Enrollment in Los Angeles schools has taken another steep dive — about 4% this year — as officials press ahead with a multibillion-dollar modernization and rebuilding plan, raising questions about investing in campuses that may soon be shuttered.
The school closure issue was supposed to move forward Tuesday, as the Board of Education was slated to vote on hiring a consultant to advise in that arena. But the contract was pulled from consideration at the last moment after mounting alarm among parent activists and employee groups. Instead, Supt. Andrés Chait hit the reset button with a districtwide message.
“When schools become very small, it can be harder to provide the full range of opportunities our students deserve,” Chait wrote. “That is why, over the coming weeks, we will begin a community conversation about how we can strengthen our schools and make sure every student has access to the opportunities and support they need to succeed.”
“Our goal is not simply to have fewer schools,” he added. “Our goal is to have stronger schools.”
The decisions weigh heavily into imminent issues confronting the Board of Education, which must carry out a budget-cutting plan to prevent a deficit that, in a worst-case scenario, could increase to $3.5 billion by June 30, 2029. Layoffs, unpaid staff furloughs and school closures probably are ahead as the leaders downsize operations.
Billions for school reconstruction
At the same time, the school district has proceeded full force into its ongoing school reconstruction and modernization program, which voters buttressed in November 2024 with $9 billion in bonds.
On Tuesday, the board approved major reconstruction projects at four elementary schools for a combined $322.6 million — Menlo Avenue, 93rd Street, 96th Street and 122nd Street, all in South Los Angeles. These projects were taken on to address earthquake risks and then expanded in scope.
In June, the board approved three other seismic-risk reconstructions totaling $496.9 million: Normandie Avenue Elementary and 107th Street Elementary — both in South L.A. — and Narbonne High School in the Harbor area.
Ultimately, the current and upcoming projects that were set in motion to address seismic safety are anticipated to cost more than $2 billion.
Rebuild versus close
The imperative to close all or portions of campuses potentially competes with the concurrent high priority of providing students with safe, up-to-date, fully resourced and inviting education environments.
The dilemma was partly captured in questions posed Tuesday by school board members Nick Melvoin and Rocio Rivas.
Melvoin wanted reassurance that the district would remain eligible for state seismic construction funding — which can pay for all or parts of school projects — if it went ahead with projects before having state approval.
Chief Facilities Executive Krisztina Tokes could offer no such assurance, advising the board that state earthquake mitigation funds are underfunded and oversubscribed.
Melvoin also was curious about how much flexibility the district would have to rethink or cancel projects based on state funding decisions or decisions related to school closures or consolidations.
Tokes said projects could return to the board at a later stage, but made it clear that money will be spent when the board approves projects.
Rivas wanted reassurance that district staff had made sure that these projects are the right ones to undertake.
“All four of these schools exceed that average elementary school school size, which is why we’re comfortable bringing them forward,” Tokes responded. “These schools, the enrollment ranges from 500 to over 700.”
Tokes added: “And then we have close conversations with the regions, with the principal and administration, making sure that when we are building projects here, that we are inclusive of whatever the programmatic needs are of that school.”
Competing priorities
Given the years-long time frames needed for construction projects, the district facilities team doesn’t want to delay upgrading facilities that students would immediately benefit from. One recent example is the ongoing construction for three schools destroyed or significantly damaged by the 2025 Palisades fire, using bond funds while also seeking insurance dollars and federal aid.
The district is also moving quickly to address the risk posed by the so-called lift-slab construction style of many school buildings erected in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
One option would be not to rebuild some of these schools at all — given the district’s excess capacity.
But the district does not have a current plan about which campuses it will close.
In its plans to spend billions in bond funds, district officials “have not published reports which inform taxpayers … what enrollment assumptions were used, or what campus consolidations, if any, were contemplated,” said Maria Luisa Palma, a community activist whose son recently graduated from a district school. “Without those plans in hand, the public is unable to evaluate if LAUSD is utilizing voter-approved bond funds prudently and hold them accountable.”
Board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin said the issue is valid.
“I was similarly concerned about rebuilding while also downsizing when we first started these discussions about a year ago,” she said.
But she’s been persuaded about the appropriateness of projects approved so far.
“I’m confident that we’re finding the right balance between high-priority safety upgrades, ongoing community engagement and long-term rightsizing,” she said.
Officials noted that, on balance, the reconstruction is reducing student capacity at these schools, which also allows for more open space and recreation areas.
Enrollment drops again
Since peaking at more than 720,000 K-12 students in 2003, L.A. Unified has lost about 2.3% annually — with the exception of steeper drops during pandemic and since the start of the second Trump administration in 2025, according to data from the state Department of Education.
The state numbers for last year show a districtwide decline of 4.6%, with no numbers yet available for this year.
The district’s numbers are somewhat different because the counting methods and counting dates are not identical. They indicate an enrollment drop of 3.4% last year, which is the rate of decline that the district anticipated for this year. Instead, the figure is 4.3% through week five of the school year.
According to state data from last year, ultra-small elementary schools include Glen Alta in Montecito Heights, 55 students; Ann Street in Chinatown, 71; Annandale in Eagle Rock, 78, and Hillside in Lincoln Heights, 96. Wright Middle School in Westchester is down to 435 students. Crenshaw High, in Hyde Park, is at 423 students.
Financial strain grows
Chief Financial Officer Saman Bravo-Karimi on Tuesday estimated that the steeper-than-expected enrollment decline has added a $60-million hurdle to this year’s budget problems. It’s still just a fraction of an $18.4-billion spending plan this year — which is balanced against $16.8 billion in revenue. The deficit is being made up for with reserves.
Bravo-Karimi estimated that, based on current guaranteed revenue, the nation’s second-largest school system can remain solvent for about two more years after the current academic year. His figures already take into account job cuts over the next three years that are expected to surpass 6,000 in a system that employed about 83,000 last year.
Developments elsewhere could make the picture better or worse.
The California Teachers Assn. on Tuesday filed a lawsuit over the state’s withholding of nearly $6 billion in funding set aside for schools under state funding laws in the 2025-26 and 2024-25 school years. Of that total, $1.9 billion was paid a year later, but the union wants the court to declare the delay — and thus future delays — to be unconstitutional.
As the state’s largest school system, L.A. Unified would benefit mightily from such funds — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, but that infusion would not solve the district’s financial problems or remedy the enrollment decline.
And even without the litigation, state funding typically rises every year.
At the other extreme, if state voters fail to approve Proposition 3, the proposed permanent extension of an additional state income tax on high earners, L.A. Unified would stand to lose hundreds of millions a year.
The pitch from Chait and Bravo-Karimi is that district downsizing is about making academic programs stronger rather than saving money.
Chait noted at Tuesday’s meeting that small elementary schools result in grades being combined and that small high schools have fewer course options for students.
“Los Angeles Unified serves fewer than 400,000 students today, compared with more than 700,000 when I was a principal,” Chait said in his email. “At the same time, we continue to operate nearly the same number of school campuses.”
The post LAUSD faces tough choices: Which schools to close, update or rebuild as enrollment dives appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
