In a recent Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) board meeting, budgetary concerns took center stage, with discussions surrounding the future of the district’s seven-period schedule. The seventh period was originally introduced using emergency COVID relief funds to help students reintegrate after quarantine, offering increased flexibility for mental health, electives, and programs like dual-language immersion. While the program extended for a fourth year, the district now faces significant financial challenges, with the seventh period costing $5.3 million annually.
Parents, students, and teachers voiced strong support for maintaining the seven-period system, citing its positive impact on student well-being and academic choices. Students explained how the extra period allowed them to pursue passions and electives that might otherwise be sacrificed in a six-period day. Teachers highlighted the benefits for vulnerable students, including those with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), while parents urged the board to avoid cuts that would affect classrooms directly.
Despite the clear support for keeping the seventh period, GUSD’s financial struggles may force the board to make difficult decisions, including potential layoffs and program reductions. The board acknowledged the importance of maintaining educational opportunities but emphasized that budget constraints could make it challenging without identifying new funding sources. Board members expressed openness to involving the community through a proposed budget committee, which would allow all stakeholders to contribute ideas for cost-saving measures.
This summary provides a more detailed picture of the challenges facing GUSD, including budget mismanagement, difficult cuts, and the potential long-term impact on students and families
Why GUSD made the hard decision to cut the 7th period:
- Impending Financial Insolvency: The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is facing a severe financial crisis, with only two years left before running out of money unless significant budgetary changes are made. The district needs to cut $14 million in expenditure to avoid insolvency. The school board is grappling with tough decisions on reducing spending while minimizing the impact on students and staff.
- Decision to Cut the Seventh Period: The GUSD board voted to eliminate the seventh period from schools that had implemented it using one-time COVID relief funds. This decision was made to reduce costs, as maintaining the seventh period had become unsustainable without a long-term funding source. The board described this as the “least harmful” option among difficult choices, acknowledging that it would negatively affect students’ academic experience and school-life balance.
- State Fiscal Assessment Findings: In August, GUSD requested an evaluation from the Financial Crisis and Management Assessment Team (FCMAT), an independent agency that analyzes school district financial health. The FCMAT report revealed that GUSD is at high risk of insolvency, largely due to mismanagement of funds. It found that restricted funds (meant for specific purposes like arts and music) were often left unspent, while unrestricted funds (which can be used more flexibly) were being depleted. One major issue was that GUSD had used one-time funds to cover ongoing expenses, without a plan for replacing those funds when they ran out.
- Higher Spending on Salaries and Benefits: Despite paying teachers less than the Los Angeles County average, GUSD spends a larger percentage of its overall budget on wages and benefits for employees—including teachers, administrators, and support staff—compared to other districts. The FCMAT report highlighted inefficiencies in this spending, pointing to a lack of oversight in salary versus benefits allocations and uncertainty about the exact number of full-time employees. This creates additional pressure on the already strained budget.
- Parents’ Concerns and Lack of Transparency: Many parents were upset by the decision to cut the seventh period, particularly because they learned about it from teachers at back-to-school night, rather than from the district itself. The district’s failure to communicate such significant changes led to feelings of being blindsided. Some parents, including those with professional financial expertise, argued that there might be alternative solutions that would allow the seventh period to remain. They even volunteered their services to help analyze the budget and find other cost-saving measures.
- Impact on Enrollment and Student Well-being: Parents are concerned that removing the seventh period will negatively affect both enrollment and student mental health. GUSD had experienced a positive increase in enrollment, bucking the post-COVID trend of declining enrollment seen across Los Angeles County. However, parents fear that cutting the seventh period, which is offered by local private schools, could lead to students transferring out of the district, negating any financial gains from the cut. They also worry that a heavier daily course load and reduced social and extracurricular time might lead to increased mental health absences and truancy, further hurting attendance and the district’s finances, as the school receives state funding based on attendance.
- Staffing Reductions: The school board acknowledged that, even with the seventh-period cut, staff reductions will be necessary to meet budgetary goals. The district has projected that $2.9 million could be saved over the next two years through staff retirements, but that still leaves $11 million in additional cuts needed. Parents have called for any staffing cuts to be made “as far away from the classroom as possible,” to minimize the direct impact on students.
- State Takeover Fears: The decision to cut the seventh period was partly driven by fears of state intervention. If GUSD’s financial situation worsens, the state could take over the district, as has happened to other districts, such as Inglewood and San Francisco. This would strip local officials of control over district operations, which the board is keen to avoid.
- Hope for Restoring the Seventh Period: Despite the current cuts, board members committed to restoring the seventh period as soon as the district’s finances are stabilized. The board clerk emphasized that the seventh period improved the quality of education and student life, and vowed to fight for its return “in a timely manner” once the immediate financial crisis is averted.
- Increased Monitoring of Enrollment and Attendance: To address the current financial issues and prevent future crises, the district is now closely monitoring school-by-school enrollment and attendance trends on a monthly basis. GUSD aims to learn from student numbers fluctuations and minimize state revenue losses. Even excused absences result in no state funding for the district, while partial attendance, such as tardies, still generates revenue. The district urges students to attend at least part of the school day whenever possible to maintain funding.
- Advocacy for Public Education Funding: Board members, such as Ingrid Gunnel, expressed frustration with the broader underfunding of public education, arguing that until public education is prioritized at a societal level, financial crises like this one will continue to occur, regardless of who sits on the school board.
