School District Layoffs Surge Nationwide

School district layoffs are accelerating across the country as districts confront deepening budget deficits, declining enrollment and the expiration of pandemic-era federal funding.

In the past several weeks alone, districts in California, Colorado, Alaska and Florida have approved or proposed significant staff reductions. The scale varies, but the pattern is consistent: rising costs and shrinking revenues are forcing school boards into decisions that will shape the 2026–27 school year.

A National Pattern, Local Consequences

In Manhattan Beach, California, board members are considering 31 layoffs to address a projected deficit. In Antioch Unified, leaders have warned of nearly 300 layoffs tied to a $30 million shortfall. Los Angeles Unified has approved up to 657 layoffs, with Superintendent Alberto Carvalho describing the district’s budget as reaching a breaking point.

Fresno Unified has proposed roughly 200 layoffs to stabilize its finances. San Francisco Unified, just days after concluding a teachers’ strike, has indicated it may cut more than 40 positions. Oakland Unified continues to wrestle with structural deficits that have prompted campus-level reductions and program adjustments.

Beyond California, the situation is similar. The Anchorage School District has adopted a severe budget that includes hundreds of staff layoffs and the closure of three schools. In Colorado, the Poudre School District has approved potential teacher layoffs as it navigates funding challenges. Broward County Public Schools in Florida has detailed job cuts tied to districtwide cost reductions.

Even smaller districts, including Plumas Unified and Live Oak, are reducing staff to address multimillion-dollar gaps.

The numbers differ, but the story is increasingly familiar.

What Is Driving the Cuts?

No single factor explains the current wave of school district layoffs. Instead, several pressures are converging at once.

Enrollment declines are a central issue. In many states, school funding is based largely on average daily attendance. When student counts drop, revenue follows. Urban districts in particular have experienced steady enrollment declines due to lower birth rates, changing migration patterns, and competition from charter schools and homeschooling options. Even modest declines can mean millions in lost funding.

The expiration of federal relief funds is another key driver. During the pandemic, districts received substantial one-time federal aid. Many used those funds to expand tutoring, mental health services, technology programs, and staffing. In some cases, districts added ongoing positions with temporary dollars. Now that those funds have largely expired, districts are left covering recurring costs with shrinking budgets.

Rising operational costs are compounding the problem. Salary increases negotiated during more stable financial periods, growing pension obligations, health care premiums, and inflationary pressures on utilities and transportation have all increased expenditures. Special education services, which are federally mandated but often underfunded, continue to consume a growing share of district budgets.

In several districts, leaders have also acknowledged long-standing structural deficits. Years of spending that outpaced revenue growth left little cushion once enrollment dipped and relief funds ended.

What This Means for Students

For students, the impact of school district layoffs will depend on how districts implement reductions, but certain outcomes are likely.

Larger class sizes are among the most immediate effects when teaching positions are eliminated. Remaining teachers absorb additional students, which can limit individualized attention, particularly in early grades or high-needs classrooms.

Program reductions may follow. Districts often prioritize core academic subjects, leaving electives, arts, music, and some career technical education pathways vulnerable. Intervention programs, after-school offerings, and enrichment initiatives funded during the pandemic may be scaled back or consolidated.

In Anchorage, for example, the approved budget includes school closures, requiring students to transition campuses. Such changes can disrupt routines, alter peer groups, and lengthen families’ commute times.

Mental health and counseling services are another area of concern. Many districts expanded student support roles using federal relief funds. If those positions are eliminated, access to counseling and social-emotional services may decrease.

District leaders frequently state that they aim to protect classrooms first. In some cases, cuts target vacant roles, central office positions, or administrative restructuring. Still, when reductions reach into the hundreds, ripple effects often reach students in visible ways.

The Impact on Teachers Who Remain

For educators who are not laid off, the year ahead may bring increased workloads and uncertainty.

Higher student-to-teacher ratios mean more grading, planning, and parent communication. Teachers may be reassigned to different grade levels or subject areas depending on district needs and seniority rules. In districts where layoffs are preliminary notices required by state law, uncertainty can persist for months before final staffing decisions are made.

Morale can also suffer. In San Francisco, potential layoffs surfaced just days after a teachers’ strike concluded, adding to tension in an already strained environment. In larger districts such as Los Angeles Unified, the scale of reductions can create anxiety even among staff whose positions are not immediately affected.

At the same time, some administrators argue that early corrective action may prevent deeper instability later. Addressing deficits now, they contend, can help districts avoid state intervention or more severe cuts in future years.

Administrative Tradeoffs and Public Trust

School boards are navigating difficult tradeoffs. Drawing down reserves can provide short-term relief but may threaten long-term financial health. Consolidating schools can reduce overhead, but it often faces community resistance. Seeking new taxes or bonds requires voter approval and may not be feasible in every region.

Public meetings in multiple districts have drawn parents and educators urging leaders to reconsider reductions. Transparency about enrollment projections, budget assumptions, and long-term planning is becoming central to maintaining public trust.

Operationally, staffing reductions can affect front office services, custodial staffing, transportation routes, and food services. Even when cuts focus on areas outside the classroom, the daily rhythm of schools can change.

Equity and Access

Equity remains a central concern as districts implement layoffs.

Schools serving higher percentages of low-income students, English learners, or students with disabilities often rely more heavily on supplemental staff and targeted programs. Reductions in those areas can disproportionately affect students who already face barriers to academic success.

Federal and state laws protect certain services, particularly in special education, but staffing reductions can still strain service delivery. How districts distribute cuts across campuses will likely remain a focal point for families and advocacy groups.

A Structural Reset

What makes this moment distinct is its breadth. From large urban systems to small rural districts, leaders are confronting similar fiscal realities.

Demographic trends suggest that enrollment declines may continue in many regions. Without new, sustained funding streams, districts may need to permanently align staffing levels with lower student counts. That could mean leaner central offices, consolidated campuses, and narrower program offerings compared with the pandemic-era peak.

For families, budget season this spring will clarify what next year looks like in their local schools. Some preliminary layoff notices may ultimately be rescinded if revenues improve or if retirements reduce staffing needs. Others will take effect.

The broader challenge is maintaining educational quality while adjusting to a smaller financial footprint. School district layoffs are not simply a one-year response to temporary pressures. In many communities, they represent a structural recalibration after years of extraordinary funding and expansion.

How districts manage that transition will shape not only the coming school year, but the stability and scope of public education in the years ahead.

ABC7 News Bay Area – Layoffs loom days after SF school district agrees to $183 million deal to end teachers’ strike

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.