The Brief

California will have to build public charging stations at an unprecedented — and some experts say unrealistic — pace to meet the needs of the 7 million electric cars expected on its roads in less than seven years.

The sheer scale of the buildout has alarmed many experts and lawmakers, who fear that the state won’t be prepared as Californians purchase more electric cars.

A million public chargers are needed in California by the end of 2030, according to the state’s projections — almost 10 times more than the number available to drivers in December. To meet that target, 129,000 new stations — more than seven times the current pace — must be built every year for the next seven years. Then the pace would have to accelerate again to reach a target of 2.1 million chargers in 2035.

A robust network of public chargers — akin to the state’s more than 8,000 gas stations — is essential to ensure that drivers will have the confidence to purchase electric vehicles over the next several years.

“It is very unlikely that we will hit our goals, and to be completely frank, the EV goals are a noble aspiration, but unrealistic,” said Stanford professor Bruce Cain, who co-authored a policy briefing detailing California’s electric vehicle charging problems. “This is a wakeup call that we address potential institutional and policy obstacles more seriously before we commit blindly.”

Under California’s landmark electric car mandate, a pillar of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s climate change agenda, 68% of all new 2030 model cars sold in the state must be zero emissions, increasing to 100% for 2035, when 15 million electric cars are expected in California.

“We’re going to look really silly if we are telling people that they can only buy electric vehicles, and we don’t have the charging infrastructure to support that,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Encino who introduced a package of unsuccessful bills last year aimed at expanding access to car chargers.

“We are way behind where we need to be,” Gabriel told CalMatters.

Big obstacles stand in the way of amping up the pace of new charging stations in public places. California will need billions of dollars in state, federal and private investments, streamlined city and county permitting processes, major power grid upgrades and accelerated efforts by utilities to connect chargers to the grid.

State officials also are tasked with ensuring that charging stations are available statewide, in rural and less-affluent areas where private companies are reluctant to invest, and that they are reliable and functioning whenever drivers pull up.

In Pacific Gas & Electric’s vast service area, home to 40% of all Californians, electric car purchases are moving twice as fast as the buildout of charging stations, said Lydia Krefta, the utility’s director of clean energy transportation. Californians now own more than 1.5 million battery-powered cars.

Patty Monahan, who’s on the Energy Commission, the state agency responsible for funding and guiding the ramp-up, told CalMatters that she is confident that California can build the chargers its residents need in time.

The agency’s estimate of the current chargers is likely an undercount, she said. In addition, fast-charging stations could play a bigger role than initially projected, meaning hundreds of thousands of fewer chargers might be needed. Also, as the ranges and charging speeds on cars improve, there may be less demand for public chargers.

“California has a history of defying the odds,” Monahan said. “We have a history of advancing clean cars, clean energy, writ-large. We have naysayers left and right saying you can’t do it, and then we do it.”

Barriers to private investments: an uncertain marke

On a September day last year, Monahan spoke behind a podium in the parking lot of a Bay Area grocery store. A row of newly constructed car chargers rose behind her.

“Let’s celebrate for a moment,” she said.

California had met its goal of 10,000 fast electric chargers statewide — two years ahead of a target set in 2018.

California Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan speaks during the launch of an EVgo fast charging station in Union City on Sept. 25, 2023.

(

Loren Elliott

/

CalMatters

)

Fast chargers like the new ones at the grocery store are increasingly seen as critical to meeting the needs of drivers. They can power a car to 80% in 20 minutes to an hour, while the typical charger in use today, a slower Level 2, takes from four to 10 hours.

But installing and operating fast chargers is an expensive business — one that doesn’t easily turn a profit.

Nationwide each fast charger can cost up to $117,000, according to a 2023 study. And in California, it could be even more — between $122,000 and $440,000 each, according to a separate study, although the Energy Commission said the range was $110,000 to $125,000 for one of its programs.

