Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oxnard School District board hears plan to cut $15 million next year as enrollment falls
Summary
The Oxnard School District presented a multi‑year budget projection on Feb. 4 showing a projected 30% enrollment decline and a need for $15 million in reductions for 2026–27 (plus $8 million in 2027–28); unions pressed for more transparency and fuller vetting of advisory recommendations.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oxnard School District board on Feb. 4 heard a detailed budget update showing a sharp enrollment decline and a near‑term plan to reduce spending by $15 million in 2026–27 and another $8 million in 2027–28.
Ms. Pivko, who led the presentation, told trustees the district had used about $111,000,000 in one‑time COVID‑era funds over the prior four years and is now confronting a structural shortfall. The district projected enrollment to fall from roughly 15,730 students to about 11,486 by the 2027–28 school year — a roughly 30% decline — and said that when enrollment drops local revenue declines accordingly.
"We need to reduce in the 2026‑27 school year $15,000,000 and then the 2027‑28 school year an additional $8,000,000," Ms. Pivko said. She and other staff described a multi‑year financial projection that shows the district drawing down reserves if cuts are not made.
Union leaders who spoke during public comment urged a more transparent and collaborative process. Stacy Thurman, president of the Oxnard Educators Association, said the advisory committee met only three times and that some recommendations appearing in staff materials were not meaningfully vetted by the group. "These are real challenges and they require thoughtful shared solutions," Thurman said, asking the board for additional meetings, clearer documentation of positions and funding sources, and time to review the committee's work.
Margaret Wiley, speaking for CSEA, urged the district to reconsider reductions to attendance‑tech roles and other positions that affect the district's ability to report enrollment and operate facilities. Wiley and other union representatives submitted a list of options and asked for information on which positions were supported by one‑time funds or grants.
Board members and staff emphasized that the Budget Advisory Committee is advisory and that staff will continue to explore options. Ms. Pivko said the committee's rubric prioritized safety and health, core instruction and operational integrity; the committee's recommendations as presented totaled about $10.1 million, leaving roughly $5 million still to identify.
Trustees asked for more public outreach and suggested a study session or a special meeting to walk the community through proposals before any final layoff or reclassification notices are issued. Staff reminded attendees about statutory timelines: certain notices must be issued in March for some personnel actions, with final decisions possible in May and implementation July 1.
Votes at a glance - Approval of salary reallocations for adaptive technology specialists and paraeducators for the hearing‑impaired program — approved by roll call. - Revised classified salary schedule to raise AVID tutor pay to $18.53 an hour — approved by roll call. - Parent and family engagement district and school policies (Title I alignment) — approved by roll call. - Amendment to California State Preschool Program contract to finalize preschool closures tied to universal TK — approved by roll call. - Agreement with SPSG Inc. tied to a $1.9 million School Success Program grant (attendance improvement) — approved by roll call; trustees clarified consultant fees and grant‑funded positions. - Agreement for cross‑battery (xBAS) assessment tool and training for school psychologists — approved by roll call.
What happens next District staff said they will continue to develop and cost out additional reduction options, solicit recommendations via a dedicated budget email, and present refined proposals at upcoming meetings. Trustees asked staff to return with clearer breakdowns of restricted vs. unrestricted funds, which expenditures are grant‑funded or one‑time, and the implications of each recommendation for classroom services and employees.
