بلاگ

Property-poor districts demand fairer funding for school facilities

Construction site at Murray Elementary in Dublin Unified in 2022.

Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

A public-interest law firm threatened Wednesday to sue Gov. Gavin Newsom and state officials unless they create a fairer system of subsidizing the costs of school facilities. That system must be as equitable as the Local Control Funding Formula, the decade-old formula for funding schools’ operating budgets, Public Advocates demanded in a lengthy letter.

At a news conference announcing their demand, Public Advocates and school board members, superintendents and parents with decrepit, inadequate and unhealthy school buildings charged that the state’s school facilities program discriminates against districts with low property values. Districts with high property values gobble up most of the state’s matching subsidies to modernize schools, while property-poor districts serving low-income families can’t afford local school bonds to qualify for state subsidies to build comparable facilities, they said.

“It is our clear call to get this right,” said Gary Hardie, a school board member in Lynwood Unified in Los Angeles County. “We have not solved our facilities needs — not because we don’t fight each and every day for our young people, but we are up against policies that prevent us from doing the best we can do for our community.”

Hardie is one of four potential plaintiffs in a lawsuit. The others are Building Healthy Communities – Monterey County, Inland Congregations United for Change, and True North Organizing Network, which works with families across Tribal Lands and the broader North Coast region.

In 1971, the California Supreme Court struck down the school funding system based on local property taxes as violating the constitutional right of students in low-wealth districts to have an equal education. In the letter to Newsom, Public Advocates argued the current system of funding school facilities is no better than the property-tax-based system that the court rejected in the Serrano v. Priest decision.

“Study after study has acknowledged the open secret here: Some districts get to build swimming pools and performing arts centers, while others suffer through leaky roofs and black mold,” said John Affeldt, Public Advocates’ managing attorney and director of education equity. Citing a 2022 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, he said that lower-wealth districts have received nearly 60% less state modernization funding than higher-wealth districts since 1998.

“The discriminatory design of the state’s facility funding system is no accident,” he said. “It has been intentionally baked into the system, and its disparate results are wholly foreseeable.”

Hardie, a native of Lynwood, called his city “culturally rich” but under-resourced as a result of federal redlining policies that divided Lynwood’s Black and brown communities with highways that lowered property values.

Lynwood Superintendent Gudiel Crosthwaite said that this week the district of 12,000 students “had about 40 classrooms that were leaking due to the rains, and last year it was a different 60 classrooms.” While other districts are modernizing labs and performing arts theaters, he said Lynwood was forced to demolish the only major auditorium in the city because of the building’s condition. In the district, 99% of students are Black or Hispanic, and 94% are from low-income families.

Going Deeper

Credit: bike-R on flickr

Read more EdSource coverage about school facilities funding, planning and construction. California school districts rely on state and local bonds and developer fees to fund facilities. As this funding has fluctuated over time, research has found significant disparities in their capacity to keep up facilities that adequately meet students’ needs.

Public Advocates’ 21-page demand letter coincides with the start of negotiations between legislative leaders and the Newsom administration over the size and details of a school facilities bond for the November ballot. Two bills must be reconciled. Assembly Bill 247, by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, calls for a $14 billion TK-12 and community college state bond. Senate Bill 28, by Sen. Steven Glazer, D-Orinda, calls for a $15 billion bond that includes funding for UC and CSU.

Neither bill, at this point, gives a funding breakdown. However, AB 247 includes a possible framework for reform, with a point system that favors low-wealth and low-family income districts with a slightly larger state subsidy. Affeldt, of Public Advocates, dismisses this as inadequate for failing to provide enough funding to address the stark disparities in the current system.

There is little disagreement that a state school bond is needed. Money from the last state school bond, Proposition 51 (2016), with $7 billion in state support for K-12 and $2 billion for community colleges, has been allocated, and about $2 billion in state-approved projects are in the queue for the next round. There is also a demand to remove lead in school water and to shield schools from the impacts of climate change through better air filtration systems, flood protection and heat abatement.

Under the state program, districts pass local bonds through property taxes, and the state matches the money through a state-funded bond issue paid off through state taxes. For new construction, the state splits the cost. For modernization projects — renovating facilities at least 25 years old and portables at least 20 years old — the district pays 40% and the state 60% of a project’s cost.

Public Advocates is calling for addressing only the modernization program, not new construction. Affeldt said that the 60% guarantee for all districts, regardless of their ability to raise far more money than property-poor districts, provides substantially more modernization funds per pupil to higher-wealth districts.

The current facility program also includes a hardship program for small districts with so little assessed property that they can’t afford a school bond. However, the current qualifying criteria — a maximum of $5 million of assessed value — are strict and don’t account for the high construction costs in remote areas. AB 247 would raise the limit to $15 billion.

Between 1998 and 2016, the state provided $42 billion of the $166 billion that school districts raised for new construction and modernization, according to a report by Jeff Vincent, who co-directs the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley and has done extensive research into the school facility program and its disparities.

Spokespersons for Newsom and Muratsuchi did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment.

Long-standing complaints

The issues raised by Public Advocates are not new.

In 2016, then-Gov. Jerry Brown called for major changes in the facilities program, and opposed the measure when school districts and construction lobbies wouldn’t compromise. Brown wanted to concentrate state aid on low-income, low-property-wealth districts and end the first-come, first-served basis for allocating state matches, which he said favored wealthy and big districts, like Los Angeles Unified, with large facilities planners that can quickly apply. Voters passed the $9 billion Proposition 51 ($7 billion for K-12 schools and $2 billion for community colleges) anyway.

In 2018, Vincent co-authored a study that documented the disparities among districts’ ability to raise money through local bonds. He found that districts with the most assessed property value raised more than triple the amount of bond revenue per student than districts with the least assessed value per student.

With calls for reform escalating, Newsom took up the cause in negotiating a $15 million bond for the March 2020 ballot. The down-to-the-wire talks led to concessions. Instead of first-come, first-served, the bond issue set priorities for state funding. They started with districts facing critical health and safety issues, like mold in schools or seismic hazards, small districts facing financial hardship, schools needing lead abatement, and districts facing overcrowding.

The agreement also established a ranking system that factored in school districts’ ability to fund construction, as measured by bonding capacity per student and the percentage of students who are low-income, fosters, homeless, and English learners — the same measure for extra state money under the Local Control Funding Formula. Based on their point total, districts could qualify for a bonus 1% to 5% of state funding above the 60% match for modernization and 50% match for new construction.