Most of America’s publicly traded charger companies have been forced to seek more financing, lay off workers and slow their network build outs, analysts said. EVgo, for instance, has seen its share price crater, as has ChargePoint, which specializes in selling the slower, Level 2 hardware.

California stands apart from other states — it has by far the most chargers and electric car sales, and more incentives and policies encouraging them.

Tesla, America’s top-selling electric car manufacturer, dominates fast-charging in both California and the U.S. — but the company didn’t get into the business to sell charges to drivers; it got into the charger business to sell its electric cars. Initially Tesla Superchargers were exclusive to its drivers, but starting this year other EV drivers can use them after Tesla provided ports to Ford and other automakers.

Tesla’s manufacturing prowess, supply chain dominance and decade-plus of experience with fast chargers have given it an edge over competitors — a coterie of unprofitable, publicly traded startups, as well as private companies that often benefit from public subsidies, according to analysts.

“All the automakers joined forces with their biggest competitor,” said Loren McDonald, chief executive of the consulting firm EVAdoption. “If that doesn’t tell you how bad fast-charging networks and infrastructure were, I don’t know what else does.”

Tesla vehicles charge at a Supercharger lot in Kettleman City on June 23, 2024.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

Now Tesla is showing uncertainty about the future of its charging business amid slumping car sales, and eliminated nearly its entire 500-member Supercharger team in April. Then chief executive Elon Musk said in May that he would spend $500 million to expand the network and hired back some fired workers.

In California, Electrify America, a privately held company, was created by Volkswagen as a settlement for cheating on emissions tests for its gas-powered cars. The company is spending $800 million on California chargers, building a robust network of 260 stations, with more than half in low-income communities, including the state’s worst charging desert, Imperial County.

The problem is Electrify America was ranked dead last in a consumer survey last year, and its chargers have been plagued by reliability problems and customer complaints. The California Air Resources Board in January directed Electrify America to “strive to achieve charger reliability consistent with the state of the industry.” A company spokesperson said the dissatisfaction showed “an industry in its growth trajectory.” There are signs of improvement, based on consumer data from the first three months of this year.

Startups continue to jump into the charging business, with the number of companies offering fast chargers growing from 14 in 2020 to 41 in 2024, EVAdoption said. Seven carmakers formed a $1 billion venture to build a 30,000-charger network in North America. And gas stations such as Circle K are offering more charging because electric car customers spend more time shopping while waiting for their rides to juice up.

But the realization that charging is a costly business has set in on Wall Street, and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. “Can public EV fast-charging stations be profitable in the United States?” the consultancy McKinsey & Company asked.

“The fervor, the excitement from the investor base, has definitely dwindled quite a bit, given the prospects that EV adoption in the U.S. is going to be slower, revenue growth is really slower, the path to profitability is going to be slower, and they might need more capital than everyone originally expected,” said Christopher Dendrinos, a financial analyst who covers electric car charging companies for the investment bank RBC Capital Markets.

The stakes are high for California when it comes to encouraging investments in expensive fast chargers: If 63,000 additional ones were built, California might need 402,000 fewer slower Level 2 chargers in 2030, according to an alternative forecast by the Energy Commission.

Billions of public dollars: Will it be enough?

Nationwide $53 billion to $127 billion in private investments and public funding is needed by 2030 to build chargers for about 33 million electric cars, according to a federal estimate. Of that, about half would be for public chargers.

Congress and the Biden administration have set aside $5 billion for a national network of fast chargers. So far only 33 in eight locations have been built, but more than 14,000 others are in the works, according to the Federal Highway Administration. California’s share of the federal money totals $384 million; about 500 fast chargers will be built with an initial $40.5 million, said Energy Commission spokesperson Lindsay Buckley.

In addition, the state has spent $584 million to build more than 33,000 electric car chargers through its Clean Transportation Program, funded by fees drivers pay when they register cars. The Legislature extended that program for an additional decade last year.

