The Brief

Despite Superintendent Alberto Carvalho’s promise two years ago to settle the conflict, Los Angeles Unified continues denying millions of dollars in federal aid that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles argues it is owed for ongoing services to low-income students in Catholic schools. The archdiocese maintains that the district is diverting the money to bolster its students’ funding.

Both the California and the U.S. departments of education have chastised the district for breaking federal regulations in dealings with the archdiocese. Now, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ordered the district to turn over documents and data that it withheld.

That information, which should illuminate the district’s decisions, could either restart stalemated talks or lead the archdiocese to turn to the courts to order a settlement after seven years of fighting.

“We do not believe further litigation is necessary, and we can achieve equity for non-public school students,” said Paul Escala, the archdiocese’s superintendent of schools. “However, we will pursue all means to see that all students receive their legally entitled services.”

Title I rules for private schools

Congress requires that low-income students in private and public schools receive equivalent Title I funding to pay for counseling, tutoring, teacher aides, and learning specialists. The dispute with LAUSD concerns how much money should be allocated for the archdiocese’s schools and how to ensure the funding gets to the students.

Under Congress’s rules, private and religious schools do not receive Title I funding directly. Instead, districts determine the eligibility of private and religious schools within their borders, administer the funding, and provide the services directly or through vendors after consulting with the schools. Los Angeles Unified, until recently, hired the Title I staff and put them on its payroll (see Frequently Asked Questions by the California Department of Education).

The system worked amicably for years. Districts can choose from several ways to determine Title I eligibility, and LA Unified picked the fairest and most efficient method for the 100-plus schools within the archdiocese with low-income students, Escala said. The district used census data to determine the number of Title I-eligible students in an attendance area, then awarded a proportionate share of the money to archdiocese schools. Long Beach Unified uses the same method.

More paperwork, more confusion, less money

Then in 2018-19 and the following year, coinciding with the new administration of Superintendent Austin Beutner, the district chose another option for calculating private schools’ eligibility — student registrations for the federal school lunch program. Not only did this method require a lot more time, paperwork and verification by the schools, but the district changed the reporting rules several times with little notice and failed “to engage in timely and meaningful consultation,” the California Department of Education concluded in a 58-page report issued in June 2021 in response to a formal complaint by the archdiocese.

Los Angeles Unified’s Office of Inspector General removed hundreds of students’ eligibility after examining parents’ school lunch forms in the two dozen schools it chose to audit and failed to include any students from other schools it didn’t audit.

The result was to cut Title I funding to the archdiocese by more than 92%, from about $9.5 million in services 2017-18 for 102 schools to $767,000 for fewer than two dozen schools, according to Escala. In 2023-24, funding crept up to about $2 million for 43 schools. The district cut its total share allocated to private schools from between 2% and 2.6% of about $291 million to 0.5%, according to the California Department of Education.

‘Totally unreasonable’ demands

The state Department of Education harshly criticized the district. The timetable for demanding documentation was “totally unreasonable,” and the district “engaged in a pattern of arbitrary unilateral decisions” and failed to justify its decisions to the archdiocese, the report said.

In ignoring the archdiocese’s Public Records Act requests for documentation to justify the cuts, the district took a “hide-the-ball approach (that) breached both the spirit and the letter” of the law, the report said.

The spirit of Title I, as stated in the law’s preamble, Escala said, is to maximize participation. The intent of other options like surveys and free-lunch verification is for schools to prove they have higher proportions of low-income families than neighboring schools, he said.

LAUSD is doing the opposite, Escala said.

“The district’s using these other methods as a way of filtering and screening and reducing participation,” he said. “You’re extracting children you know qualify simply because a “t” wasn’t crossed or an “i” wasn’t dotted. It is beyond reproach, because they (LAUSD officials) don’t apply the same standard to their own schools.”

LAUSD had an obligation to give (the Archdiocese) the requested information. LAUSD’s hide-the-ball approach breached both the spirit and the letter of the duty to consult. — The California Department of Education in a June 2021 rulingLA Unified declined to comment on the state’s report, and last week, a spokesperson wrote in an email that “Los Angeles Unified does not typically comment on pending or ongoing litigation.”