The changes were not implemented after voters rejected the bond issue 47% to 53%. It was the first defeat of a statewide school bond in more than 40 years. Some attributed the loss to anxiety over Covid, whose infections were making the news; others blamed its unfortunate but coincidental title —Proposition 13 — and confusion with the 1978 tax-cutting initiative.

In September 2020, after Newsom and school districts reached a deal on what would become Proposition 13, Vincent told EdSource, “State leaders took the much-needed first step in putting forth a new program and a new wealth-adjusted funding formula. However, providing poor districts with a few more percentage points of funding may not remedy the inequities we’ve seen. It will be important to watch things closely in coming years.”

Public Advocates and the complainants say now is the time for the much-needed second step.

If negotiations fail, a lawsuit in the fall could complicate the chances of passage, if not derail, a bond measure in November. Knowing that, Affeldt said, “I hope that the serious threat of litigation and negative publicity that will come with that will make all of the players realize that we need a more aggressive overhaul of the system.”

Source link

11/06/2025
Six Nobel Laureates in Economics Denounce Trump Budget Bill

The Economic Policy Institute issued an open letter to the American people, written and co-signed by six economists who won the Nobel Prize.

They wrote:

As economists who have devoted our careers to researching how economies can grow and how the benefits of this growth can be translated into broadly shared prosperity and security, we have grave concerns about the budget reconciliation bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22, 2025.

The most acute and immediate damage stemming from this bill would be felt by the millions of American families losing key safety net protections like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The Medicaid cuts constitute a sad step backward in the nation’s commitment to providing access to health care for all. Proponents of the House bill often claim that these Medicaid cuts can be achieved simply by imposing work reporting requirements on healthy, working-age adults. But healthy, working-age adults are by definition not heavy consumers of health spending, so achieving the budgeted Medicaid cuts will obviously harm others as well.

Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for low-income Americans, but this includes paying out-of-pocket health costs for low-income retired Medicare recipients and providing nursing home and in-home care services for elderly Americans. Medicaid also covers 41% of all births in the United States, including over 50% of all births in Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Work reporting requirements will obviously yield no savings from these Medicaid functions.

Besides providing affordable health care to families, Medicaid is also crucial to state budgets and hospital systems throughout the country—particularly in rural areas. In 2023, the federal government sent $615 billion to state governments to cover Medicaid spending; this federal contribution accounted for over 75% of total state Medicaid spending in more than 19 states. Rural hospitals in states that accepted the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act were 62% less likely to close than rural hospitals in non-expansion states.

In addition to Medicaid, the House bill also significantly cuts SNAP. These steep cuts to the social safety net are being undertaken to defray the staggering cost of the tax cuts included in the House bill, including the hidden cost of preserving the large corporate income tax cutpassed in the 2017 tax law. But even these sharp spending cuts will pay for far less than half of the tax cuts (not even including the cost of maintaining the corporate income tax cuts of the 2017 law).

U.S. structural deficits are already too high, with real debt service payments approaching their historic highs in the past year. The House bill layers $3.8 trillion in additional tax cuts ($5.3 trillion if all provisions are made permanent) on top of these existing fiscal gaps—and these tax cuts are overwhelmingly tilted toward the highest-income households. Even with the safety net cuts, the House bill leads to public debt rising by over $3 trillion in coming years (and over $5 trillion over the next decade if provisions are made permanent rather than phasing out). The higher debt and deficits will put noticeable upward pressure on both inflation and interest rates in coming years.

The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households(if some of the fiscal cost is absorbed in future bills with extremely high and broad tariffs, the share of households seeing absolute losses will increase rapidly).

The United States has a number of pressing economic challenges to address, many of which require a greater level of state capacity to navigate—capacity that will be eroded by large tax cuts. The House bill addresses none of the nation’s key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them. The Senate should refuse to pass this bill and start over from scratch on the budget.

Daron Acemoglu
MIT Economics

Peter Diamond
MIT Economics

Oliver Hart
Harvard University

Simon Johnson
MIT Sloan School of Management

Paul Krugman
Graduate Center, City University of New York

Joseph Stiglitz
Columbia University

Source link

11/06/2025
CTA-sponsored legislation would remove one of state’s last required tests for teachers

First grade teacher Sandra Morales discusses sentences with a student.

Credit: Zaidee Stavely / EdSource

Newly proposed legislation sponsored by the California Teachers Association would eliminate all performance assessments teachers are required to pass, including one for literacy that it supported three years ago. The result could leave in place an unpopular written test that the literacy performance assessment was designed to replace.

Senate Bill 1263, authored by state Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, would do away with the California Teaching Performance Assessment, known as the CalTPA, through which teachers demonstrate their competence via video clips of instruction and written reflections on their practice.

Eliminating the assessment will increase the number of effective teachers in classrooms, as the state continues to contend with a teacher shortage, said Newman, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.

“One key to improving the educator pipeline is removing barriers that may be dissuading otherwise talented and qualified prospective people from pursuing a career as an educator,” Newman said in a statement to EdSource.

The bill also would do away with a literacy performance assessment of teachers and oversight of literacy instruction in teacher preparation programs mandated by Senate Bill 488, authored by Sen. Susan Rubio, D-West Covina, in 2021.

The literacy performance assessment is scheduled to be piloted in the next few months. It is meant to replace the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment set to be scrapped in 2025.

New law could leave RICA in place

The proposed legislation appears to leave in place a requirement that candidates for a preliminary multiple-subject or education specialist credential pass a reading instruction competence assessment, said David DeGuire, a director at the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

“At this time, it is unclear what that assessment would look like, but it could be that the state continues to use the current version of the RICA,” he said.

Newman will present the legislation to the Senate Education Committee in the next few months. Discussions about whether the RICA remains in use are likely to take place during the legislative process.

Rubio recently became aware of the new legislation and had not yet discussed it with Newman.

“For three years, I worked arduously and collaboratively with a broad range of education leaders, including parent groups, teacher associations and other stakeholders to modernize a key component of our educational system that in my 17 years as a classroom teacher and school administrator I saw as counterproductive to our students’ learning,” Rubio said of Senate Bill 488.

Teachers union changes course

The California Teachers Association, which originally supported Senate Bill 488, now wants all performance assessments, including the literacy performance assessment, eliminated.

“We are all scratching our heads,” said Yolie Flores, of Families in Schools, a Los Angeles-based education advocacy organization. “We were really blindsided by this (legislation), given the momentum around strengthening our teacher prep programs.”

The results of a survey of almost 1,300 CTA members last year convinced the state teachers union to push for the elimination of the CalTPA, said Leslie Littman, vice president of the union. Teachers who took the survey said the test caused stress, took away time that could have been used to collaborate with mentors and for teaching, and did not prepare them to meet the needs of students, she said.

