In response to financial challenges, the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) Board of Education has decided to revert to a six-period schedule at secondary schools beginning in the 2025-26 school year. This decision was made at the Board’s meeting on October 8, 2024, following concerns about insufficient funding to continue the current seven-period schedule, which has been in place since the 2021-22 school year.
Although Clark Magnet High School and Roosevelt Middle School will retain their seven-period schedules, as they were implemented as part of their specialized curriculum before the pandemic, the Board concluded that the district can no longer support the seventh period for other schools. Initially, the seven-period day was funded using one-time COVID-19 relief funds. For the 2024-25 school year, the $5.3 million required to maintain the schedule is being covered by the district’s General Fund. However, this is unsustainable, and the Board’s report emphasized the importance of maintaining fiscal health, in line with “Board Priority No. 5.”
Community Reactions
During the public comments session preceding the Board’s decision, several community members expressed their concerns. GUSD parent Deborah Pasachoff urged the Board to consider making cuts elsewhere to preserve the seven-period day, which she described as critical to students’ education. Crescenta Valley High School teacher Alan Freeman echoed this sentiment, stating that the seven-period schedule has been the best initiative he has seen in his 28 years with the district. He emphasized that cutting the extra period would harm students, and urged the Board to find alternative budget cuts.
Fiscal Challenges
Following public comments, GUSD staff presented an $11 million fiscal stabilization budget plan that will be reviewed by the Board in November. The Board must approve the plan by December 15, 2024. This budget includes several items impacting fiscal solvency, with the seven-period schedule being one of the more significant considerations.
While the district is not facing a budget deficit for the current fiscal year, it is projecting deficits for the next two years. The reduction in Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) funds, which were lower than anticipated in earlier projections, has further exacerbated the district’s financial situation. COLA fund percentages are determined by the California Department of Finance and distributed to school districts based on these calculations. The district had initially relied on these funds for multi-year budget planning, but the unexpected shortfall has added to the fiscal strain.
Board Members Discuss Process and Concerns
Several Board members expressed frustration over the implementation process of the seven-period schedule. Vice President Ingrid Gunnell noted that many constituents had questioned why the schedule had not been brought before the Board for approval when it was first implemented by former Superintendent Vivian Ekchian. Gunnell asked whether a Board vote should have occurred at that time, pointing out that such a significant change should have been subject to formal Board approval. General Counsel Darren Kameya clarified that while the superintendent has the authority to adopt budgets and staffing levels, Board ratification would have been the best practice for a change of this magnitude.
Superintendent Darneika Watson stated that the issue had been brought to the Board now to ensure transparency and compliance. Board President Shant Sahakian acknowledged the positive impact of the seven-period program but reiterated that the district’s current financial situation made it unsustainable without COVID-19 relief funds.
Potential Staff Reductions
Assistant Superintendent Kyle Bruich warned that the elimination of the seven-period schedule could result in the reduction of 53 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members. However, Gunnell clarified that full-time staffing cuts may be necessary even if the district retains the seven-period schedule, given the overall budget situation.
Board member Telly Tse emphasized that the debate was not about the merits of six periods versus seven, but rather about making a difficult decision to ensure the district’s financial stability. He noted that past decisions may not have been handled optimally, contributing to the district’s current challenges. Tse affirmed that everyone agrees the seven-period schedule is beneficial for students, but the district must prioritize long-term fiscal health.
