The money is guaranteed under Proposition 98, the constitutional education funding formula approved by California voters in 1988. While the funds are supposed to eventually reach schools, Newsom and legislative leaders opted to delay the payment as part of a broader effort to close a significant budget shortfall when they finalized the spending plan in June.

“We are filing a lawsuit to demand the protection of Prop 98,” CTA President David Goldberg said in a statement announcing the legal action. “We are demanding a return of the funds that have been withheld so that our students and communities can be saved from yet another year of devastating educator layoffs and unnecessary cuts.”

Proposition 98 established the state budget as the main funding source for California’s public schools, reducing reliance on local property taxes. It represents the single largest category of state spending, and over the years, governors and lawmakers have found ways to temporarily divert or delay these dollars when the budget doesn’t balance.

The union’s lawsuit also targets an earlier round of withheld education funding — $1.9 billion from the prior budget year that was eventually repaid, but only after a full year’s delay.

California has wrestled with consecutive budget deficits over the past four years, totaling roughly $125 billion, according to Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek. To manage the shortfalls, the state has built up what Petek has described as a mounting “wall of debt.”

Even though overall funding for schools — both state and local — has climbed substantially in recent years, many districts across California continue to struggle financially. Rising personnel costs and shrinking enrollment, which directly affects how much state aid a district receives, have combined to squeeze school budgets even as top-line funding numbers grow.

The timing of the CTA’s lawsuit this week happened to coincide with two other reports raising fresh questions about how the state is spending public money.

A CalMatters investigation by reporter Yue Stella Yu uncovered a long list of budget line items — inserted quietly at individual lawmakers’ requests and passed swiftly just before the Legislature wrapped up its session — that funneled money toward local pet projects with little public scrutiny.

Among them: $29 million to renovate a gymnasium at a Santa Barbara-area college located in the district of Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, $13 million for a farmers market and food innovation center in affluent Marin County, where Newsom resides, and $3 million to upgrade the ballpark used by the San Jose Giants minor league team in Santa Clara County.

In total, these earmarks — inserted with minimal explanation and almost no public notice — amounted to $1.3 billion. Notably, a disproportionate share of the money flowed to some of the state’s wealthiest communities, including Marin County and Santa Barbara, while many lower-income areas saw their funding requests passed over.

Separately, another CalMatters report by Yu and reporter Juliet Williams detailed findings from the High-Speed Rail Authority’s inspector general, who identified nearly $600,000 in questionable travel expenses racked up over a two-year span. The spending reportedly included trips to gyms, a nightclub, an escape room, a tiki bar and a cigar lounge — expenditures the report said had no clear connection to official state business.

“Paying for travel when it is not necessary or when it exceeds what is allowed by state regulations or the contract terms is waste of public funds and is behavior inconsistent with the Authority’s role as the steward of public resources,” investigators wrote.

It’s worth remembering that the rail authority, whose board members are appointed by the governor, is overseeing a multibillion-dollar bullet train project that remains far from finished, with cost estimates that have ballooned well beyond original projections.

Taken together, these three stories — surfacing within days of each other purely by chance — paint an uncomfortable picture: state leaders are holding back money meant for California’s schoolchildren even as taxpayer funds flow toward pet projects and travel expenses with little oversight.

In political circles, there’s a term for that kind of contrast. They call it bad optics.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom, Lawmakers Delay School Funding Amid Questions Over State Spending Priorities appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District who helped write Proposition 28, praised the resolution.

“I’m delighted to come to an agreement that will further arts education for kids in California,” Beutner said.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 2440, is meant to smooth out some of the ambiguities in Prop. 28, the 2022 ballot measure that dedicated roughly $1 billion annually to music, theater, dance and visual arts programs in California’s public schools. Under the law, districts must use the money to add new arts programming rather than simply replace what they already fund. But uncertainty over how to interpret those rules has left many school systems wary — and, in some cases, has led dozens of districts to hand the unused arts money back to the state rather than risk running afoul of the law.

That fear was well-founded for Los Angeles Unified, which Beutner sued last year, alleging the district eliminated existing arts programs and used Prop. 28 dollars to quietly replace them. The district has denied wrongdoing, and the lawsuit remains pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Clearing Up the Confusion

Authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, AB 2440 attempts to ease districts’ anxiety by bringing Prop. 28 into closer alignment with the state’s broader arts education framework. The bill would establish a clearer, standardized definition of what officially counts as an arts class.

It would also give schools explicit permission to pool their Prop. 28 dollars across sites, allowing them to share arts instructors and other resources more efficiently. Additionally, the bill tackles a longstanding gray area: whether contributions from outside groups such as booster clubs or nonprofit arts organizations should be counted toward a school’s baseline arts spending.

Beutner initially opposed the measure, arguing it would weaken Prop. 28 by giving districts too much freedom in how they allocate the money — freedom he worried some schools would use to quietly replace, rather than expand, their arts offerings. His objection nearly stalled the bill’s progress. But after CalMatters and other news organizations reported on the issue, Beutner and the bill’s backers found common ground.