“I think what we were probably not cognizant of at that time, and it really has become very clear of late, is just how much of a burden these assessments have placed on these teacher candidates,” Littman said.

Teacher candidates would be better served if they were observed over longer periods of time, during student teaching, apprenticeships, residencies and mentorship programs, to determine if they were ready to teach, Littman said. This would also allow a mentor to counsel and support the candidate to ensure they have the required skills.

California joins science of reading movement

California has joined a national effort to change how reading is being taught in schools. States nationwide are rethinking balanced literacy, which has its roots in whole language instruction or teaching children to recognize words by sight, and replacing it with a method that teaches them to decode words by sounding them out, a process known as phonics.

Smarter Balanced test scores, released last fall, show that only 46.6% of the state’s students who were tested met academic standards in English.

Last week Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, introduced Assembly Bill 2222, which would mandate that schools use evidence-based reading instruction. California, a “local control” state, currently only encourages school districts to incorporate fundamental reading skills, including phonics, into instruction.

“It (Newman’s SB 1263) goes against not only the movement, but everything we know from best practices, evidence, research, science, of how we need to equip new teachers and existing teachers, frankly, to teach literacy,” Flores said. “And that we would wipe it away at this very moment where we’re finally getting some traction is just very concerning.”

Lori DePole, co-director of DeCoding Dyslexia California, said the proposed legislation would cut any progress the state has made “off at the knees.”

Among her concerns is the elimination of the requirement, also authorized by Senate Bill 488, that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing certify that teacher preparation programs are teaching literacy aligned to state standards and a provision that requires the commission to report to the state Legislature annually on how stakeholders are meeting the requirements of the law.

“It would be going away,” DePole said. “Everyone agreed with SB 488, all the supporters agreed, this was the direction California needed to go to strengthen teacher prep with respect to literacy. And before it can even be fully implemented, we’re going to do a 180 with this legislation. It makes no sense.”

Flores said teachers want to be equipped to teach reading using evidence-based techniques, but many don’t know how.

“We know that reading is the gateway, and if kids can’t read, it’s practically game over, right?” said Flores. “And we are saying with this bill that it doesn’t matter, that we don’t really need to teach and show that teachers know how to teach reading.”

Teacher tests replaced by coursework, degrees

California has been moving away from standardized testing for teacher candidates for several years as the teacher shortage worsened. In July 2021, legislation gave teacher candidates the option to take approved coursework instead of the California Basic Education Skills Test, or CBEST, or the California Subject Examinations for Teachers, or CSET. In January’s tentative budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed eliminating the CBEST and allowing the completion of a bachelor’s degree to satisfy the state’s basic skills requirement.

Littman disagrees with the idea that there will be no accountability for teachers if the legislation passes. “There’s always been, and will continue to be, an evaluation component for all of our teachers in this state,” she said. “It just depends on what your district does and how they implement that. There’s always been a system of accountability for folks.”

Source link

11/06/2025
Cal State student assistants and workers vote to unionize

Sacramento State student assistants and employees celebrate the official vote for the undergraduate student assistants to unionize.

Ashley A. Smith/EdSource

This story was updated at 1:10 p.m. Friday to include more comments from student workers and CSU chancellor’s office..

Student assistants and workers in the California State University system announced Friday that they had voted in favor of unionizing.

The students across the 23 campuses voted in favor of organizing one of the largest student worker organizations in the country so they could fight for better pay, working conditions, sick and paid leave, and more work hours.

The students overwhelmingly voted 7,050 to 202 in favor of joining the CSU Employees Union (CSUEU).

“This is for all of us and for all of our futures,” said Cameron Macedonio, a student assistant at CSU Fullerton. “Student assistants were increasingly fed up with the CSU administration’s treatment of us. They undervalue us. On one hand, they act as if we’re dispensable, but on the other hand, they expect us to do the work of full-time staff but for minimum wages and no benefits.”

Student assistants often work for minimum wage, are limited to 20 hours or less a week, and don’t receive sick or paid leave.

Danny Avitia, a senior majoring in sociology and leadership development at San Diego State, said he’s found it difficult to survive on $16.50 an hour while working in the campus Office of Employee Engagement. He assists the director of that office with organizing events, newsletters, graphics, media and communications.

Avitia said he’s had to take on two more jobs and whenever he’s gotten sick, he “shows up to work and gets everyone sick” because he doesn’t receive any leave or paid time off.

Unionizing “means better access to discounts like parking and transit,” he said. “It means that I can fight for a better living wage because, again, meeting the basic needs of people is simply not enough here in California anymore.”

Now, they will need to decide what they want to bargain for, assemble a negotiating team and leadership, and present their demands to the Cal State administration. As part of the CSUEU, they’ll have assistance from that organization and the Service Employees International Union or SEIU.

“With 20,000 student assistants joining CSUEU’s 16,000 CSU staff members, university management will no longer be able to divide students and staff or exploit student labor to degrade staff jobs,” said Catherine Hutchinson, president of CSUEU. “Joining together is a win for students, for staff, and for all Californians who have a stake in the CSU’s mission.”

Many of the student assistants feel unionizing was just one step in a long process to better pay and working conditions. They all recently watched the California Faculty Association, which represents 29,000 professors and, lecturers go on strike twice for a better contact.

“There will be some struggles that will come with it,” said Alejandro Carrillo, an international business junior at San Diego State. “We just had the CFA strike and saw how hard it was for them to fight and the struggles that came with it. I’m not expecting anything less than that for student workers.”

In the meantime, the chancellor’s office said it would maintain the current standards and requirements for student assistants.

“The CSU has a long history of providing on-campus jobs to students through student assistant positions, which give our students the opportunity to gain valuable work experience while they pursue their degrees,” said Leora Freedman, CSU’s vice chancellor for human resources. “The CSU respects the decision of student assistants to form a union and looks forward to bargaining in good faith with the newly formed CSUEU student assistant unit.”

California Student Journalism Corps member Jazlyn Dieguez, a fourth-year journalism student at San Diego State University, contributed to this story.

Source link

11/06/2025
New Hampshire: GOP is “Willfully and Knowingly” Sabotaging Public Education

Gary Rayno is a veteran journalist who writes about politics and government in New Hampshire. He knows more about school finance than most members of the State Legislature.

He wrote recently about the nefarious plan to privatize public funding and undermine public education in the Granite State, even though 90% of the students in the state attend public schools. New Hampshire has an unusual problem with a libertarian party called “Free Staters,” who don’t want government to pay for anything. They are well represented in the legislature.

