the positive vs. negative certification is a distraction, and the really important questions are: what hard decisions are we going to make, and how do those hard decisions align with the district’s vision for student success? We hope to hear those questions more directly addressed at committee and board meetings in the near future.

LCAP First Read

Context: Every district in California has a “Local Control and Accountability Plan”, a document describing the district’s goals for students, and what actions and budget decisions will support those goals. The LCAP plan specifies how OUSD will spend non-base funds, including its “supplemental and concentration” dollars (extra state money the district receives to support high need students like English learners, low-income students, and foster youth).  It’s worth noting that the district’s budget balancing strategies include spending LCAP supplemental and concentration funds on expenses that were previously paid for out of the base funds.  For that reason, PSAC (the parent committee that oversees LCAP) is keenly interested in whether the changes to OUSD’s budget are consistent with the goals outlined in the LCAP.

Here are OUSD’s existing LCAP goals for 2024-27:

• Goal 1: All students graduate college, career, and community ready.
• Goal 2: Within three years, focal student groups demonstrate accelerated growth to close our achievement gap.
• Goal 3: Students and families are welcomed, safe, healthy, and engaged in joyful schools.
• Goal 4: Our staff are high quality, stable, and reflective of Oakland's rich diversity.
• Goal 5-8 (Equity Multiplier Goals): Over three years, student academic outcomes and graduation rates will improve at schools identified as high need schools.

Wednesday night: Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Sondra Aguilera presented the first draft of this year’s LCAP plan. This was not a voting item, but Directors did comment on the draft. Director Hutchinson expressed concern that budget reductions haven’t been made consistently with the LCAP. Director Berry noted that the LCAP is a core part of the district’s vision for teaching and learning, and asked how the LCAP has influenced decisions about budget reductions. Aguilera explained that principal priorities guided the cuts.

There will be a public presentation of the 2026-27 LCAP plan revisions on June 3, where the public has the opportunity to provide feedback.

Also on the agenda last night:

• OUSD’s small business community celebrated the success of the district’s local business policy, which has increased OUSD’s spend on local businesses from 6% to 50%.

We’re not the only folks paying attention to OUSD board meetings these days:

• The Oaklandside reported on the first positive certification for OUSD in 22 years
• The Chronicle interviewed parents who are skeptical of the budget reportnumbers

And that brings us to a close for the last official School Board meeting of the 2025-26 school year. Congrats, we made it!

Also next week, the OUSD Multi-stakeholder Engagement Group (MSEG) is hosting a community discussion on Monday June 1 from 5:30 - 8 at Fremont High called Our School Stories: What Matters Most and What Is Working. 

Happy summer,

Anna, Bekah & Jess