The recent decision by the L.A. Unified School District to borrow another $250 million — on top of $500 million already authorized — to cover sexual abuse claim payouts should raise serious concerns for anyone who cares about justice and responsible governance. With financing costs included, LAUSD could ultimately pay more than $1 billion. That’s money that would otherwise go toward teachers, classroom instruction, campus safety and student services.
Let me be clear from the start: Survivors deserve justice, accountability and support. No child should ever experience abuse, and institutions that failed them must be held responsible. But good policy must also consider consequences. Assembly Bill 218 reopened decades-old claims and dramatically expanded liability timelines without creating a funding solution or safeguards for school districts. As a result, Sacramento created the mandate — but local schools, taxpayers and students are paying the bill.
This isn’t just a Los Angeles issue. School districts across California, including suburban and smaller communities in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita Valley, are facing rising insurance premiums, legal exposure and growing financial uncertainty. Even districts without active lawsuits are seeing higher costs and reduced flexibility because of statewide liability pressures. The financial ripple effects are real, and they’re spreading.
There’s also no credible evidence that abuse claims correlate with whether a community leans conservative or liberal. Abuse can happen anywhere. The problem isn’t political geography — it’s policy design. When the state imposes open-ended liability without funding or structural protections, local districts are left scrambling to protect victims and current students at the same time.
At the same moment these liabilities are growing, schools are already dealing with declining enrollment, expiring federal pandemic funds, inflationary pressures and increased operational costs. When hundreds of millions of dollars must be diverted to settle historical claims, it inevitably affects class sizes, staffing levels, facility upgrades and student support programs. That’s not speculation — it’s basic budgeting reality. And it’s today’s students who ultimately feel those consequences.
Justice should never come at the expense of educational opportunity for children. A responsible approach recognizes both obligations: caring for survivors while ensuring fiscal stewardship of public education. That means Sacramento needs to revisit how AB 218 operates financially and structurally. A statewide solution — rather than leaving each local district to absorb unpredictable liabilities — would better reflect the state’s responsibility for the law it enacted.
California has long prided itself on strong public education, safe communities and accountability when institutions fail. Those goals don’t conflict, but achieving them requires balanced policymaking, transparency and fiscal discipline. Ignoring the mounting financial strain helps no one — not survivors, not educators, and certainly not students.
Protecting children means preventing abuse, supporting victims, and maintaining strong schools where students can thrive today. We shouldn’t have to choose between justice and educational stability. With thoughtful reform and responsible leadership, California can do both.
Our children deserve safe schools, strong classrooms, and policies grounded in both compassion and common sense.
Andreas Farmakalidis
Granada Hills