Newsom has committed to spending $1 billion through 2028 on chargers with his “California Climate Commitment,” Buckley said. But this year Newsom and the Legislature trimmed $167 million from the charger budget as the state faces a record deficit. A lobbyist for the Electric Vehicle Charging Association said “the state pullback sends a very challenging message” to the industry.

California’s commitment to charger funding is “solid,” despite the cuts, Buckley said. They have not yet estimated the total investment needed in California to meet the targets.

But Ted Lamm, a UC Berkeley Law researcher who studies electric car infrastructure, said the magnitude of building what California needs in coming years likely dwarfs the public funding available.

State and federal programs will “only fund a fraction,” and the state needs to spend that money on lower-income communities, he said.

Another possible funding source is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which is expected to be revised in November. The program requires carbon-intensive fuel companies to pay for cleaner-burning transportation. Utilities get credits and use that money to pay for chargers, rebates to car buyers and grid improvements, said Laura Renger, executive director of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, which represents utilities.

“I think with that, we would have enough money,” Renger said. She said the program’s overhaul could help utilities invest “billions” in chargers and other electric car programs over the next two decades.

Backlogged local permits and grid delays 

One of the biggest barriers to more chargers isn’t money. It’s that cities and counties are slow to approve plans for the vast number of stations needed.

State officials only have so much political power to compel local jurisdictions to do what they want — a reality made abundantly clear by the housing crisis, for instance. California relies on grants and persuasion to accomplish its goals, and the slow buildout of chargers shows how those strategies can fall short, said Stanford’s Cain.

“The locals cannot be compelled by regulatory agencies to make land and resources available for what the state wants to achieve,” Cain said.

The same obstacles have marked the state’s broader effort to electrify California and switch to clean energy. Local opposition and environmental reviews sometimes hold up large solar projects and transmission projects for years.

California has created a “culture of regulation that emphasizes the need to be extra careful and extra perfect, but this takes an incredible amount of time,” Steve Bohlen, senior director of government affairs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said last month at the inaugural hearing of the state Assembly’s Select Committee on Permitting Reform.

“We’re moving into a period of rapid change, and so perfect can’t be the enemy of the good.”

Workers install a transformer to power electric car chargers in Calexico

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Chargers aren’t as complicated as large-scale solar or offshore wind projects. But most chargers installed in public spaces do need a land-use or encroachment permit, among other approvals. California has passed laws requiring local jurisdictions to streamline permits for chargers. What’s more, the Governor’s Office of Business Development now grades cities and counties using a scorecard and maintains a map displaying who has, or hasn’t, made life easier for car charger builders. But these strategies only go so far.

“It doesn’t matter how many requirements you put on (local governments),” Lamm said. “If they just don’t have the time in the day to do it … it’s going to sit in the backlog, because that’s how it works.”

The delays have consequences. Getting a station permitted in California, on average, takes 26% longer than the national average, Electrify America reported. Designing and constructing a station in California can cost on average 37% more than in other states because of delays in permitting and grid connections. A utility on average takes 17 weeks after work is completed to connect chargers to the grid, Electric America said.

Powering large charging projects often requires grid upgrades, which can take a year or more for approval, said Chanel Parson, a director at Southern California Edison. Supply chain issues also make getting the right equipment a challenge.

Edison, which has a 10-year plan to meet expected demand, has asked the utilities commission for approval to upgrade the grid where it anticipates high charging demand.

“Every EV charging infrastructure project is a major construction project,” Parson said. “There are a number of variables that influence how long it takes to complete the project.”

Impatient with broken chargers, bad service

Inspired to help the nation reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, Zach Schiff-Abrams of Los Angeles bought a Genesis GV60. As a renter, he has relied on public charging, primarily using Electrify America stations — and that’s been his biggest problem about owning an electric car.

Charging speeds have been inconsistent, he said, with half-hour sessions providing only a 15 to 30% charge, and he often encounters broken chargers.

