OUSD Board Watch: Budget Decisions Without a Clear Plan
Sign up for our newsletter to make sure you never miss an update!
As Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) faces a required $100 million budget reduction for the 2025–26 school year, the Board of Education continues to struggle to provide clear, decisive leadership. Despite repeated warnings from the county and shrinking time before fiscal deadlines, the Board has yet to coalesce around a clear, data-driven plan that addresses the full scale of the crisis or provides the superintendent with actionable guidance. Instead, meetings have been marked by internal disagreement, incomplete scenarios, and commitments to collaboration that have not been followed through on.
November 12, 2025 – Hiring Freeze and Early Budget Discussion
At the November 12 meeting, the Board received an update from Deputy Superintendent Lisa Grant-Dawson on the district’s hiring freeze. While the freeze has slowed some spending, Ms. Grant-Dawson made clear that it will not come close to addressing the $100 million in required budget reductions.
Board President Brouhard stated that the Board had directed district leadership to develop budget scenarios designed to minimize harm to students. However, she did not acknowledge that feedback from the Teaching and Learning Department — whose expertise is critical to understanding classroom impacts — was not fully incorporated into the scenarios. Director Hutchinson raised concerns about the shrinking timeline for producing a balanced budget.
Additional actions included:
- Approval of early retirement incentives (the first since 2011), a move historically paired with staff reductions.
- A review of SBAC results and district goals for ELA and math improvement, with recognition that only 20 schools met improvement targets.
- Warnings that deadlines for fiscal compliance were approaching without a clear budget plan in place.
November 19, 2025 – Special Budget Meeting
The Board convened a special meeting to review two draft budget scenarios for 2025–26 and 2026–27. Both scenarios focused primarily on reducing staffing in central office departments such as Fiscal Services, Technology, Facilities, Talent (HR), Communications, Nutrition Services, and governance and board-related operations. A second scenario added cuts to Enrollment, Custodial, and Buildings and Grounds.
However, Ms. Grant-Dawson confirmed that neither scenario fully closed the $100 million gap. Significant funding — including money borrowed from previous years — remained unaccounted for, meaning additional reductions would still be required.
The Board directed the interim superintendent to develop a third scenario that would identify cuts totaling $100.7 million for 2025–26.
December 3, 2025 – Budget Meeting Canceled
A scheduled budget meeting was canceled without a clear explanation, further compressing the already limited time available for review and public discussion.
December 10, 2025 – Third Scenario and Interim Budget
At the December 10 meeting, OUSD staff Troy Christmas presented a third budget scenario described as a “care-centered approach.” This plan included:
- A projected 2% increase in attendance, generating up to $10 million in new revenue (not guaranteed).
- A 10% reduction in Special Education contributions, including contracts and supports.
- Potential school-site budget cuts of 7.5–10%.
Director Hutchinson proposed an amendment requiring a detailed, actionable plan with at least $27 million in cuts for the current year to reduce the need for deeper reductions in future years. Director Berry expressed concern that the scenario remained “too vague,” particularly given the potential impact on schools. Despite these concerns, the Board approved Scenario 3, with all members voting in favor except Directors Hutchinson and Berry.
Following this vote, Ms. Grant-Dawson presented the district’s First Interim Budget Report, including three-year projections. The Board certified the report for submission to the county.
What Has Been Left Out
Across these meetings, the Board has focused on process over impact — outlining what actions were taken without fully addressing what those actions mean for students, educators, and school communities.
- How “Central Office Cuts” Affect Classrooms
Board leaders have framed central office reductions as a way to protect school sites, but this distinction is misleading. Many of the positions targeted for elimination directly support principals, teachers, and instructional programs. Cutting these roles weakens coaching, compliance support, program implementation, and leadership development – factors that shape teaching and learning conditions in schools.
Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. Cuts that destabilize staffing, planning, and support structures ultimately reach classrooms, even if they originate outside school sites.
- Lack of Data-Driven Decision-Making
There has been little shared analysis of:
- Enrollment trends tied to educational quality
- Which student outcomes are improving, stagnating, or declining
- How budget reductions could undermine early literacy initiatives
- How cuts may affect efforts to close gaps for English Learners, Black and African American students, and students with disabilities
As a result, decisions are being made without a clear framework for protecting areas of progress or prioritizing students with the greatest needs.
- Marginalization of Teaching and Learning Expertise
President Brohard previously emphasized that the Teaching and Learning Committee’s expertise would be vital to minimizing instructional harm. Yet meetings have been canceled, recommendations have not been meaningfully integrated, and the committee has been referenced without follow-through.
Director Berry underscored this gap, noting the need to track and protect school-site improvements so budget decisions do not “disrupt the progress.” Still, the Board has not structured its process to allow instructional data to guide financial decisions.
- Weak Accountability for Spending
The district’s First Interim Report compares actual spending to the adopted budget and is reviewed by the county, but it is self-reported and not independently audited. If significant misalignment appears, the Board should act to correct the course. Instead, the Board has relied on interim reporting without pairing it with a proactive, transparent plan for resolving long-term structural deficits.
What Do These Actions Suggest?
The Board has acknowledged the severity of the crisis: at least $100 million must be cut for 2025–26. Yet its response has been marked by delays, fragmented leadership, and limited collaboration. The repeated emphasis on “scenarios” rather than concrete, data-aligned plans has left families and educators without clarity on how the district will both stabilize its finances and protect student learning.
As new state data highlights both progress and persistent inequities, the district remains in a holding pattern. The connection between improving outcomes and safeguarding that progress through responsible budgeting has not been addressed with the urgency or coherence this moment demands.
In Case You Missed It: Understanding Oakland’s Student Outcomes
Earlier this winter, we shared the 2025 Oakland Kids Rise Student Outcomes Report (English and Spanish), highlighting how students across Oakland are learning, progressing, and preparing for the future. The report shows both progress and persistent challenges – from gains in math and improved attendance to ongoing gaps in access and opportunity for Black, Latino, English learner, and newcomer students.
To help our community make sense of these findings and what they mean for Oakland students, we invite you to join us for a virtual Oakland Kids Rise Data Talk on January 29, 2026 at 5:00 PM. This conversation will walk through key takeaways from the report, highlight bright spots and areas of concern, and create space for questions and discussion.