Districts have a financial incentive to minimize private schools’ funding eligibility. The federal government awards the total Title I funding to districts, which determine how much should be allocated for services to private and religious school students. Lawyers for the archdiocese point out that the less money that districts award, the more Title I funding they can spend on their own students.

The district appears to understand this, said Kevin Troy, an attorney for the archdiocese, citing a Jan. 29, 2019, email from the principal auditor of the district’s Office of the Inspector General to the archdiocese, in which the auditor stated that the archdiocese “receives over $10 million of Title I funds from the LAUSD every year — money that could otherwise be allocated to LAUSD schools.”

“There’s a moral and ethical question on the table,” Escala said. “You (LA Unified) have got children in need, and you’re not serving them right,” he added, referring to students in archdiocese schools.

The impact on one high school

Mark Johnson, principal of Bishop Mora Salesian High School, has seen the effect of the cuts on students. Before the cutback, Title I paid for a reading intervention teacher and part-time aide who worked with 40 to 50 students weekly — about 1 out of 8 students at the all-boy, 400-student school in the low-income Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Although on the district’s payroll, the teacher fit in like any other staff member, building personal relationships with the students and collaborating with their teachers.

“She (the teacher) had her own classroom and was just a regular teacher as far as any of our kids knew,” he said. She would work with the lowest-performing students on basic reading comprehension skills. “If they were working on a tough piece of literature, she would help them break it down so that they could write an analytical paragraph or essay.”

Pulling out students also reduced the class size for the remaining students, he said. Now, there is only enough money for a two-day-a-week coach from a contractor who sees at most a dozen students a week.

“We’re serving kids who are significantly behind grade level and families that deal with poverty and all the things that come along with that,” Johnson said. “So this kind of antagonistic relationship that has developed (with the district) ultimately hurts kids.”

The California Department of Education gave the district 60 days from its June 2021 ruling to consult with the archdiocese to fix deficiencies pointed out in the report and then recalibrate the proportional share of Title I funding for archdiocese schools. It ordered the district to begin providing the increased services for 2020-21, the next school year.

Instead, the district appealed the decision to the U.S. Department of Education, which issued its own findings in November 2023. In his decision, Adam Schott, deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, found that the district could justify reducing the eligibility count based on its analysis of parents’ forms. But by doing that, they cut the funding for the dozens of schools that the district did not audit. He credited the district with consulting with the archdiocese to an extent, but said the district’s overall approach in demanding documentation was “inconsistent and confusing.”

Schott also ruled that the district violated federal regulations by claiming it didn’t have to share data with the archdiocese on how much it spent on Title I services for students and how much was unspent at the end of each year.

In December 2021, the archdiocese sued the district in Los Angeles Superior Court for ignoring multiple requests under the state Public Records Act to turn over Title I spending records and other relevant information. The court held off ruling until the complaint process played out.

On July 16, Judge Curtis Kin ordered the district to turn over all relevant documents, emails and records to the archdiocese by Aug. 20 and to pay $82,141 to the diocese in attorneys’ fees.

An appeal to Superintendent Carvalho

Weeks after he started work as Los Angeles Unified superintendent in February 2022, Alberto Carvalho told EdSource he had familiarized himself with the case and added, “I’m going to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.” He declined to elaborate due to litigation.

“What I can tell you,” he added, “is that we need more objective, transparent tools by which we assess and fund this guaranteed federal entitlement that’s driven by poverty.”

Escala said he remains hopeful. “I believe that Superintendent Carvalho has the ability to direct his staff towards that outcome. I have a great degree of confidence that when brought to him, this can get adjudicated appropriately.”

L.A. County Office of Education’s letter to Los Angeles Unified School District earlier this month, warning it was at risk of running out of money, has escalated tensions between county overseers and the state’s biggest school district.

LACOE has told the district it must revise its $21 billion budget by mid-August — or risk the appointment of an external advisor with the power to override the LAUSD board and superintendent’s decisions.

The district has already announced the elimination of hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, and approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years through furloughs, layoffs and school consolidations.

But LACOE says it wants a more specific plan with more details, and has assigned a fiscal expert to help.

