Apodaca: A close look at Newsom’s public schools’ spending plan reveals problems

At first glance, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed spending plan for 2026-2027 looks like good news for California’s public schools, as it calls for an increase in education spending and “record per-pupil funding,” thanks to stronger-than-expected state revenues.

But first impressions can be deceptive. A closer look reveals big problems for public school finances. Even if the state revenue projections included in the proposed budget are accurate — emphasis on the “if” — the outlook going forward is far from rosy.

Under Proposition 98, the voter-approved formula, when state funding rises so must funding for public schools. Anticipating budget shortfalls in the years ahead, however, Newsom proposed delaying $5.6 billion of the total that, according to the formula, would be owed to public schools and community colleges for the upcoming year, a much higher number than the $1.9 billion that was deferred from the previous year.

Notably, the proposed budget does include some funds for block grants intended to help schools with various challenges, and a cost-of-living adjustment for schools with large numbers of needy students. Also worth noting is that this is just the first step in a months-long process, so the final budget could look quite different. Uncertainty runs at high levels these days.

All the budget finagling can get confusing and frustrating for those of us in the general public who wonder why it’s so darn hard to come up with a means of providing schools with more consistent and predictable funding.

The way things stand now, our beleaguered public schools will continue to be whipsawed by forces largely beyond their control. What’s more, this is occurring at a time when they are under enormous pressure to improve academic achievement.

I reached out to Dr. Stefan Bean, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, who provided some perspective:

“At the end of the day, budgets are really about people,” he stated. “They shape what students experience in classrooms and the supports families can count on. Our role is to help districts plan in a way that keeps those experiences strong and stable, even as fiscal conditions change.”

Yet the “strong and stable” part is immensely difficult when funding levels fluctuate, sometimes significantly, year-to-year.

As Ian Hanigan, spokesperson for the Orange County Department of Education, noted, “districts are weighing decisions such as how many ongoing staff positions they can sustainably support, how quickly to expand or scale back programs, and how to use one-time funds without creating long-term obligations.

“That often means distinguishing between investments that are temporary by design — such as short-term academic recovery efforts — and those that carry permanent costs, like staffing, facilities, or benefits.”

Already, some districts are sounding the alarm, including our huge neighbor just to the north, Los Angeles Unified, which warned that job cuts are on the table. Other districts are reportedly also looking at staff reductions, and are scaling back programs they can no longer afford. Many have closed campuses recently, and more closures are likely to be announced.

In part that’s because of rising costs that often outpace cost-of-living adjustments. But these tough choices are also being made against a backdrop of other concerning developments and trends.

Among those worrisome trends is a general pattern of declining enrollment. Lower birth rates, higher housing costs and other factors, including growing competition for students from private schools, are driving this decline. And it’s bound to get worse, given demographic projections and the federal government’s support for voucher programs that allow public funds to be used to pay for private school tuition.

This point is crucial because in California, most school districts receive state funds based on the number of students. (An exception to this would be the small proportion of basic-aid districts, such as Newport-Mesa Unified, which derive most of their funding from local property taxes.) So when enrollment falls, so do allocations to those districts, even though the major share of their budgets goes toward fixed costs.

Thus, we see lots of crunched budgets destined for more squeezing.

Political wrangling over federal funding for public education is another constant source of concern.

Aside from unusual circumstances such as increased funding during the pandemic, the federal government typically provides only about 6% of California’s public education funds. Still, even though it’s just a small share of the total, it’s an important source of continued support.

Some of that was put at risk, however, by the Trump Administration’s insistence that schools drop programs and practices that it labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). It threatened to end their federal funding if they didn’t comply. After a federal court ruled against it, the administration recently dropped its appeal.

So that battle has subsided. For now.

It would be understandable, though, if district administrators responsible for setting budgets remain nervous over the prospect of continuing political pressure potentially jeopardizing funding sources.

The goal of budgetary planning by school districts, Hanigan told me, “is stability over time.”

A worthy goal, though near-impossible given the unstable foundations school funding sit upon. I’d suggest a line item for antacids and deep-breathing lessons. But who am I kidding? No one can afford those right now.