The Brief

The Los Angeles Unified School District Board voted 4-3 Tuesday to further limit where charter schools can be located in the district.

The policy clarifies existing guidelines for determining how the district doles out space to charter schools and adds new factors for consideration. Specifically, it instructs district staff to avoid granting charter schools space on campuses focused on improving outcomes for Black students and providing additional community resources.

Currently, there are 53 charters co-located on LAUSD’s more than 1,000 schools, according to district staff.

“This policy, in the eyes of some, does not go far enough. In the eyes of others, it goes too far,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho. “Somehow experience tells me that anytime you're in that position, you probably achieved some degree of balance.”

Charter school advocates have challenged public school districts’ policies for providing facilities in court in the past and say legal action could follow this new policy.

“This policy is a blatant violation of the law as it treats public school students differently by giving preference to students enrolled in traditional schools over students attending charter public schools, ignoring their academic needs,” said California Charter Schools Association president and CEO Myrna Castrejón in a statement after the board’s vote.

What does the law say?

California voters passed Proposition 39 in 2000. The initiative made it easier for schools to get money for construction and repairs by requiring bonds to be approved by a lower percentage of voters. It also mandated public school districts share more space with charter schools.

The law requires schools provide space to charters that is “reasonably equivalent” to what students who attend traditional public schools receive. Disagreements on what “reasonably equivalent” actually means has resulted in multiple lawsuits.

What are the specifics?

Every fall, charter school operators can request to rent space in LAUSD schools based on their expected attendance the following school year.

District officials consider a list of matching guidelines that essentially try to answer the question: How can the district accommodate a charter school without disrupting existing programs and keeping students safe?

The policy has frustrated parents and educators from traditional public schools and charter schools over the last two decades. The board has heard hours of public comment from both groups at public meetings over the last four months.

Traditional public school educators say co-locations have cost campuses space for music, food pantries, counseling, and other resources. Charter school operators say the district has done the bare minimum to meet their students’ needs. In some cases, charter schools have to split their operations between multiple campuses.

Educators also said productive collaborations exist between co-located schools, but speakers representing that perspective were less frequent at Tuesday’s meeting.

How much of an issue is this, really?

As L.A. Unified’s overall enrollment has declined, district staff report the number of charter schools requesting space each year is also decreasing.

In September, LAUSD staff said the district is providing space for 52% fewer charter school students this school year than at its peak in the 2017-2018 school year, when almost 23,000 students were in a co-located charter. But how space gets used as enrollment shrinks has also led to ongoing conflict.

The new policy stops short of banning charter schools from any specific campuses. It states that “as operationally feasible and permitted by law,” the district will avoid placing charter schools on campuses that:

• Provide students additional resources (community schools)
• Focus on improving outcomes for Black students (Black Student Achievement Plan, or BSAP, schools) 
• Are among the district’s 100 schools targeted for academic improvement. (LAist requested a list of these “priority schools” but has not received it as of publication.) 
• Compromise a traditional school’s capacity to enroll students from nearby neighborhoods

The policy would apply to new charter schools seeking space in the 2025-26 school year. The policy will also be triggered when existing charter schools seek to change their current placement, for example by adding a new grade level or requesting more space.

It’s still unclear how many charter schools could be denied their preferred school campus under the new policy. Charter School Division Director José J. Cole-Gutiérrez said in December that two of the 13 charter requests for space are BSAP, community, or priority schools.

Board members who voted against the policy questioned whether it would solve the problems raised by the existing and future co-locations.

“In practice, there are guidelines, but I don't think that they're clear,” said Board Member Kelly Gonez. “[The policy] does not explicitly or necessarily protect the BSAP, community schools, or priority schools, it adds those as considerations.”

Even supporters of the policy say it may require further revision.

“We think this is a step toward rationalizing a process, which for too long has been irrational,” said board President Jackie Goldberg, who co-authored the resolution that prompted the new policy. “We'll see if it works. If it doesn't, we'll fix it again.”

The policy would apply to new charter schools seeking space in the 2025-26 school year. It will also kick in when existing charter schools seek to change their current placement, for example by adding a new grade level or requesting more space.

Contact your school representative

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.