Nowadays, if you walk by practically any public school in California, everything appears to be relatively normal. Teachers setting up, children arriving, the quiet buzz of a typical morning. However, the atmosphere in district budget offices is more akin to controlled panic. Spreadsheets are being run again. Plans for contingencies are being completed. Additionally, the question that looms over more than 2,000 teachers in the state this summer is whether they will still be employed in September rather than curriculum or lesson plans.
Although Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has been careful to frame his revised budget around record-breaking figures, such as $127.1 billion in Proposition 98 funding and a per-pupil figure rising to $21,013, the struggle beneath those headlines is far more complicated. Education organizations contend that Newsom has no right to keep $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school funding. He has received strong opposition from the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, two groups that hardly ever agree on anything. Lawsuits are being threatened by both.
There’s a feeling in Sacramento that what’s really taking place here is a well-known California tactic, which is politically justifiable, legally sound, and extremely detrimental to educational institutions. The main method entails reclassifying $8.8 billion in previous state aid overpayments as an off-the-books loan, effectively removing it from the current budget calculation. The state would withdraw $8.5 billion from a special education reserve fund at the same time. This strategy is “bad fiscal policy” that will “worsen out-year deficits and require more difficult decisions.” That’s about as straightforward as budget language gets, according to Gabe Petek, the Legislature’s own budget analyst.
What truly vanishes when districts begin making cuts is lost in the accounting gymnastics. It is seldom what appears in press releases. Three schools were covered by the reading specialist. the Thursday after-school program that kept a specific set of children off the streets. Every student in the special education wing was known by name by the paraprofessional. When they disappear, these are not line items that cause press conferences. Without any official notice, they simply cease to exist, leaving the students who most needed them to bear the loss.
The conflict over school funding in California has existed since the 1970s, when courts mandated equalization due to property tax disparities that severely underfunded impoverished districts. In 1978, Proposition 13 completely disrupted local funding, and in 1988, Proposition 98 was intended to establish a stable floor. Yes, it made a floor. However, it also led to decades of legal battles, inventive interpretations, and almost ritualistic budget-season brinksmanship. The same argument appears in a new form with each significant deficit. Technically, the money is there—until it isn’t.
David Goldberg, president of the CTA, described Newsom’s action as “an outright assault on public school funding.” Unions negotiate loudly, so it’s possible that some of that strong language is strategic. However, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that 2,000 educators are facing permanent layoff notices, which goes beyond rhetorical posturing. These are actual jobs, actual classrooms, and actual kids seated in front of the remaining people.
For his part, Newsom cited a more comprehensive ledger. An investment of seven years. kindergarten that is in transition. neighborhood schools. He said that other states would be jealous of the record per-pupil spending amount. He’s not wholly incorrect. Funding for schools in California has generally been increasing. The question of whether that justifies the current strategy is a completely different one, and it may ultimately be resolved in court rather than in Sacramento.