“I believe in electrical, so I’m really actually trying to be a responsible consumer,” Schiff-Abrams said. “I want to report them when they’re down, but the customer service is horrible.”

For years, the reliability of charging networks has been a well-documented problem. Only 73% of fast chargers in the San Francisco Bay Area were functional in a 2022 study. The growth of the EV market has put increasing strain on public charging stations, a consumer survey found.

In January, the California Air Resources Board approved a final $200 million spending plan for Electrify America — but not before board chair Liane Randolph scolded its CEO.

Randolph — arguably one of America’s top climate regulators — told CEO Robert Barrosa about an exchange she had with his company’s customer service line after finding a broken charger at a station along Interstate-5.

“It didn’t work,” Randolph said during the board meeting. “Called the customer service line, waited like 10-ish minutes. …(The charger) was showing operable on the app and the guy goes, ‘oh, my data is showing me that it has not had a successful charge in three days.’”

“These issues are not easy,” Barrosa responded. “Our head is not in the sand,” he told board members earlier. “We are listening to customers.”

But Randolph, addressing journalists at a conference in Philadelphia, pushed back against the idea that because the transition to electric vehicles is happening gradually that it’s a failure. Many people will rely on charging at home or work, and batteries are becoming more efficient.

“The infrastructure is continuing to be rolled out at a rapid pace,” Randolph said. “It doesn’t all have to be perfect instantly. It’s a process. And it’s a process that’s continuing to move.”

Data journalists Erica Yee and Arfa Momin contributed to this report.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The Serving Spoon has been an Inglewood cornerstone for four decades, dishing up grilled corn bread and fried turkey chops. 

Now, though, the whole country is in on the secret. 

The breakfast and lunch spot on Centinela Avenue was announced Wednesday by the James Beard Foundation as one of six winners of the America’s Classics Award, an honor the foundation says goes to “timeless” local institutions. The foundation is also responsible for the James Beard Award, one of the nation’s top culinary honors. 

The Serving Spoon joins a pantheon of other L.A.-area eateries to win the classics award including Guelaguetza, Langer’s Deli and Philippe the Original. 

Jessica Bane, part of the third generation to run the family-owned restaurant, said the honor is still sinking in, but that it validates decades of work. “It’s being done out of love,” Bane said.

The Serving Spoon has been an Inglewood cornerstone for four decades, dishing up grilled corn bread and fried turkey chops.

(

Isaiah Murtaugh

/

The LA Local

)

The award announcement hailed The Serving Spoon as an “anchor” of L.A.’s Black community, run by staff who genuinely care for their customers.“The restaurant is cherished for its joyful hospitality and as a place where all can gather and feel at home,” the announcement read. 

The Serving Spoon didn’t exactly need Beard recognition — the diner is often packed and already has  pedigree as Snoop Dogg and Raphael Saadiq’s breakfast spot of choice in the 2000 Lucy Pearl song “You” — but Bane said the award takes the diner’s reputation national.“The recognition is beyond appreciated,” Bane said. 

The Serving Spoon was founded in 1983 by Bane’s grandfather, Harold E. Sparks. He passed the restaurant down to Bane and her brother, Justin Johnson, through their parents. 

The menu looks much the same as it did four decades ago, Bane said, though some of the dishes have been renamed for regulars. 

During the Thursday lunch rush a day after the announcement, The Serving Spoon’s vinyl booths were packed, as usual. Bane oversaw the dining room while Johnson marshaled plates of fried catfish through the kitchen. 

Tina and Kevin Jenkins waited for a table outside. The L.A. natives each have been coming to The Serving Spoon since childhood. They live in Lancaster now, but make sure to come back to the diner whenever they’re in town. 

“It’s the atmosphere, our people, our music,” Tina Jenkins said.

Despite taxes on imports at levels not seen in a century, Long Beach’s seaport had a good year in 2025. And a decent January.