What does it all mean — for teachers, staff and most importantly, the almost 400,000 students in LAUSD schools? We break it down.

What’s in the letter?

The letter outlines a list of why the County has determined the district will become insolvent.

These include:

• Running out of money: The district's own projection has shown that its operating cash will be $231 million in the red by November 2027. “A district that cannot maintain a positive cash balance is unable to meet payroll and other obligations as they come due,” wrote Debra Duardo, the L.A. County superintendent. 

• New labor agreements with teachers, principals, school support staff and other employees: Recently approved contracts, which the unions say are essential to helping employees weather the region’s increasingly high cost of living, will cost an additional $1 billion in the next school year. These increases outpace the state’s  cost of living increases. 
  
• Declining enrollment and attendance: About 40% fewer students attend LAUSD schools than two decades ago, in part because of lower birthrates and families leaving because of the region’s high cost of living. Over time, this can reduce revenue because state funding is calculated based on how many students show up for class each day. 
  
• Leadership stability: The LAUSD Board appointed Andrés Chait, a longtime district administrator, as superintendent in June, just days after his predecessor resigned amid an ongoing federal investigation. ”This transition occurs at the moment the district must execute substantial corrective actions,” Duardo wrote.

It also includes next steps. We’ll discuss those below.

Why did LACOE send the letter July 2?

The letter is part of a process outlined in California law meant to prevent districts from going bankrupt.

Specifically, LACOE is required to intervene anytime it determines the district may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the current or subsequent two years (California requires districts to budget in three-year blocks.)

Has this happened to LAUSD before?

The requirement to issue this letter is fairly new and tied to a 2021 change in state law.

However, LACOE has intervened in LAUSD’s finances in the past. The agency assigned a fiscal expert team to the district from January 2019 to December 2021 after determining the district was at risk of not meeting its financial obligations.

The team helped analyze staffing, enrollment and make adjustments to the budget, according to a statement provided by Elizabeth Graswich, executive director of LACOE’s public affairs and communications department.

How did LAUSD get to this point?

The shortest explanation is that LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in.

The last three budgets relied on billions of dollars in reserves to offset the deficit.

Some of those reserves were built up when the district was receiving federal pandemic relief money and that funding ended in 2024.

LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs on everything from employee salaries and benefits to providing services for students with disabilities and settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims.

The district’s unions, parents, and several board members have also called for increased scrutiny on how much money the district spends on third-party contracts, including with tech companies.

Is LAUSD making cuts? How will they affect students?

LAUSD has already eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

This summer the board approved another plan to cut an estimated $3.6 billion over the next three years.

That plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands more jobs and cuts to the trust that funds retiree health benefits.

Among the cuts is the elimination of $900 million that helps high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The county said in its letter that the district plan needs to be more specific and include how each proposed change will be implemented, when the change will happen and how the outcomes will be measured.

Has there been any push back to the letter’s findings?

The district did not appeal the letter’s findings to the state, according to a district spokesperson.

However, when LAist asked if the district disputed any of the findings, a spokesperson wrote that the district is quote “continuing conversations” with the County, and that a revision to the budget may not be required.

“We will remain in conversation with LACOE to ensure our financial plan remains responsible, transparent, and aligned with our long-term commitments,” the spokesperson wrote.

The teachers union has said the letter unfairly targets the union’s new contracts.

“To me it feels as though the message is, ‘We warned you not to approve these contracts, and yet you did, and now we're going to overstep,’” said Gloria Martinez, president of United Teachers Los Angeles.

Martinez said the overall problem is that California doesn’t adequately fund public education.

We’re about a month away from the start of the next school year. What happens next?

The county has appointed a fiscal expert to help the district revise its budget by mid-August. Otherwise, the county says this advisor could be given the power to override decisions by the board and superintendent.

What happens if the district runs out of money?

Districts that become insolvent can lose the power to govern themselves in an arrangement called receivership. Instead of the elected school board and appointed superintendent making decisions about everything from curriculum to the budget, that power is transferred to an external administrator.

Receivership is a condition of accepting an emergency loan from the state. Only 10 school districts, out of nearly 1,000 statewide, have entered receivership since 1990, including Inglewood Unified.