He wrote:

If you watched the House session Thursday, you had to realize the message the Republican majority is sending on public education.

Republicans quickly passed expanding Education Freedom Accounts, or vouchers, that will cost the state’s taxpayers well over $110 million for the next biennium with most of the money going to higher-income parents who currently send their children to religious and private schools or homeschools.

The expansion to vouchers-for-all has been a goal of the Free State/Libertarian controlled GOP for some time and they are likely to reach this year by daring Gov. Kelly Ayotte to veto the budget package, something she is not likely to do although she wanted the students to actually attend public schools before they join the EFA program with few guardrails and little academic accountability.

Instead much of the debate was over two bills that would significantly change the educational environment in public schools.

Senate Bill 72, would establish a parental bill of rights in education, and Senate Bill 96 would require mandatory disclosure to parents. And for good measure they added Senate Bill 100 which could cost a teacher his or her teaching credentials if they violate the divisive concepts law and school districts could be fined $2,500 plus attorneys’ fees and court costs.

The second offense is a permanent ban from teaching and school districts would have to pay a $5,000 fine and the penalties for third-party education contractors are even more onerous.

The state is prohibited from enforcing the law because a US District Court judge found the law unconstitutionally vague and the changes in Senate Bill 100 do nothing to change that except encourage more litigation.

These are just the latest attempt to convince the state’s residents that public schools are filled with far left teachers who want to indoctrinate students, to shield LGBTQ+ students from their parents and to encourage deviant behavior.

Nine-nine percent of parents with children in the public schools would tell you that is not true and the other 1 percent are in the New Hampshire legislature or related to someone who is.

Public schools are not perfect but the Free State/Libertarian talking points about public education are not being created in New Hampshire. They are the work of far-right think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council, the same groups that generate the wording for these bills.

The legislature has not addressed the real problems facing public schools, but have instead been exacerbated by the GOP controlled legislature. The bills passed this session have created more work for educators and school boards and they divert time and money away from educators’ first responsibility: to educate students and prepare them to survive and compete in today’s world.

The elephant in the room is the lack of state funding for public education at the elementary, secondary and postsecondary levels where the state of New Hampshire, one of the wealthiest per capita in the country, is dead last behind such educational meccas as Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and West Virginia.

Public schools do not need to spend more money for their educational system that continually ranks near the top nationally, but the state needs to pay its share of the cost which nationally averages a little less than 50 percent.

In New Hampshire local property taxpayers pay 63 percent of the cost of public education, while the state contributes 28.8 percent, leaving a little over 8 percent for the federal government to contribute, the 45th lowest for states.

Property taxes pay about 70 percent of the cost of education when you add in the Statewide Education Property Tax which is included in the state’s share although it all comes out of property owners’ pockets.

This legislature did two things to address the funding issue this session, one would be to bring the Statewide Education Property Tax collection methods in line with a superior court judge’s ruling that requires the property wealthier communities to turn their excess revenue not needed to cover the cost of an adequate education for their students over to the state and to stop the Department of Revenue Administration from approving negative local education property tax rates allowing unincorporated places to avoid paying the statewide property tax.

That action does not require any more state money and in fact increases state revenue by about $30 million.

The Legislature increased spending on special education in the second year of the biennium, but the Senate budget reduced that figure by $27 million.

Just a few years ago, the Education Trust Fund, which pays for state adequacy grants to public and charter schools, special education, building aid and several other educational needs, had a surplus approaching $250 million, but since that time the EFA program has also drawn its money from the same source of funds totally $76 million through this school year.

The additional draw from the EFA program and declining state revenues have combined to substantially change the financial picture. At the end of this fiscal year at the end of the month, the surplus will be around $100 million.

At the end of the upcoming biennium the surplus in the Senate’s budget will be less than $20 million, with the fund in deficit under the House’s budget, and $14 million in the governor’s plan.

All three plans reduce the percentage of state revenues that go into the Education Trust Fund and increase the amount going to the state’s general fund.

Drying up the Education Trust Fund was a plan hatched long ago to have vouchers competing with public schools for state education money. When that happens, if you think your property taxes are too high now, just wait until the money goes to the voucher program first before adequacy grants to school districts.

The Free State/Libertarians have long sought to have public schools house only special education students and kids with disciplinary programs. The rest of the students and their parents will be on their own to find and pay for their education, meaning the rich will do just fine and everyone else will scramble to find an inferior education they can afford.

That is a pathway to retaining the oligarchy.

Another significant issue facing public education is the dearth of teachers as many school districts cannot find certified teachers to hire and instead have to rely on non-credentialed personnel or para educators to fill the gap.

See above and and you could reasonably ask, with these kinds of bills that put teachers between their students and their parents and make schools less than safe spaces for many kids, who in their right mind would want to be an educator.

At last week’s session, Rep. Stephen Woodcock, D-Center Conway, a retired teacher and school principal, said “Parental rights go hand in hand with parental responsibilities. It is not a teacher’s responsibility to do the parents’ job, which is talking with their children.”

And you could argue that public education ought to be more rigorous than it is now, but society has pressured schools to “make every child succeed,” and that translates into lower academic standards.

And that describes the new state education standards recently approved by the State Board of Education in the name of competency-based education.

If this group of legislators continue to control the agenda, it will not be long before public education will be in tatters, which will suit them fine.

But with about 90 percent of the state’s children in the public school system, it is hard to believe that is their parents’ or their desire.

Source link

11/06/2025
Temecula Valley Unified can continue enforcing transgender policy, CRT ban, for now
Community member Kayla Church stands in support of LGBTQ+ community and in opposition to Temecula Valley Unified curriculum ban.

Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource

While litigation moves forward, the Temecula Valley Unified District can keep enforcing its transgender notification policy as well as its ban on critical race theory, which restricts instruction on race and gender more broadly, Riverside County Judge Eric A. Keen ruled Friday.

In what seemed to be a contradiction to this decision, Keen had ruled on Feb. 15 that the case — Mae M. v. Komrosky — filed on behalf of the district’s teachers union, teachers, parents and students, in August by Ballard Spahr and the country’s largest pro-bono law firm Public Counsel LLP — will move forward. The plaintiffs had asked Keen to temporarily block enforcement of the policies while the case was fought out in court, but did not get it.

“We are deeply disappointed with the denial of the preliminary injunction, primarily for the students and teachers and parents that we represent,” said Amanda Mangaser Savage, supervising attorney for Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project.

“While these policies remain in effect, students in Temecula’s classrooms are being denied access to an accurate and fact-based education and, instead, are receiving an education that is dictated entirely by the board members’ ideological preferences.”

