In school districts across California, the threat of public school closures has left families distraught, caught between the urgency of addressing budget shortfalls and the fight for educational equity.
In 2021, California’s economy received billions of dollars in federal relief funds following the COVID-19 pandemic. This enormous amount of cash flow into the state led Governor Gavin Newsom to claim there was a $97.6 billion surplus for the state to spend freely. Newsom immediately increased funding for the following year–an impulsive decision that quickly faced fiscal consequences. Turns out, the $97.5 billion surplus never actually materialized, causing the administration to admit that it had overestimated revenues by $165 billion over four years, and leaving the state with a “structural deficit” of approximately $20 billion.
By this point, school districts across California were using their federal relief funds to meet the demands of employee unions for salary increases. The Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which monitors California school district finances, reported that the Sacramento City Unified School District had fallen into financial turmoil due to the use of federal aid. The report catalogued the district’s history of overspending revenues: “This (federal) funding masked the district’s existing structural deficit, delaying the necessary actions to be taken to address it.”
The budget problems in other school districts, such as Oakland Unified, have a similar issue. School trustees and city council members didn’t adequately allocate federal aid for employee salary increases or school infrastructure improvements. Thus, the district would approve unsustainable contracts and blame the resulting deficits on “insufficient” revenue.
Now, it is up to the school districts across California to manage their fiscal deficits, and school closures are one of the proposed solutions. School closure proposals are controversial; parents have fought to keep neighborhood schools open. School board members have pushed back against district school closure recommendations. School districts in San Francisco, San Jose, Pasadena, Richmond, and Long Beach are among those considering closing or merging schools.
In 2024, the San Francisco Unified School District released a list of 13 public schools targeted for closing or merging with surrounding schools. I was in my senior year of high school when I was notified of the list during a student government meeting. My immediate thought was: “Is my high school one of the 13 schools?” Fortunately, my school was not on the list, but a noticeable pattern emerged; all the schools were Title 1 schools.
Title 1 schools are defined as schools that need federal funds to support effective, evidence-based educational strategies that close the achievement gap and enable the students to meet the state’s academic standards. Title I-funded schools are either Targeted Assistance Schools (TAS) or Schoolwide Program (SWP) schools.
My high school, Balboa High School, is one of the most ethnically diverse schools in San Francisco, scoring a 53 on the Ethnic Diversity Index from 0-60. The total minority enrollment is 97 percent, and 61 percent of students are economically disadvantaged. While my high school is not categorized as a Title 1 school, the struggles that my peers and I experience in being academically supported mirror those of students who attend Title 1 schools in San Francisco.
I reconnected with one of my high school teachers and ASB advisor, Mr. Rosenberg, as he recalled the controversy of the proposed closures. “These aren’t schools in the Pacific Heights or the Marina that are closing down – it’s Sunnydale, Hunters Point, Bayview,” he said. “It’s those families that don’t have the political capital or energy to fight SFUSD… (they) don’t understand that these families are exhausted and don’t have the wealth of the Northside to fight back.”
San Francisco has faced many challenges in addressing budget shortfalls. Specifically, the school district has seen a steady decline in student enrollment, driven by several factors, including the high cost of living in San Francisco, the ongoing housing crisis, and families moving out of the city.
Rosenberg shares, “You’ve got to keep the cuts away from the schools…they make arguments about underenrollment and low-performance as a justification for closing schools…but wait a minute, you’re spending so much money on outside contractors from private companies to run professional development to facility management … we already knew Matt Wayne was just trying to save the status quo.”
I remembered feeling disappointed seeing this list. The decision to potentially close these schools is a deeply political decision that will worsen education inequality amongst our communities of color. Wayne claimed that the schools failed to meet the district’s criteria for equity, excellence, and effective use of resources, which informed the decision to place them on the list for potential closure. However, the lack of transparency behind these criteria is evident. “There should be a sunshine policy, where in the very beginning of a policy – sun must be shown to the entire steps of the policy … the district has a responsibility to release these criteria as early as they possibly can, including how they came up with the criteria and who’s at the table,” Rosenberg added.
My student government received a notice from Wayne to survey the student body about their thoughts on school closures. This pushed the labor of gathering comprehensive and crucial data onto us students – a responsibility meant for SFUSD. Burdening student governments at each school and not including SFUSD’s Student Delegates’ input illustrates how student voices were not a priority.
SFUSD’s Student Delegate, an elected student representing all 40,000 kids who attend public schools, and who I was also friends with, told me she was not even informed about this conversation. “Students’ jobs are to be disrupters and identify the gaps in students’ needs that administration does not have the lens for … I think students have to be at the table all the time. The Student Delegate is essential, but they’re only as good as the School Board lets them be” Rosenberg said. In the end, this survey did not equate to honestly incorporating student input.
Superintendent Matt Wayne quit his job after receiving immense backlash. Consequently, pausing the potential closing and merging of schools. However, this is not the reality of many districts where public school closures were being debated.
The Pasadena Unified School District, PUSD, is confronting a budget shortfall projected at $30 million to $35 million for the 2026-27 fiscal year and a student population that has declined roughly 23 percent over the past decade.
PUSD is considering closing or merging schools and has already issued “pink slip” layoff notices to over 150 teachers, sparking further outrage. In a poll issued by the school district, approximately 30 percent of respondents were open to closing under-enrolled schools to consolidate resources and improve facilities. Nearly 29 percent are staunchly opposed, arguing that closures will cause irreparable harm to student mental health and neighborhood stability.
Nearly 100 parents, students, and community members gathered outside the PUSD headquarters to protest the possible closure of several local schools. The ‘Save Our Schools’ demonstration was organized by groups representing campuses like Marshall, Blair, and Don Benito that remain under consideration for consolidation as the district grapples with a budget deficit.
As a result of this protest, the PUSD advisory committee has removed nine schools from the list of campuses being considered for potential closure or consolidation. A landslide victory for students, parents, and community members whose advocacy led to positive outcomes for their community. The committee will present its recommendations to the Board of Education by May 2026. The Board is scheduled to vote on any closures on June 25, with changes taking effect in the 2027-28 school year.
The San Jose Unified School District, SJUSD, board members voted to close five elementary schools in March, affecting hundreds of students. The SJUSD initially wanted to close nine schools. However, the Schools of Tomorrow Implementation Committee, a committee dedicated to addressing school closures in a student-centered way, recommended only five schools to close starting the 2027 school year.
All five of the schools chosen for closure are Title I schools, which serve a high percentage of low-income students. In addition, the majority of these children are students of color. Parents have been passionately fighting the school closures, protesting before meetings and speaking out during public comment. Still, the school board voted 3-2 to close those five schools next school year, following the recommendation.
The crisis facing California’s public schools is not just about addressing budget deficits – it is about deciding whose education is deemed expendable. School closures result in a negative impact on grades, behavior, and graduation rates. Navigating the loss of school communities during these ominous times – when children feel unsafe due to ICE raids – is extremely detrimental. School closures may offer a short-term fiscal solution, but they come at the long-term cost of destabilizing already vulnerable communities, deepening educational inequities, and silencing the very students the school districts are meant to serve.
As districts move forward with these decisions, they must realize that financial mismanagement should not be corrected at the expense of marginalized students. Instead of treating schools as line items to be cut, administrators must prioritize transparency, community input, and equitable solutions that do not disproportionately harm low-income communities and students of color. Because once a school is closed, what is lost is not just a building – but a community whose future for success is not guaranteed.
Featured Image Source: The Organization for World Peace