Port officials said Wednesday they started the new year by leading the nation in trade, responsible for moving more than 847,000 shipping containers in January — 51% of the total cargo at the San Pedro Bay Complex, which it shares with neighboring Port of Los Angeles.

In a call with reporters, Port CEO Noel Hacegaba said that despite a “fair share of doom and gloom” at the time, the seaport finished 2025 as its busiest year on record.

This comes days after President Donald Trump signed new, across-the-board tariffs on U.S. trading partners, and later added he would raise the tariffs to 15%. It’s a direct response to a recent Supreme Court decision that found his tariffs announced last April were unconstitutional.

The new tariffs would operate under a law that restricts them to 150 days, unless approved by Congress.

Asked to measure how much this will affect the seaport, traders, logistics companies and consumers, Hacegaba reiterated a word he has evoked heavily in the past 10 months: uncertainty.

“Our strong cargo volumes do not suggest we are not being affected by tariffs,” Hacegaba said, adding the Port saw a 13% decline in imports driven by major reductions in iron, steel, synthetic fibers, salt, sulfur and cement.

Economists are somewhat more confident, saying it would take nothing short of a national economic crisis to reverse the seaport’s fortunes. “Even if the market is affected, our standing at the Port of Long Beach, even compared to other ports, is strong,” said Laura Gonzalez, an economics professor at Cal State Long Beach.

But experts caution that the ruling will heap the most damage on businesses, especially smaller enterprises, as well as the average consumer who already bore the tariff’s costs last year.

Noel Hacegaba, CEO of the Port of Long Beach, held his first State of the Port in Long Beach on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Tariffs added $1,700 in costs to the average U.S. household, as importers raised prices to offset higher import taxes — especially on clothes, shoes and electronics from China and other Southeast Asian nations.

Consumers, Gonzalez said, should budget over the next six months “for essentials.”

Priyaranjan Jha, an economics professor at UC Irvine, said historically trade policies since 2018 have shown that for every dollar of duty imposed, consumer prices rose by about 90 cents.

Even if tariffs are reduced or reversed, and pressure is relieved on importers, consumers shouldn’t expect lower sticker prices right away, he said. “Firms do not always reduce prices as quickly as they raise them, especially if contracts or inventories are involved.”

Richer San, a former banker and business owner in Long Beach, said he’s in regular talks with shops across the city’s historic Cambodia Town that have been crushed by the increased prices of imported ingredients.

“Most of these are family-owned businesses operating on very small profit margins,” he said, adding there is little to no margin to “absorb higher costs.”

Many companies managed to avoid price increases last year in part by stockpiling inventory in the first half of the year to be sold through Christmas and the start of the year. As stock dwindles, many businesses might be less willing to eat the cost of a new set of tariffs.

Marc Sullivan, president of Long Beach-based Global Trade and Customs, said his logistics company saw a brief boom last year in ordered goods, mostly medical equipment and pharmaceuticals.

But by June, orders dropped 35%, a trend that continues today. It’s forced him to freeze any new hiring in the past year and at least through the next six months as he waits for federal officials to settle on tariffs that will determine the cost of shipped goods.

“For the companies that I work with that are importing into the state here, it’s just ‘hold on and let’s see what happens,’” he said.

“I’d like to hire a salesperson to go out and chase new business, … but it’s just a bleak outlook,” he added.

In the interim, he’s received a steady flow of calls (that started “within minutes” of the ruling) from importers looking to claim refunds or recoup their tariff expenses. The U.S. Treasury had collected more than $140 billion from tariffs enacted under emergency powers, and the Supreme Court left the decision of how to appropriate the refund proceedings to lower courts.

His response: They might be stuck waiting for a while. “Customs doesn’t pay anything back quickly,” he said. “It could be a year before you ever see anything back to you.”

Sullivan said he knows of companies that spent upwards of $20,000 per shipment for months.

“They’re going to want that money to be able to reinvest it,” Sullivan said.

But some experts say that consumers, as well as small businesses, deserve a share of refunds.