Supporters of the board’s policy, including Joseph Komrosky, the Temecula Valley Unified school board president, have claimed that the policies do not discriminate against transgender students or students of color.

“The diversity that exists among the District’s community of students, staff, parents, and guardians is an asset to be honored and valued,” Komrosky said in a news release by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Murrieta-based law firm, “dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts,” that is representing the district for free.

“These policies were enacted by the school board to ensure our district puts the needs of students and their parents above all else,” adding that Temecula Valley Unified is committed to providing students with a well-rounded education devoid of “discrimination and indoctrination.”

A board guided by conservative values

The turmoil in Temecula Unified started in December 2022, when the school board, with a newly elected conservative majority, banned critical race theory. The following spring, the board fired the former superintendent, Jodi McClay, without cause and temporarily banned the Social Studies Alive! textbook due to a mention of LGBTQ+ activist Harvey Milk in the supplemental material.

In August, the board passed a policy that percolated through about a half-dozen other districts, requiring that school administrators notify parents if their child shows signs of being transgender.

Since then, teachers have voiced concerns about more widespread curriculum censorship and negative impacts on students’ mental health — which have drawn attention and scrutiny from state officials.

Edgar Diaz, president of the Temecula Valley Educators Association, the district’s teachers union, criticized Keen’s ruling, stating that it “does not consider the ripple effects” of the district’s policies.

Diaz added that wooden blocks have since been placed on library shelves in lieu of books because teachers and staff fear “there may be some banned concept in them.”

“We shouldn’t be banning anything; we’re an educational institution. If children are curious about something, they explore it; they talk to the teachers. And especially in high school, they’re old enough to form their own opinions about what’s real and what’s not real,” said Temecula Valley Unified school board member Steve Schwartz.

He added that if an LGBTQ+ student “doesn’t feel safe enough in their home to tell their parent but needs to share it with someone and shares it with a teacher, it doesn’t seem like a good idea for the teacher to have to tell that parent.”

Widespread divides over critical race theory

The transgender notification policies and critical race theory ban supported by the Temecula Valley board are part of a larger movement driven by conservative organizations like Reform California. These groups formed to counter widespread calls from the left for racial justice following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020.

Nearly 800 measures in 244 local, state and federal entities have been taken against critical race theory, according to CRT Forward, an initiative of the UCLA School of Law’s critical race studies program.

In California alone, 13 measures have been introduced at the local level, nine of which have been passed or implemented.

As of April 2023, however, 60% of anti-CRT measures were adopted in predominantly conservative states.

“Today’s ruling unfortunately means that Temecula will continue amongst the ranks of Texas and Florida,” Mangaser Savage said.

“While California is obviously a liberal state, I think that the fact that this is happening in our districts demonstrates how pernicious this is.”

While the nearly 4,000 U.S. adults surveyed by researchers at the University of Southern California largely agreed on the importance of public education and the core functions of literacy, numeracy and civics, they are more polarized on topics about race and LGBTQ+ issues.

The survey specifically found that between 80% and 86% of Democrats support the idea of high school students learning about LGBTQ+ topics compared with less than 40% of Republicans. Introducing LGBTQ+ topics at the elementary level garnered less support on both sides of the aisle.

Over half of those surveyed also supported discussion of topics about race at the high school level. But at the elementary level, Democrats were much more likely to support the idea of students learning about slavery, civil rights and racial inequality.

Critical race theory is usually taught at the college level, and Schwartz said it has not been taught in Temecula Valley Unified.

“But if I were a teacher today, and a student came to me and said, ‘What do you think about CRT?’ my response would be: ‘Why don’t you do some research and see what you think about it, and then we can have a discussion,’” Schwartz said.

“My thought is not to tell kids not to investigate things that they’re interested in. That’s what learning is all about.”

The lead-up in Temecula

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a court brief in support of the plaintiffs in December. According to Mangaser Savage, that brief marked the first time in recent history that the state got involved with litigation to limit ideological censorship in schools.

Following Bonta’s brief, more than 20 civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights organizations — including American Civil Liberties Union’s chapters in Southern and Northern California — have also filed briefs in support of the preliminary injunction.

Those organizations include:
- Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California
- California LGBTQ Health & Human Services Network
- Equal Justice Society
- Equality California
- Family Assistance Program
- Genders & Sexualities Alliance Network
- GLSEN
- Inland Empire Prism Collective
- Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
- LGBTQ Center OC
- LGBTQ Community Center of the Desert
- Legal Services of Northern California
- Los Angeles LGBT Center
- Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
- Public Advocates, Inc.
- Public School Defenders Hub
- Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance
- Sacramento LGBT Center
- Safe Schools Project of Santa Cruz County
- Transgender Law Center
- TransFamily Support Services
- Trevor Project
Penguin Random House and PEN America have also announced their support for the preliminary injunction.

As pressure has mounted on the district to stop its enforcement of allegedly discriminatory and illegal policies, the school board’s makeup has also changed — and more could shift in the coming months.

In December, One Temecula Valley PAC, a political action committee, lodged a recall effort against the board’s three conservative members and gathered enough signatures to move forward with a recall election this spring against Komrosky, the board president.

Conservative board member Jennifer Wiersma, however, will remain on the board, while Danny Gonzalez announced his resignation in December with plans to move to Texas.

Temecula Valley Unified’s school board met on Feb.13 to appoint a replacement but was unable to and decided to move forward with an election. Whoever replaces Gonzalez in that seat will determine whether the board retains its conservative majority.

“Despite the small but vocal opponents that seek to rewrite history and indoctrinate students,” Komrosky said, “I am very optimistic for our school district.”

Editors’ note: This story has been updated to add a statement from Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law project supervising attorney, Amanda Mangaser Savage.
Source link
11/06/2025
Legislature rejects ‘draconian’ cuts to UC and CSU, keeps TK-12 funding intact
Students study in the main lobby of Storer Hall at the University of California, Davis.

Credit: Gregory Urquiaga / UC Davis
Top Takeaways

The Legislature has until June 15 to present their budget bill to the governor.

The proposal received praise from speakers grateful to see more funding for higher education.

Student teachers would receive $600 million in new funding in legislators’ plan.
The Legislature is challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed funding cuts to higher education for next year, while largely leaving intact the relatively more generous TK-12 spending the governor called for last month.

“In many ways, it’s a tale of two budgets,” said Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, chair of the education subcommittee, who characterized Newsom’s higher-ed cuts as “draconian.”

