Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Parents and community members urge LAUSD to avoid strike, say students would be harmed
Loading...
Summary
Multiple parents and community members told the Los Angeles Unified School District Board on April 10 that a teachers’ strike would harm students, with several commenters directly accusing union leaders of prioritizing pay over children and urging the board to seek transparency in negotiations.
Multiple parents and community members used public comment at a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education special meeting on April 10 to urge the board and teachers’ union to avoid a strike, saying it would harm students and calling for greater transparency in labor talks.
Isabel Gonzalez, introduced by the board as an in-person speaker, spoke in Spanish and told the board the union is “using our students as cannon fodder,” urging officials to “stop using our students” to secure wins. Juan Magandy, another in-person commenter, criticized the negotiation process as “theater” and said, referring to large sums, “What is it? $5,600,000,000 ... which is just a pinata,” arguing the community receives little benefit from how money is spent.
Other speakers repeated that theme. Maria Daisy Ortiz, speaking in Spanish as a remote commenter, said corruption and political control—not student welfare—drive some decisions and called unions “assassins of children” for actions she said would harm students’ education. Marcela Garcia urged the board not to allow a strike, saying the children are the ones who would suffer. David Tokofsky, who spoke in person, urged the board to hire an inspector general with broad authority and to plan for salary increases (he suggested 3% per year) while warning about fiscal uncertainty.
Why it matters: LAUSD is in negotiations with employee organizations including the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) and other unions named by the board. Public commenters framed the dispute as one that pits pay and union tactics against the school system’s day-to-day educational operations, and they urged the board to prioritize students and financial transparency ahead of any labor action.
What speakers said, in context: The comments were made during the public-comment period announced by the meeting moderator before the board recessed to a closed session for personnel and labor negotiations under Government Code sections 54957 and 54957.6. Speakers repeatedly invoked the potential academic harm to students from a strike and urged the board and negotiators to consider trade-offs and budget realities when assessing union demands.
Board action: The board recessed into closed session at 10:20 a.m. to discuss personnel and labor negotiations. When the board reconvened at 3:02 p.m., the moderator said there was nothing to report from closed session and the meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
The comments in the public record are allegations and opinions from community members and were not answered or formally debated in open session during the meeting. The board’s formal negotiating positions and any agreement or offer were not disclosed during public comment.