“The importer may receive a refund even though consumers bore much of the cost,” Jha said. “Courts generally refund the statutory payer, not downstream buyers, but that opens the possibility of follow-on litigation. Small businesses that directly imported goods and paid tariffs should qualify for refunds.”

Topline:

A long turtle lineage: Dubbed “Porkchop” by aquarium staff due to her hefty appetite, the young female green sea turtle represents one of seven sea turtle species worldwide (six of which occur in U.S. waters). These animals have called our oceans home since at least the time of the dinosaurs — about 110 million years ago, according to NOAA. All species of sea turtles found in the U.S. are listed as either endangered or threatened and are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Porkchop’s healing journey: Aquarium vets had to amputate Porkchop’s right front flipper after tangled fishing lines severely cut off her blood flow. She also had a fishing hook removed from her throat. First rescued after being spotted in the San Gabriel River by volunteers with the aquarium’s sea turtle monitoring program last March, her healing journey took nearly a year. She now swims and eats as well as her four-flippered kin and after a final physical exam, blood sample and X-ray, vets determined she was ready to return to her wild roots. She also now has a microchip, so if she ends up stranded again, scientists will know it’s her.

An ambassador for conservation: Porkchop became the aquarium’s first public-facing ambassador for its expanded green sea turtle rescue efforts. A new holding tank, viewable by the public, doubles the aquarium’s capacity to rescue green sea turtles and provides firsthand education about their conservation efforts. The aquarium is currently caring for another larger and older female green sea turtle — she weighs more than 200 pounds — rescued from the San Gabriel River in January. She’ll be in the public viewing tank in the coming months when she’s recovered a bit more.

How to help local green sea turtles: Green sea turtle populations are actually doing quite well in the San Gabriel River, but trash, debris and pollution remains a big threat. If you fish the San Gabriel River, never litter fishing lines or hooks. If you see a stranded sea turtle in the San Gabriel River or elsewhere, call the West Coast Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Network’s hotline at (562) 506-4315. You can also donate to the aquarium’s rescue program.

If your child’s teacher hasn’t threatened to go on strike recently, they probably will soon.

Thousands of California K-12 teachers have walked off their jobs or voted to strike in the past few months, as part of a strategic, statewide effort by the California Teachers Association to boost salaries and benefits — and get the public’s attention.

“All these districts going out on strike — it’s not a coincidence at all,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union. “Everywhere in the state there are people with unmet needs. The conditions have been ripe for a long time.”

San Francisco teachers went on strike for four days this month. West Contra Costa teachers went on strike in December. San Diego, Woodland, Apple Valley, Duarte and Madera teachers planned to strike in the past few months but reached a settlement at the last minute. Teachers in Los Angeles, Oakland, Dublin, West Sacramento, Twin Rivers and Natomas have voted overwhelmingly to strike. In Berkeley, Soquel and other districts, teachers are holding rallies and appear headed for strike votes.

Ten local teachers unions under the umbrella of the California Teachers Association worked for years to align their contracts so they’d expire at the same time: June 30, 2025. The idea, Goldberg said, was to trigger a wave of negotiations and potential strikes to garner public attention and flex political muscle. Teachers unions from at least a dozen other districts have also joined the effort, even though they weren’t part of the original cohort.

“We’re a strong union with a lot of resources, and we’re taking advantage of that,” Goldberg said, whose union represents about 310,000 teachers. “Teachers are learning from each other, and getting some clarity on how to win resources for public schools.”

Public and political priorities

Teacher contracts vary by district, but the demands are similar: higher salaries, better benefits and amenities that affect student well-being, such as sanctuary protection for immigrants.

Considering the ever-escalating cost of living in California, the demands are not a surprise, said Julia Koppich, an education consultant who specializes in labor-management relations.

Teachers in expensive cities like San Francisco often can’t afford to live near their jobs, she said, noting that starting teachers in San Francisco Unified earn about $80,000. San Francisco’s starting police officers, by comparison, make about $120,000.

