PVPUSD’s Budget Realities Demand More Than Business as Usual
“Deficit,” “Staffing Reduction,” and early “Retirement Incentive” were some of the words used by PVPUSD Superintendent Dr. Devin Serrano in her March 9 and March 16 emails to the district. In those emails, she laid the blame for the district’s roughly $1.4 million current structural deficit on declining student enrollment, saying that “because school funding is tied to attendance, fewer students leads to less funding for the district.” While this is true, it's like saying the reason your paycheck got smaller is because you worked fewer hours this month — while ignoring that your hourly wage is lower than what every comparable worker down the street is earning. Similarly, there are those who disagree with Dr. Serrano when she said in her email that the reason for declining enrollment was lower birth rates. They contend that state and local policies drove parents to send their children to private school, homeschool them, or leave the state entirely. But these explanations focus on surface-level factors. Both explanations leave the core structural issue unaddressed: PVPUSD receives $4,500 less per student than the state average. Our district’s enrollment is roughly 10,000 students, so we receive $45 million less each year than we would at the state average.
I previously wrote about a February 2025 school board vote in which 4 of the 5 board members voted against even discussing options for increasing our LCFF share. Given the current fiscal deficit our district faces, I wanted to give them the option to update their stance. I asked them each the same three questions:
1. On February 26th, 2025 you voted to not agendize a discussion of a plan of action for state funding. Why?
2. Do you think PVPUSD is underfunded from the State? Why/why not?
3. Are you open to advocating for reducing the disparity in funding levels between districts which could result in PVPUSD getting more funding from the State? Why/why not?
I received responses from Board Vice President Eric Alegria and Board President Sara Deen. Board Members Linda Kurt and Ami Gandhi replied to tell me they would let Board President Deen respond on their behalf.
Eric Alegria said he voted against the discussion because it focused on litigation against the state. He continued, saying “I have seen no plausible legal analysis or argument that gives me confidence that a lawsuit against the LCFF system will be successful” and did not think district resources should be used for this endeavor. He acknowledged that “it is a fact that PVPUSD receives less money per pupil than other districts,” and said that he would “like to see PVPUSD and other similar districts have more opportunities to access state funding.” In order to accomplish that, he recommended “legislative advocacy toward these goals.”
Sara Deen said that “pursuing litigation against the state is often not a financially viable path forward” and that any related discussion should be in closed session. She also acknowledged that our district is underfunded, but pointed to the Raise the Base coalition (which I previously discussed) as the path forward to increase the LCFF base rate.
With potential layoffs occurring in our district, I wanted to know how our teachers felt about the situation. So, I spoke with Palos Verdes Faculty Association President Sam Weiss, who finds herself in a difficult position. She called the LCFF “unfair” and acknowledged the real funding disparity between districts, yet she also described the bind the local union faces. “Our bread is buttered by CTA,” she said, referring to the California Teachers Association’s legal and operational support for local unions. Because of that relationship, the PVFA often must stay “in lock step with CTA,” even if that alignment means having to take a position that might not benefit us locally.
The CTA, which has historically aligned closely with the governor, is currently at odds with him on school funding. Governor Newsom’s budget provided $5.6 billion less than the required Prop 98 school funding levels for the 2025-26 school year, with the promise that he would “settle up” at a later date. CTA has expressed strong opposition, noting that the decision reduces funding this year and is likely to worsen structural deficits in future years. Ms. Weiss told me that she plans to lobby in Sacramento in April to try to get Newsom to give that money back to our schools.
While we wait for a solution, our district is implementing staffing reductions and offering early retirement incentives. These measured reductions, as Dr. Serrano described them, reflect a more restrained approach than the significant reductions seen in nearby districts. Manhattan Beach recently sent notices to 80 employees to inform them their positions may be eliminated next year. While Palos Verdes avoided that drastic outcome this year, the short-term savings and downward COLA projections for next year highlight ongoing challenges for the year ahead. Board President Deen’s emphasis on raising the statewide base rate is understandable, yet California’s projected budget deficit—estimated between $20 billion and $35 billion—suggests the overall funding pie is unlikely to grow substantially in the near term. We must therefore advocate for a fairer share of existing resources.
Other districts are already pursuing additional state resources. In 2024, a coalition of schools submitted what became known as the Goodwin Demand Letter (after retaining the pro bono services of the Goodwin Proctor law firm). These schools argued that they should get even more of the share of funding for facilities projects. Similarly, basic aid districts–districts where local revenue exceeds the amount they would have received from State LCFF funds–are under threat to have their funds redistributed.
PV School Board President Deen and Vice President Alegria are correct that a solo lawsuit against the state is not viable. However, that reality does not preclude other proactive steps. A focused approach limited to our district’s needs allows for clearer advocacy on behalf of PVPUSD families.
The solution is straightforward. PVPUSD should lead or join a coalition of the roughly 20th-percentile and below districts that are similarly shortchanged under the current LCFF structure. Share the legal, research, and advocacy burden. Perhaps find a law firm willing to do pro-bono work. Present a unified, data-driven case to the Legislature and Governor for reforms that reduce inter-district gaps while preserving targeted support for high-needs students. Collective advocacy has far more leverage than any single district acting alone—and it avoids the constraints that come with being tethered to any one organization’s priorities.
Our students and teachers deserve funding that matches the excellence they deliver. That requires leadership willing to build new alliances, speak plainly about the disparities, and put PVPUSD first. I am ready to do exactly that.