In 2025-26, schools and community colleges will receive a record $118.9 billion under Proposition 98, the state formula that determines the minimum portion of the state’s General Fund that must be spent on schools and community colleges. Laird credits the law for “protecting schools from the hard decisions of what is happening to the other side of the ledger with higher education.”

Legislators would nix Newsom’s proposal to cut next year’s funding to the University of California and California State University by 3% and instead restore that money as part of a joint agreement of the Assembly and Senate.

The Assembly and the Senate published their version of a spending plan for education on Monday. The Legislature has until June 15 to present their budget bill to the governor, who then has until June 27 to sign, veto, or line-item veto the bill.

Higher education

The latest version of the 2025-26 budget may provide some relief to the state’s college students and public universities, who in January were told by Newsom to expect an 8% ongoing cut, a figure he revised down to 3% in May. Uncertainty regarding federal funding for higher education has compounded budget anxieties in California, as the Trump administration proposes reductions to programs like the Pell Grant and TRIO.

“I think many of you recognize that we’re facing some pretty devastating budget challenges this year,” said Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Pasadena, at a budget subcommittee hearing on June 10. “It has been incredibly, incredibly tough, and we are continuing to face ongoing challenges with potential cuts coming from the federal administration that will impact our higher education systems, and so we are going to be having ongoing conversations about the budget.”

While the Legislature’s take on the budget may seem more generous, it is not without asterisks. By forgoing the 3% ongoing cut, the Assembly-Senate recommendations would reinstate $130 million to the 10-campus UC system and $144 million to CSU’s 23 campuses. However, the Legislature would defer those payments until July 2026, giving the universities permission to seek short-term loans from the General Fund to tide themselves over.

Additionally, lawmakers parted ways with the governor on a plan to defer a 5% increase in base funding from 2025-26 to 2026-27. The legislative proposal instead splits the deferral, offering the universities a 2% ongoing increase in 2026-27 and the remaining 3% in 2028-29.

The legislative proposal was met with praise from many speakers attending the subcommittee hearing. Representatives from the California State University Employees Union, which represents non-faculty and student assistants, the Community College League of California and the Cal State Student Association all spoke in support of the Legislature’s version.

Eric Paredes, the legislative director of the California Faculty Association, which represents professors at CSU, thanked the Legislature for restoring funding to the university system. “We know it’s been a difficult budget year, and just are really appreciative of the Legislature’s ongoing commitment to higher education,” he said.

The legislative proposal also alters a plan to defer nearly $532 million in community college apportionment funding from 2025-26 to 2026-27, instead offering a smaller deferral of $378 million.

To pare back the 2025-26 deferral, the Legislature’s plan would reappropriate $135 million from the 2024-25 part-time faculty insurance program. A representative of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, speaking at the budget subcommittee hearing opposed that move, calling the funds for the part-time health care pool “necessary.”

The Legislature is also turning down a Newsom proposal to provide $25 million in one-time Prop. 98 dollars to the Career Passports initiative, which would help Californians compile digital portfolios summarizing the skills they’ve built through work and school.

The Legislature’s plan, in addition, calls for a variety of one-time Prop. 98 funding for community colleges, including $100 million to support college enrollment growth in 2024-25, $44 million to fund part-time faculty office hours and $20 million for emergency financial aid for students.

For the state’s public universities, the budget bill would set in-state enrollment targets, asking UC and CSU to enroll 1,510 and 7,152 more California undergraduates, respectively, in 2025-26.

The current draft of the budget bill would also require CSU campuses that have experienced “sustained enrollment declines” to submit turnaround plans to the chancellor’s office by the end of 2025, outlining how they will increase enrollment and any cost-saving strategies they have planned. The chancellor’s office, in turn, will summarize those plans in a report for the Legislature by March 2026.

Finally, the Legislature’s proposal also includes a sweetener for the state’s financial aid budget by restoring funding for the Middle Class Scholarship program. It provides grant aid to more than 300,000 recipients and would receive $405 million in one-time funding in 2025-26 and $513 million ongoing.

TK-12 spending

A stipend for aspiring teachers is the single largest difference in spending between the governor and the Legislature’s version of the TK-12 budget for next year. California would go all-in on paying student teachers working on their credentials if the Legislature can persuade Newsom to build in the $600 million expense in the 2025-26 state budget. Newsom is proposing $100 million for what would be a new program.

To make room for this and other changes, the Legislature would cut a one-time Student Support and Discretionary Block Grant that Newsom is proposing, from $1.7 billion to $500 million.

Brianna Bruns, a representative with the California County Superintendents, expressed concern, noting that this is an important funding source for “core educational services” in light of the expiration of one-time pandemic-related federal funds.

Lawmakers are recommending two other significant changes that reflect their worry that state revenues may fall short of projections amid an uncertain economy.

It would put $650 million into the Prop. 98 rainy day fund that would otherwise be depleted, under the expectation that it will be needed next year. And in a proposal that districts and community colleges may welcome, they would substantially cut back on late payments from the state, called deferrals, under Newsom’s May budget revision.

The governor is proposing to push back $1.8 billion that the state normally would fund in June 2026 by a few weeks to July 2026, the first month of the new fiscal year; the Legislature would reduce the deferral to $846 million. As a debt that must be repaid to make districts fiscally sound, the Legislature would pay most of it back in 2026-27 and the rest in 2027-28.

Advocates for paying teachers at the daily rate of a substitute teacher while they are student teaching say it is critical to encourage more people to become teachers. During a one-year graduate program to earn a teaching credential, candidates are required to spend 600 hours in the classroom. Many candidates earn no income while accumulating between $20,000 and $40,000 in debt, based on the program they attend, according to an analysis of a bill proposing the stipends before the Legislature.

“California is facing a persistent teacher shortage that disproportionately affects our most vulnerable students,” said Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, the bill’s sponsor. “Many aspiring teachers struggle to complete their required student teaching hours due to financial hardship.”

The proposed $600 million in the budget would cover two years of stipends for all teachers seeking a credential, according to an analysis of the bill.

The Legislature would support Newsom’s $200 million to support reading instruction for K-2 teachers and $100 million for training teachers in literacy and math instruction, although that would be $400 million less than Newsom favors. The Legislature also rejected $42 million to establish a math professional learning partnership and a statewide math network.
Source link
11/06/2025
Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students

A student uses a drill press to work on an engineering project.

Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

The design of California’s higher education system has been influential for its twin goals of high-quality undergraduate education and broad access to college. Though our public universities are renowned for their research prowess, the focal point for access has been our extensive network of community colleges — now comprising 116 — offering students first- and second-year courses with the opportunity to transfer and earn a four-year degree at a university.