What could help change budgeting and funding issues:
Sacramento, California – Senate Bill 98, authored by Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D – Burbank), was signed into law by Governor Newsom. The bill highlights the significance of public school funding models based on enrollment rather than attendance and kick starts much needed research on establishing a more equitable funding framework for our public schools.
“Funding based on enrollment promotes and creates greater stability for California schools and ensures funding is more equitable and predictability,” stated Senator Portantino. “The existing system for determining budgets for K-12 schools relies solely on student attendance and negatively impacts too many districts across the state. Many children face challenges such as unreliable transportation, unstable housing, and suffer from health-related issues that may lead to absenteeism. This study is an important advancement and I appreciate the Governor for signing SB 98 into law. Californian lags behind most states in shifting to enrollment based funding and this moves us closer to making this positive change in approach. I am grateful to the efforts of the coalition behind our effort.”
California is one of only six states that does not consider student enrollment figures for determining state aid to school districts. In California, school administrators plan budgets and expend funds based on the number of students enrolled, while they receive money based on average daily attendance. (Read the entire Bill)
The GUSD Board took it upon themselves to order a FCMAT.
In August 2024, the Glendale Unified School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a Fiscal Health Risk Analysis of the district.
The agreement stated that FCMAT would perform the following:
- Prepare an analysis using the 20 factors in FCMAT’s Fiscal Health Risk Analysis and
identify the district’s specific risk rating for fiscal insolvency.
- Present the final report to the district’s board of trustees at a public meeting following the
completion of the review.
This report contains the fiscal health risk analysis report with the study team’s findings and
recommendations.
Here is the content from the FCMAT Summarry page:
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis For K-12 School Districts Date(s) of fieldwork: September 3-5, 2024 District: Glendale Unified School District Summary The governing board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the district’s financial health; this means ensuring the district maintains a balanced budget, including adequate reserves. The district’s administration is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the district’s systems, securing its assets, and providing accurate and reliable information for the board to consider when making decisions to protect the district’s fiscal solvency. In reviewing the district’s adopted budgets and interim financial reports for the current and prior three fiscal years and after speaking with district staff, FCMAT identified weaknesses in the district’s budget development and monitoring practices; primarily the lack of input in site and department budgets and the district’s use of one-time and/or restricted program funds. School site and department managers reported having little to no input in the development of their annual budgets, particularly unrestricted general fund allocations. The district has not consistently expended restricted funds before unrestricted funds and has used one-time revenues to pay for ongoing expenditures, including salaries and benefits, without developing a board-approved plan to fund or eliminate those costs once the funding sources expired. The district’s 2024-25 adopted budget projected deficit spending of $13.781 million in the unrestricted general fund. The multiyear financial projections assumed that a total of $2.907 million in estimated salary savings and $11.0 million in other expenditure reductions would be needed in 2025-26 and 2026-27 to maintain the minimum required 3% reserve for economic uncertainty. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the board had yet to approve and implement a detailed plan to accomplish those reductions. Without these ongoing adjustments, the district’s deficit spending will deplete its unrestricted general fund balance in 2026-27. The district does not regularly update its multiyear financial projections or use them when making financial decisions. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district was working through the impasse process with its certificated bargaining unit. The district has not settled negotiations with its certificated and classified bargaining units for 2023-24 and 2024-25. In addition, the district continues to negotiate employee compensation articles that were reopened by the certificated bargaining unit for 2022-23. The collective bargaining agreements with both employee groups include an annual 8% increase to the district’s maximum contribution toward health insurance premiums. The percentage of the district’s unrestricted general fund budget allocated to salaries and benefits exceeded the statewide average in 2021-22 and is expected to do so again in 2023-24 and 2024-25. The district has not complied with statutory requirements regarding public disclosures of tentative collective bargaining agreements. Government Code 3547.5 requires a school district to disclose at a public meeting the major provisions of a tentative collective bargaining agreement including, but not limited to, the costs incurred under the agreement for the current and subsequent fiscal years, before entering into the agreement. Government Code 3547.5 also requires a district’s superintendent and chief business official (CBO) to certify in writing that the costs incurred under a tentative agreement can be met during the term of the agreement. In 2022-23 and 2023-24, the district approved several memorandums of understanding (e.g., extended day kindergarten implementation) without completing a public disclosure and providing for the required superintendent and CBO certifications. Effective internal controls are the foundation for successful financial operations; they protect the district from material weaknesses, serious errors, and fraud. The district does not adequately segregate, supervise and monitor duties in accounts receivable, payroll, and position control. These deficiencies have led to payroll errors, unreliable financial information, and an increased risk for fraud. For example, due to an ongoing vacancy in the district’s payroll supervisor position, no one is actively supervising and reviewing payroll transactions before final processing other than the payroll technicians who process the payroll. The district does not have an effective position control system to ensure that: • Only board-authorized positions are entered into the system. • The Human Resources Department hires only employees who have been authorized by the board to fill positions. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Glendale Unified School District 7 Fiscal Health Risk Analysis • Payroll staff pay only employees who are hired for authorized positions. The district also lacks a process for collecting and following up on reports of possible fraud. FCMAT’s analysis for this FHRA determined that the district’s score from the 20 numbered sections is 38.1%, which is moderate. Because FCMAT identified risk relating to certain material weakness questions, the district’s risk level was elevated from moderate to high.
District Fiscal Solvency Risk Level: High