The revised legislation now includes language requiring that “the local education agency shall certify that all provisions of (Proposition 28) have been implemented at each of its school sites” — a addition that ultimately satisfied Beutner’s concerns.

“More Art” for Students

Beutner dropped his opposition in mid-August once that certification requirement was added.

“My hope is that this causes districts to further reflect on whether they’re in compliance with Prop. 28,” he said. “I’m delighted we were able to collaborate on this.”

The bill went on to pass unanimously.

Kyle Holmes, director of statewide arts initiatives for California County Superintendents — one of the bill’s strongest supporters — said he was pleased to see it advance.

“For kids, this will mean more art,” Holmes said. “That’s the heart of this bill: making sure schools have better access to Prop. 28 funds, giving schools the clarity they need to get funding to students.”

Even with the legislative fix, Prop. 28 still faces significant hurdles — chief among them, a shortage of qualified arts teachers. Many districts have struggled for six months or longer to fill vacant arts positions, unable to find enough credentialed educators to meet demand. A recent study by the Stanford Research Institute estimated California is short roughly 5,000 arts teachers statewide.

“We’re seeing more and more colleges offering credential programs for the arts,” Holmes said. “But more young people need to know that if you’re interested in teaching the arts, there’s a clear pathway to a high-paying career.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Schools Are Stockpiling Arts Funding — A New Law Could Force Them to Spend It appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Over the past several decades, as ideological battles, union influence and administrative infighting have increasingly dominated school district operations statewide, student achievement has steadily eroded. Whether that’s coincidence or consequence is debatable, but there’s little doubt that many California districts have become battlegrounds for power struggles that distract from their core mission: preparing children for the future.

Few examples illustrate this better than Sacramento City Unified, a district based in the heart of the state’s political power center that has teetered on the edge of financial collapse for years. The root cause, critics say, is simple — a pattern of spending beyond its means, enabled by a school board closely aligned with the Sacramento City Teachers Association.

That alignment isn’t speculation — it’s a point of pride for the union. After the 2024 school board elections, the SCTA touted on its website that it had “flexed its powerful organizing and political muscles” to elect four favored candidates, declaring that every sitting board member now owes their seat to local educators who worked to get them elected.

Yet that political dominance hasn’t translated into fiscal discipline. If anything, the district’s financial troubles have worsened, driven largely by falling enrollment and attendance — both key factors in determining state funding. Once serving more than 41,000 students a decade ago, the district now enrolls roughly 36,000, even though its facilities were built to accommodate more than 50,000.

The latest crisis fits a familiar pattern. Facing the possibility of running out of cash by next spring, the district has proposed a $98 million rescue plan that includes shifting $68 million from its retiree health care trust fund to cover the shortfall.

That plan has drawn sharp criticism from Luz Cázares, a fiscal adviser appointed by Sacramento County Superintendent of Schools David Gordon, who argues the move would only delay an inevitable financial collapse rather than solve it. Gordon and Michael Fine, head of the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, share her concerns.

Their oversight role is meant to ensure fiscal accountability, but the district’s administration, school board and labor unions have pushed back, seeking help from state schools chief Tony Thurmond to override Gordon and Fine’s objections.

Thurmond has expressed support for the district’s position, though he has yet to take formal action. Meanwhile, the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association made a last-minute push during the final hours of this year’s legislative session to limit Thurmond’s authority to intervene — an effort that ultimately failed, unsurprising given the influence the California Teachers Association continues to wield in Sacramento’s political circles.

Thurmond’s involvement raises its own questions. A former state legislator rather than a career educator, he was elected to his post eight years ago with strong union backing and made a short-lived run for governor earlier this year. With his term set to expire in just a few months, some observers note that his support for the district’s position could serve him well as he looks toward his next career move.

If local leaders cannot resolve the financial mess on their own, Sacramento City Unified could follow the path of other struggling California districts and turn to the state for a bailout — a move that would likely come with the appointment of an outside administrator to oversee its finances.

Given the district’s long history of financial mismanagement, such oversight might ultimately serve everyone’s interests — especially the thousands of students who have too often become bystanders in disputes driven by adult politics rather than their own education.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Sacramento School District’s Money Woes Reflect Deeper Problem: Education Caught in Political Crossfire appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At Pinedale Elementary School in Fresno, classroom aides are limited, after-school tutoring is scarce, and behavioral counseling and enrichment programs are difficult to provide. Parent workshops, literacy events and field trips are limited as well. The school spends about $16,700 per student each year, nearly $5,000 below the statewide average.

Less than two miles away, Kratt Elementary serves a student body with similar demographics — largely low-income and Latino — but receives about $25,000 per student. Farther west, in the affluent Bay Area community of Portola Valley, an elementary school spends nearly $46,000 per student annually and offers smaller classes, arts and music programs, mental health support and modern facilities.