But for students seeking to transfer in STEM fields, that opportunity borders on illusory: While 16% of community college students nationally complete a bachelor’s degree, only 2% earn a degree in a STEM field. Misaligned math policies play a role in unnecessarily narrowing that path. Absent a coordinated statewide approach, that is unlikely to change.

It’s not just that a student seeking to transfer in, say, computer science has to take three to six semesters of math, depending on the transfer destination. Before even taking those courses, many community college students must first complete two or three math prerequisites. And, because the actual requirements may vary from campus to campus, some have to take extra courses to ensure they are eligible for junior status at more than one university.

To make matters worse, there are inconsistencies in whether four-year campuses articulate — or recognize — a given community college course. Plus, the tools available to students to navigate their options tend to be clunky and outdated. Some students have been forced to enroll at a different college to repeat an already completed math course when one of their prospective transfer campuses doesn’t accept the first college’s course.

This maze of inconsistent and opaque math requirements is among the barriers to STEM transfer identified in our recent report, “A Complex Equation: Confronting Math Barriers on the Path to STEM Transfer.” Because these barriers are often out of students’ control, it is up to institutions to fix them. But, under current state policies, the state’s higher ed systems have little apparent incentive to alleviate them and increase transfer access to some of the state’s most popular STEM majors.

In fact, it appears that at some campuses, it is not a priority to admit even those students who do clear the math hurdles and other STEM requirements, according to the California State Auditor. The education code requires universities to provide “adequate” space for transfer students — generally interpreted as meaning at least one-third of upper-division enrollments — in all “colleges or schools.” But some high-demand majors at some campuses are balanced heavily against transfer students.

In biology, for example, for academic years 2018-19 through 2022-23, only 14% of Cal State LA’s juniors and seniors were transfer students, with Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo enrolling just 12% and UC Santa Barbara 14%, the auditor found. UC Berkeley’s transfer enrollment in two highly ranked departments was even lower: 11% of enrollments in computer science and 9% in environmental science are transfer students. Many of these campuses appear to be turning away eligible students, the auditor found: For example, in 2022, Berkeley denied 95 transfer computer science applicants whose preparation was considered “best prepared” or “strongly prepared.”

Added oversight is currently the only mechanism for shifting such patterns. A legislated pilot program requires UC campuses, beginning with UCLA, to create paths to STEM transfer. But UCLA chose to focus the program on relatively low-enrollment majors — atmospheric sciences, geology, math, and environmental science — not popular ones such as biology, computer science or engineering that are already at capacity.

Barriers in articulation also prevent community college students from benefiting from pioneering instructional approaches. Take, for example, a redesigned math sequence at UCLA. The new course, which has been offered to UCLA undergraduates since 2013, covers some traditional calculus topics in the context of modeling dynamical biological systems. Students taking the innovative course earned “significantly” higher grades in subsequent STEM courses than students who took the traditional course, and their interest in the topic doubled.

The two-course sequence is the primary math requirement for UCLA’s biology undergrads. But community colleges have not been able to offer the course. Since it is not available within the CSU system or at other UC campuses, if a community college were to offer it, only students who successfully transfer to UCLA could apply it toward a life sciences degree. UCLA allows students to transfer with a traditional calculus course, but this means that transfer students are deprived of the benefits of the modernized curriculum.

Both UC and CSU can take steps to better prioritize transfer students in high-demand STEM majors, as the auditor recommends. But to set and achieve statewide goals for transfer participation and completion — including STEM-specific goals — and improve success for historically underrepresented groups requires a greater degree of coordination across all three higher education systems.

One step toward achieving that is establishing a coordinating body in line with a proposal currently circulating in Sacramento. Another is ensuring that students have up-to-date, accurate and actionable information about transfer and course articulation through modernized transfer planning tools. A third is supporting innovation in STEM education through the California Education Learning Lab.

These would be minor investments toward ensuring more efficient, transparent, and evidence-based use not only of the billions of dollars our state invests in education, but also of another precious resource: our students’ time.

•••

Pamela Burdman, Alexis Robin Hale, and Jenn BeVard work for Just Equations, a policy institute dedicated to enhancing the role of math in education equity.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

11/06/2025
Florida: College Presidencies Go to Grifters and GOP Cronies. Merit Doesn’t Count.

Scott Maxwell is an opinion columnist for The Orlando Sentinel. He tells the truth about the state’s sordid politics and backs it up with facts. Learn here how the state chooses college and university presidents.

He writes:

You probably know that Florida’s GOP politicians have taken a wrecking ball to the state’s university system. And the narrative is that they’re on a noble crusade to exorcise evil, “woke” ideology from college campuses.

But if you believe that’s the only goal here, you’ve been duped. This isn’t about politicians going after liberal doctrines nearly as much as it’s about them going after tax dollars.

They’ve turned the university system into a political spoils system where politicians with no higher-ed experience can score lucrative higher-ed jobs for themselves.

It’s been going on for a while now, but the grift was fully exposed this past week. That’s when it was revealed that one of the political has-beens fuming about diversity — as a supposed reason to deny the University of Florida presidency to a qualified applicant — had secretly made a play to try to get the $3 million-a-year job for himself.

See, you have to separate the theater from the grift. The theater was a bunch of privileged guys griping about the concept of diversity and inclusion. The grift was one of those same guys making a secretive play for the very job he was griping about.

More about that in a moment, but first, let’s remember where this all started — at New College of Florida with Richard Corcoran. Two years ago, the former House Speaker craved a fat, higher-ed paycheck. The problem was that Corcoran had as much higher-ed experience as my dead cat, Furball.

So to distract from his lack of qualifications, Corcoran fumed — about DEI, CRT and other scary-sounding acronyms. It was red meat for the trolls. And Corcoran laughed all the way to the bank. He got a $1 million deal to run a tiny college with 698 students. Elementary school principals oversee more pupils.

Then Corcoran and Co. invited other political has-beens to feed at the New College trough. They gave a former Senate president a $500-an-hour legal contract, the governor’s former spokesman a $15,000-a-month PR contract and the wife of the former Republican Party of Florida chairman $175,000 to run the school’s foundation.

With the chow bell rung, the politicians came running. Former U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska scored a $10 million deal for a short-lived and disastrous tenure at UF where the student newspaper discovered he’d quickly blown through $17 million in public money, including $38,000 he spent on a sushi bar.

Lieutenant Gov. Jeanette Nunez snagged the top spot at Florida International University. A cable-company lobbyist friendly with the administration is in line to lead FAMU.
At one college, they had to actually remove the requirement that the president have an advanced degree so that they could give the job to Fred Hawkins, a GOP legislator who lacked one.