The impact on students varies from district to district. The process was designed to protect students from sudden school shutdowns, but it comes at a cost. Districts must pay back the emergency loan and community-members lose the ability to elect or recall decision-makers during the receivership.

Contact your school board member

The LAUSD's Board's next meeting is a closed session scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug.11.

If you drive too quickly along West Adams Boulevard, west of 9th Avenue, you’ll likely miss the former home of the Mary Clay School, a two-story building that for decades provided innovative daycare and schooling to middle class Black children, starting in 1959.

L.A.’s Cultural Heritage Commission voted on Thursday to ask the L.A. City Council to give the building historical cultural monument status.

“[I] think it’s important to recognize this building… for the stories it tells… what it tells us about the history of Los Angeles,” said commission President Barry Milofsky, just before members unanimously voted to approve the request.

The Mary Clay School opened in L.A.'s West Adams neighborhood in 1959.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

If approved by the City Council, the designation would protect the 102-year-old building from alterations, new construction, or demolition that would alter or erase elements that are of historic importance and irreplaceable.

The proposal for monument status comes as organizations work to preserve the under-recognized heritage of African Americans in L.A. after decades of demographic shifts in the city that have shrunk the city’s Black population.

Supporting Black families

Mrs. Mary Clay relaxing in her private residence which was upstairs above the Mary Clay School operations, 1961-62.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

The building is an important site of Black education in L.A., where school founder Mary Elizabeth Smith Clay lived and worked. Clay was a trailblazing educator, civic-minded volunteer, and a nationally recognized expert on children’s education.

According to reports prepared by the cultural heritage commission staff, the school operated from 1959 to 1998 and used innovative methods to help kids with issues such as speech disabilities, while becoming also an important part of the social life of young people in middle-class Black families.

The school's origins

African Americans had moved to Los Angeles in the 40s to fill job openings created by the war effort, including Black women, who entered the workforce in large numbers. Publicly funded and integrated daycare was made widely available to help mothers from all income levels,

The Music Room of Mary Clay School. Children get situated on their cots at the beginning of nap time,1961-1962.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

In the years after the war, public funding for daycare shifted to low-income families. Quality daycare for middle class Black families became difficult to access due to racism and high costs.

Clay opened a private school in her home to address that gap, and then moved into a bigger house to meet the growing demand. The school employed three teachers and introduced innovations like a psychologist, scientific methods to address speech issues, and foreign languages in kindergarten to third grade.

Mary Clay School annual photograph in 1989. Pre-school students are together with school owner/teacher Elenore “Sue” Clay (left) and teacher Miss Riggs (right).

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources/Clay family archives

)

It was also used for fundraisers hosted by Clay for Black-focused and child-oriented causes such as the L.A. chapter of the Links Incorporated, the Anchorettes, Jack and Jill of America, the Pitt-Los Club, and the 12 Big Sisters.

In 1965 Clay was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to direct the Title Five Project, a program that gave training to people interested in working in childcare. She died in Los Angeles in 1971.

The building's history

Mary Clay was not the building’s original owner. The building was built in 1924 for F. Irwin Herron, whose family rode the waves of wealth created by L.A.’s oil and real estate booms in the early 1900s. Herron helped found what became the Los Angeles Stock Exchange.

He hired Edwin C. Thorne to design the home. Thorne would go on to design public buildings later in the 1920s in Colton and La Puente, as well as private homes.

The owner of the property is listed in commission documents as Andre Gaines, associated with West Adams LLC. The document says the owner does not support the historical monument status. Rafael Fontes, planning associate in L.A.’s Office of Historic Resources said the owner had not permitted staff to see the interior of the building.

A contemporary photo of the former site of the Mary Clay School.

(

Courtesy LA Office of Historic Resources

)

The designation was begun earlier this year by L.A. Councilmember Heather Hutt, who represents the 10th council district.

Another stretch of scorching summer heat has been baking Southern California this week.

For renters wondering how to stay safe, free cooling kits and heat-safety information will be provided this weekend at a workshop hosted by Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, or SAJE.

