Has the LAUSD School Board Race Been Turned Upside Down?

“Ed was clearly a product that was rushed out, without any evidence for its efficacy, and without any transparency around the dealmaking process."

— Lila Byock, founder of Schools Beyond Screens

As candidates entered their final weekend of signature collecting, incumbent Nick Melvoin became the second candidate, after Kelly Gonez, to be certified for the June ballot. That development was quickly overshadowed by federal law‑enforcement activity on Wednesday morning.

There was a time when the Justice Department avoided any action that might influence an upcoming election. Like so many other democratic guardrails, that practice appears to have fallen by the wayside during the second Trump administration.

This policy shift was on full display when the FBI raided the home and offices of Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, who leads the nation’s largest school district governed by an elected school board. The timing was striking: the operation unfolded just as the three‑month election period was beginning, with candidates collecting signatures to appear on the ballot.

With the warrant and supporting documents sealed, little confirmed information is known about the reason for the federal interest in Carvalho. That vacuum has provided fertile ground for speculation.

Trump’s ongoing use of the Justice Department against his opponents has prompted some observers to argue that the raid may have been politically motivated. Carvalho has built a national profile as an immigrant who originally entered the country without authorization, experienced homelessness, and ultimately rose to lead two of the nation’s largest school districts, Miami‑Dade and Los Angeles. Some say these are attributes that, in today’s climate, make him a politically convenient target.

Rather than seek safety away from the spotlight, Carvalho has been vocal in his opposition to Trump’s immigration policies. When ICE attempted to enter an LAUSD campus under false pretenses last year, it was the Superintendent who served as the district’s public face.

While these factors help explain why some believe the Trump administration might view the Superintendent unfavorably, his critics have long warned that there were red flags in the way he ran the district. This created openings that, critics argue, could have provided the Justice Department with avenues to justify seeking a warrant.

Ever since Carvalho parachuted into Los Angeles from his previous position in Miami, he has been criticized for running the district with an overly centralized, top‑down style. In my view, his leadership style at times resembles that of a mob boss demanding total loyalty.

In my evaluation, the Superintendent can be described as intolerant of dissent and has shown a willingness to take action against those who challenge his authority. Insiders within the Board Room have told me that he is critical of my coverage of his leadership.

These criticisms are not new; they followed him from Miami. Unfortunately, we may never know if the Board considered these when hiring him. The hiring process was conducted entirely behind closed doors and excluded any real input from the community.

The effects can be seen in the high-profile controversies that have marked his tenure. He replaced the highly successful Primary Promise literacy program with an amorphous model that has yet to gain the confidence of many parents and teachers. This decision cost him the support of Parents Supporting Teachers (PST), a parent‑led advocacy group with nearly 30,000 members in its Facebook community. Not seeking the input of the community on how to spend art funds provided by PROP-28 earned him a lawsuit from the proposition’s author and his predecessor, Austin Beutner.

These were both unpopular, but Carvalho’s actions were not criminal.

Carvalho revealed key aspects of his leadership style after the District’s systems were hacked early in his tenure. In the immediate aftermath, the Superintendent did not initially disclose that highly sensitive information belonging to students with special education needs had been exposed. He also warned that individuals who published information contradicting the district’s official statements could face legal consequences.

In trying to get the district’s systems back online after the hack, Carvalho asked the Board for authority to spend funds without bringing the contracts to them for approval. They granted this request, removing themselves from the oversight process, which is one of their core responsibilities as elected representatives. The temporary elimination of this oversight layer raises concerns that potential misuse of funds might not have been detected. We do not know if the Board ever looked into this because all of their evaluations of the Superintendent’s performance were conducted behind closed doors, with no public reporting on whether this issue was examined.

The press has focused on the possibility that the District’s $6-million chatbot deal may have been the reason for the raids. Questions have already been raised about why a company with no real experience with AI was awarded the contract. Those concerns intensified after criminal fraud charges were filed against its founder. Just months after it was launched, the system was taken offline.

Unless the raids are quickly proven to be legally indefensible, there is little chance that the public will find out specific details in the three months leading up to the primary elections. This puts the incumbents in a precarious position as they will have to explain their lack of public oversight of the Superintendent’s performance, especially after they voted unanimously to extend his contract. Whether this will intensify an election season already shaping up to be less favorable to incumbents remains to be seen.

“Lucy, you’ve got some ’Splainin’ to do!"

— Ricky Ricardo on I Love Lucy