But then this past week, the scheme was fully exposed in cringe-worthy fashion.

The scene was the Board of Governors meeting in Orlando where appointees of Gov. Ron DeSantis were once again fuming about the alleged evils of diversity and inclusion. Their reason this time was to try to deny the UF presidency to former University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono.

Somehow, a qualified candidate had actually advanced through the secretive application process — and that would not be tolerated.

So the political appointees accused Ono of all kinds of terrible things like embracing equality and believing in science. Former House Speaker Paul Renner led the anti-woke war.

But then one board member who’d apparently heard enough posturing went off-script.
Eric Silagy, the former CEO of Florida Power and Light, asked if any of his fellow board members — the ones savaging Ono for being too woke — had applied for the very job Ono was seeking.
Yes, responded board chairman Mori Hosseini. “Paul Renner.”

It turned out the very guy claiming Florida needed an anti-woke warrior in this $3 million-a-year position had been salivating over the post.
Renner became visibly enraged when exposed. He indignantly responded that he’d only inquired about the job because other people suggested he do so and that he’d since decided not to accept the high-paying job even if it was offered to him. Sure, Mr. Speaker. Your nobility is noted.

Most of the time, qualified candidates like Ono don’t even get a shot. But occasionally, well-intentioned leaders at individual schools try to give them one — as trustees at Florida Atlantic University did two years ago when they nominated Vice Admiral Sean Buck, the superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, to be FAU’s president.

That’s how these folks treat these positions.

DeSantis would later admit in a moment of surprising candor that he only supported Fine because other GOP legislators disliked Fine and wanted him gone. “They wanted to get him out of the Legislature,” DeSantis said. “So they asked me to put him up for Florida Atlantic president, and I did.”

But Buck didn’t stand a chance in this environment. DeSantis allies savaged the respected admiral’s reputation so that yet another GOP legislator, Randy Fine, could have a shot at the job.

Fine and DeSantis later had a falling out, and Fine didn’t get the gig. But the rules of the game were clear: Qualified applicants need not apply.
An irony is that former politicians actually can become impressive university leaders. Florida State University President John Thrasher, a former GOP house speaker, was one of them. I respected him. So did many others.

But Thrasher, who sadly passed away last week, was a different kind of man than the Florida politicians of today. He was a statesman — not someone willing to savage others’ reputation simply to enrich himself.

Source link

11/06/2025
Legislative analyst projects bigger funding drop for schools, community colleges

Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

The Legislative Analyst’s Office is warning superintendents and school boards working on their next year’s budget that more storm clouds are on the fiscal horizon.

In a Feb. 15 report, the LAO forecast that further erosion of state revenues will likely reduce state funding for TK-12 by an additional $7.7 billion — $5.2 billion in 2023-24 and $2.7 billion in 2025-26. That would be on top of the $13.7 billion shaving that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in his proposed budget for the current budget cycle that he released just a month ago.

When he presented the proposed state budget in January, Newsom built in a small cost-of-living increase and vowed to preserve funding commitments for schools and community colleges, but the deteriorating revenue estimates may force him to reconsider that promise when he revises the budget in May.

The California Department of Finance, which disagrees with the LAO’s financial projections for this year and next, won’t revise its budget forecast until the May revision. However, its report on January revenues, also released in mid-February, confirmed that revenues were heading in the wrong direction. Receipts from the personal income tax, the largest source of state revenue, were down $5 billion — 25% — from the $20.4 billion that the state had forecast. For the full fiscal year that started July 1, total state revenues are down $5.9 billion from a forecast of $121.5 billion.

About 40% of the revenues to the state’s general fund is directed to schools and community colleges through a 4-decade-old formula, Proposition 98.

The single biggest fiscal challenge facing Newsom and the Legislature is how to resolve a massive shortfall in Proposition 98 funding for 2022-23. Newsom and the Legislature were mostly in the dark when they passed that state budget based on a revenue estimate in June 2022. Because of storms and floods the previous winter, the U.S. Treasury delayed the tax filing date for 2022 from April 15 to Nov. 16. Thus, officials lacked reliable data, and it turned out they were way off. The shortfall for Proposition 98 was $12 billion.

Because school districts have already spent that money, Newsom is proposing to hold them and community colleges harmless without counting the overfunding as part of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. In a trailer bill that his administration released, he calls for a one-time $9 billion supplemental payment that, due to the unique, delayed tax deadline, would be paid from the general fund, not out of current or future funding for Proposition 98. It would be repaid over five years, starting in 2025-26.

Opposition of the Legislative Analysts’s Office

The LAO is skeptical of the legality and wisdom of pushing off the solution for the 2022-23 deficit into the future; it’s recommending the Legislature reject the ideas and instead use the $9 billion cushion in the Proposition 98 reserve account to cover the shortfall.

“The Governor’s proposed funding maneuver is bad fiscal policy, sets a problematic precedent, and creates a binding obligation on the state that will worsen future deficits and require more difficult decisions,” it said in a report issued last week.

It recommends balancing the budget by cutting billions of uncommitted dollars for new programs, the largest of which is $2.8 billion for creating more community schools; eliminating the $1 billion cost-of-living adjustment for the Local Control Funding Formula; cutting $500 million for low-emissions school buses and reducing costs and restructuring other programs. One is the Expanded Learning and Opportunities Program, which provides free after-school activities for low-income students.

Newsom would use $5 billion of the Proposition 98 rainy-day fund to cover the budget shortfall this year and next while paying for the 1% cost-of-living adjustment next year. That would leave $4 billion in the reserve to cover at least part of a bigger deficit that the LAO is predicting.

Lurking in the background is the option of deferrals — issuing IOUs for funding that would be repaid in subsequent years. That tactic was used extensively after the Great Recession when state revenues plunged. It requires that districts and charter schools borrow short-term to cover the delay in state funding.

School advocates clearly prefer Newsom’s approach and are critical of the LAO’s recommendations, although they aren’t ready to suggest further cuts if revenues remain slow.

“We don’t want to start negotiating with ourselves over which programs to cut, but need to be prepared for a challenging budget if revenues do not rebound in the second half of this fiscal year,” Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consultancy, wrote in a letter to his clients last week.

Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators, criticized the LAO and called on Newsom and legislators to protect their investments in schools.

“The LAO’s recommendations in response to the fiscal picture are potentially devastating to schools and especially students,” he said. “The programs that could be impacted are good for students, and we’ll be urging the Legislature and governor to do everything to protect California students.”

Source link

11/06/2025