It’s been a frustration for the teaching profession for decades, she said. But districts don’t have much control over their revenues and substantial increases in spending would have to come from the state, she said.

“To be sure, the issue of marshaling sufficient resources is a district conversation about teacher worth,” Koppich said. “But, ultimately, it’s a state discussion about public and political priorities."

District financial hardships

At the same time that teachers are demanding more money, school districts are facing financial hardships. Declining enrollment, especially in urban districts, has meant half-empty classrooms and less money from the state, which funds schools based on how many students show up every day. Closing schools is the obvious answer, but that’s proven to be deeply unpopular and few school boards appear willing to take that step.

Another financial challenge has been the end of pandemic relief money. California schools received more than $23.4 billion in one-time grants intended to help students recover from pandemic-related learning loss. State and federal authorities advised schools to spend the money on temporary tutors, after-school and summer programs and other short-term expenses. But some districts, including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and San Francisco Unified, used some of their funds to increase teacher pay or hire permanent staff, which they’re now struggling to pay for after the grant money ended.

So even though the state has increased K-12 school funding the past few years, some districts are financially strapped. It’s unclear whether they can afford teachers’ demands for higher salaries or more generous benefits, said Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University.

Los Angeles Unified, for example, gave its teachers 5% raises plus a $2,000 one-time stipend and a $500 bonus. The district’s nurses, who are also represented by the union, got $5,000 stipends.

“The unions are saying, ‘We know you have an ATM back there. If you were nice, you’d push the buttons,’” Roza said. But districts’ money is tight, she said, “so we’re at a stand off.”

If districts agree to teachers’ demands, cuts will have to come from somewhere — most likely from programs considered non-essential, such as sports, electives, advanced placement classes and other offerings, she said.

It could also mean staff layoffs. Tutors, classroom aides and newer teachers would be the most vulnerable.

Those cuts would harm low-income students the most, Roza said, because they’re more likely to rely on special school programs and attend schools with newer teachers. Low-income students are also more likely to be affected by a strike, she said, because families typically have fewer options for child care and those students are more likely to suffer from academic disruptions.

School boards need to stand up for those students, she said, and do a better job negotiating with teachers unions. That entails more transparency about finances and a willingness to close under-used schools.

“It’s so irresponsible to erode services for vulnerable students because you don’t have a spine,” Roza said.

‘Kids as leverage’

Lance Christensen, vice president of education policy at the California Policy Center, said California should get rid of teachers unions altogether. Teachers deserve higher salaries, he said, but the teachers union does not always act in the interests of students.

The union devotes too much time to defending incompetent teachers, he said, and strikes are harmful to students and families. He also said the California Teachers Association has a political stranglehold on Sacramento that “overshadows every conversation in the Legislature, even if it’s not about education.”

He noted that charter schools and private schools are rarely unionized, and sometimes have better outcomes than traditional public schools. A handful of other states don’t allow teachers to collectively bargain, and at least 35 don’t allow teachers unions to strike.

“The union uses kids as leverage,” said Christensen, who ran for state superintendent of public instruction in 2022. “Right now, CTA is the biggest evil in California education.”

Next steps in San Francisco

In San Francisco, parent Meredith Dodson said she’s relieved the strike is over. Although most parents support teachers and believe they deserve better compensation, the strike was stressful for families and disrupted learning for thousands of students.

The $183 million settlement includes raises and improved benefits for teachers, which the district plans to pay for by draining its reserve funds.

Parents now are bracing for the inevitable cuts. The district’s finances remain shaky, and aren’t likely to improve any time soon.

“What comes next? Layoffs? Increased class sizes? State intervention?” said Dodson, who is executive director of the San Francisco Parents Coalition, a parent advocacy group. “There’s going to be some hard questions for the board, and they’re going to have to ask themselves, what’s best for kids?”

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