The differences stem from the way California funds public schools. Districts with high concentrations of students who are low-income, English learners, homeless or in foster care receive additional state money under the Local Control Funding Formula. Wealthier districts often receive less state support but can rely on high property tax revenue and large parent donations. Districts that fall between those categories can end up with far less overall funding.

“When I saw what other schools provide, I was like, what?” said Tania Galeana-King, a mother of three and longtime parent volunteer at Pinedale. “As a parent, it’s really frustrating. I’ve heard of No Child Left Behind, but this is like half the kids left behind.”

California adopted the Local Control Funding Formula more than a decade ago to direct more money to students with the greatest needs. The formula provides a base grant for all districts, then adds supplemental funding based on the share of students facing economic, language or foster care challenges. Districts where more than 55% of students fall into those categories receive still more money.

But rising costs, declining enrollment and inflation have created new pressure points. Districts with many high-needs students receive added support, and wealthy “basic aid” districts can rely heavily on local property taxes. Districts with moderate numbers of high-needs students often receive less extra state funding while lacking the property tax wealth of affluent communities.

That is the situation for Clovis Unified, where Pinedale Elementary is located. Just under half of the district’s students are considered high-needs, meaning the district receives relatively little additional funding. Kratt Elementary, by contrast, is part of Fresno Unified, which qualifies for significantly more funding because of its higher concentration of high-needs students.

The disparities are reflected in academic results. At Pinedale, fewer than 30% of students met the state standard in English language arts last year, and 23.5% met the math standard. Kratt students scored about 5 to 10 percentage points higher on both exams. At Portola Valley Elementary, roughly 85% of students met standards in both subjects.

Michael Johnston, associate superintendent at Clovis Unified, said the funding problem has become increasingly urgent.

“For many, many years, these kids have not gotten the same resources, and every year that goes by, it gets worse,” Johnston said. “It’s a group of students we are not treating fairly, and there needs to be a solution.”

Lawmakers in Sacramento are considering several proposals aimed at addressing the imbalance.

State Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, has introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, which would create a reserve account funded by surplus tax revenues during strong economic years. After the state allocates school funding through Proposition 98, interest generated by the reserve fund would be used to provide extra money to districts that are not basic aid districts.

Cortese, whose district includes several basic aid districts, said the proposal is meant to prevent funding gaps from widening further.

“If we do nothing, the problem is just going to get worse and worse,” he said.

Because the proposal would amend the California Constitution, it would require approval from the Legislature before going to voters on the fall ballot.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised budget also seeks to boost school funding by adding nearly $1 billion to base grants. The Association of California School Administrators supports increasing the base grant, though officials say the proposed amount would not fully solve the problem.

Naj Alikhan, a spokesperson for the association, said raising the base grant would give school districts more financial stability and flexibility to meet local needs.

Another proposal, Assembly Bill 1204 by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, would expand funding for high-needs students. Some district leaders, however, are concerned that directing more money to districts with the highest concentrations of need — without raising the base grant — could deepen shortages for schools already struggling to cover basic programs.

David Roth, superintendent of Buckeye Union Elementary School District in El Dorado County, is among those pressing the state to increase base funding. He has helped organize a campaign called Raise the Base, which tracks funding disparities among California school districts. About 25 parent organizations and 60 small and mid-sized districts have joined the effort, including Murrieta Valley Unified in southwest Riverside County, along with Clovis Unified, Fremont Unified and San Ramon Valley Unified.

Roth said he supports additional funding for students with greater needs, but believes the foundation of school funding has fallen too far behind rising costs.

“The base grant has not kept up with escalating costs, and districts are falling further and further behind,” he said.

Buckeye receives about $15,100 per student, well below the state average of roughly $21,000. Roth said the district includes both affluent neighborhoods and areas of poverty, but its low per-student funding threatens programs that serve all children. Without more state support, he expects the district may have to cut physical education, libraries, counseling and music in the coming years.

“In my mind, these are the basics,” Roth said.

At Pinedale Elementary, Galeana-King has seen the funding challenges up close. She has been part of the school community for 15 years, and all three of her sons attended the campus. She volunteers in classrooms and helps with the parent club, which raises several thousand dollars a year through snack sales, a salsa festival, a jog-a-thon and other events.

Fundraising is difficult in a working-class neighborhood where many parents are juggling multiple jobs. Galeana-King said families want to help, but many are struggling themselves.

Teachers often spend their own money on classroom supplies. The parent club helps where it can, paying for items such as chess boards and a second-grade field trip to Monterey. But parents say the list of needs is much longer: classroom snacks, sports equipment, backpacks and other basic supports.

Galeana-King said she remains proud of the school and the staff members who care for its students, even as she worries about what the campus lacks.

“It might not always have the most financial resources,” she said, “but it has a school full of people who deeply care about and love the kids.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Why California School Funding Varies So Widely Across Districts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.