The workshop — a collaboration between SAJE, the ARCH Collaborative and Cal State L.A. — will be from 1 to 2:30 p.m. Saturday at 152 W. 32nd St. in Historic South-Central and is free to the public.

What’s provided? 

The 25 kits include a wall thermometer, a cooling neck band and towel, and emergency water tablets, among other products.

Attendees will learn how to use the products and best practices for beating the heat from a group led by Cal State L.A. environmental health science professor Evelyn Alvarez. You’ll also learn how to make your own kit to keep at home as a low-cost cooling strategy.

Why now? 

The National Weather Service issued an extreme heat warning for much of the region that remains in effect through 8 p.m. Thursday. Forecasters also expect humid conditions into next week.

Prolonged heat can increase the risk of dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

An estimated one-fifth of Californians lack air conditioning, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Renters in the inner city, particularly those experiencing AC insecurity and those who are not able to access cooling centers, may face increased risks of heat-related illnesses like heat exhaustion and heat stroke that can be life-threatening,” Alvarez said.

Last year, L.A. County passed an ordinance that requires landlords with homes in unincorporated areas to keep temperatures at or below 82 degrees. But enforcement won’t begin until 2027 or 2032, depending on how many units the landlord owns.

“A lot of folks don’t have the right to a cool house, so we’re really excited to offer this emergency service to folks,” said Alejandro Campillo, an assistant director at SAJE and another leader of the workshop.

Will there be more workshops? 

Yes — if you can’t make this one, another is scheduled for July 27, when another 25 free cooling kits will be distributed.

To attend, sign up for the July 18 or July 27 workshop here.

In Venice Beach, some are outraged after they say a FIFA Fan Zone misled the public and disrupted their neighborhood.

The fan celebration by the beach took place at a city park and cost anywhere between $15 and $125 a ticket, but organizers had also advertised a block party and free area to go along with it. The license agreement for the event between organizers and the L.A.'s Recreation and Parks Department described an LED screen and two beer gardens that would be available to the public, free of charge.

Instead, no screens were outside the ticketed fan zone, which took place on July 10 and 11. Some were surprised when they showed up to the block party on Windward Avenue and found just a few tents and no way to watch the game besides ducking into a bar.

Alex Kissin, a Venice resident, attended a Rec and Parks meeting Thursday morning to complain that the Fan Zone didn't deliver.

"The park was effectively unavailable to the community for more than a week," said Kissin, who is also a member of the Venice Chamber of Commerce. "The free public, public elements described in the report simply did not materialize."

Event organizer John Cohn told LAist that around 2,500 free tickets were made available for the Fan Zone, but acknowledged that the free viewing party didn't happen.

" This was a spectacular event about which all of us should be proud," said Cohn, CEO of Venice Beach FWC, LLC, the company that put on the event. "Not only did we put a lot of smiles on faces of people all across Venice and Los Angeles, but I think that this gave an opportunity for Venice to put a positive face on the world."

Cohn said that he had to change plans for the free viewing area after LAPD prohibited plans to put up screens showing the matches on the closed-down street, citing concerns about security and crowd control.

" We actually had planned a free block party along Windward," he said. "It had been included in our planning, and LAPD scotched it."

LAPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The License Agreement with the city had also included plans for a "free Health and Wellness Fair" in Windward Plaza on July 12, the day after the Fan Zone ended. But that event required a ticket, too, which Cohn said cost between $25 and $90.

Both event organizers and representatives for the Recreation and Parks Department said that there was a last-minute change in who would put on the Fan Zone, which caused a big organizational challenge.

Cohn, who runs Venice Soleil Nails & Spa, said Councilmember Traci Park's office approached him about taking over the fan zone after the original person who won the FIFA bid pulled out just around ten weeks before the World Cup.

Sonya Young Jimenez, a Recreation and Parks Department superintendent, told the Rec and Parks Commissioners Thursday that there would be an after-action meeting to figure out what could have been done differently.

" I know with the Olympics coming, we want to use this as a way to make it better for next time," she said.

LAist reached out to Park, who represents Venice, but her office did not respond in time for publication.

On Instagram, the councilmember posted an article about the Fan Zone with the caption, "Venice Beach just showed the world what’s possible."