Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay
Lessons in higher education: What California can learn
Keeping California public university options open
Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away
The debt to degree connection
College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life
Reflecting a further erosion in state revenues, Gov. Gavin Newsom is budgeting $2 billion less for TK-12 and community colleges for the coming fiscal year than he proposed five months ago.
In his May budget revision for 2023-24, which Newsom presented Friday, school districts and community colleges would receive $106.8 billion through Proposition 98, the formula that determines the portion of the state’s general fund that goes to education. That’s nearly $4 billion less than the record $110.4 billion the Legislature approved two years ago.
Responding to a top priority of school districts and community colleges, Newsom said he would fund the full 8.2% cost of living adjustment, fulfilling a promise he made in January. But the tradeoff to TK-12 for balancing the budget with less revenue would be to claw back billions of dollars from multiyear one-time funding that the Legislature approved last June.
These include an additional $2.5 billion from a $7.9 billion learning recovery block grant and $1.8 blllion — about half — of the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Block Grant, which districts can use for other purposes, too. Department of Finance officials said that they expect that school districts would have funding they planned for outlying years but not yet used.
Newsom noted that the nearly $1 billion dedicated to arts instruction, which voters approved by passing Proposition 28 in November, will offset that cut.
Newsom said his advisers recommended the cut to the learning recovery grant in order to maintain funding for other initiatives, including $4 billion to establish community schools and $1.5 billion to provide universal school lunches and breakfasts. The latter will receive an additional $300 million over two years in response to rising needs. School districts also have billions of dollars in uncommitted federal Covid assistance, which they can use through September 2024.
Newsom does not propose using the state’s rainy day fund to fix the deficit. Paradoxically, the separate state Public School System Stabilization Account for TK-12 and community colleges is projected to rise $2.2 billion to $10.7 billion because of projected increases in capital gains receipts.
Under the complex formula for Prop. 98, TK-12 and community colleges will receive 38.5% of the state’s General Fund in 2023-24.
Because the Department of Finance is assuming a 3-year average decline in attendance statewide of 3.1%, the average per student funding would actually rise to a record $17,444, according to the state.
However, since most districts are experiencing enrollment declines, they can count on less overall funding.
Newsom’s budget, which includes a $31 billion shortfall in the $224 billion general fund, is a best-case scenario in a period of economic uncertainty. It does not predict a recession and could quickly deteriorate if Congress does not reach a compromise to raise the ceiling on the national debt. A moderate recession could lead to a decrease in revenues by $40 billion in 2023-24 and $100 billion over three years, driven largely by losses in personal income tax, the budget summary said. Further complicating planning for the next 14 months is the suspension of the deadline for 2022 income tax payments until October, because of the impact of winter storms and flooding.
“We’re going into a budget the way we’ve never gone into a budget before,” Newsom said.
Initial reactions to the budget were positive.
“We are thrilled to see the Governor’s continued commitment to transforming education, specifically in the ways that county offices of education provide support to districts and their own students,” said Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs for the California County Superintendents. “More broadly, this budget is all about protecting the whole child programs targeted towards our lowest performing and most vulnerable students. We give the Governor full credit, and our appreciation, for that effort.”
“This was the best bad year for a May revision I have seen for public schools,” Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting company based in Sacramento. “The governor is making an extended effort to protect education. The midyear cuts in one-time money could be rough for those that have counted on them, but the alternatives could be uglier. The governor is not undermining COLA or permanent programs. Given difficult choices, it’s a good budget.”
Among the few programs that would receive more, not less, money next year, the governor is proposing an increase of $20 million to renew and extend the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program until 2028. Under this program, county offices of education and school districts offered college-level courses to prepare teachers to work in bilingual classrooms. Since the program expired in 2021, bilingual education advocates and district leaders have been calling for its renewal to help fill the large shortage of bilingual teachers.
Other proposals include:
Dyslexia screening: Newsom’s revised budget also appears to strike a compromise on the debate over whether to screen children for dyslexia, a reading disorder with which the governor himself struggles. The budget includes $1 million for a panel to choose a dyslexia screening tool that school districts would be required to give to children in kindergarten through second grade, beginning in 2025-26. Senate Bill 691, currently winding its way through the Legislature, would require dyslexia screening a year earlier.
California is one of 10 states that has not required screening children for potential learning disabilities. Newsom had been criticized for not making it mandatory (go here for accompanying story).
“Equity multiplier”: Newsom plans to move ahead with $300 million in additional funding to address learning needs in the highest poverty schools. Funding for the “equity multiplier” would be part of a wider reform of the Local Control Funding Formula that would require all schools and school districts to address learning disparities of each low-performing student group in their three-year planning document, the Local Control and Accountability Plan. They would use their existing $13.6 billion in “supplemental” and “concentration” funding under LCFF for this purpose. The state budget would fund $2 million for “equity leads” at county offices of education to prioritize assistance for high-poverty “equity multiplier”schools.
During a news conference, Newsom brushed aside criticism from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which called on increasing transparency rather than spending: “I think we do need more money in this space.”
Some critics claim that Newsom’s plan doesn’t specifically address the needs of Black students in California. Newsom points to the support his plan has in both the Black Legislative Caucus and with Assemblymember Akilah Weber, D-La Mesa, who originally proposed funding targeted at Black students.
“I take (these systemic issues) very seriously, and I’m very mindful of the totality of the need, which far exceeds this current proposal,” he said.
The budget noted that while 47% of all students met standards in English language arts in 2021-22, only 30.3% of African American students met or exceeded standards; in math, the disparity was equally wide: 33.4% of students overall met standards compared with only 15.9% of Black students.
“We were pleased to see the ongoing commitment to improving the equity promise of LCFF with a $300 million equity multiplier and a greater focus on low-student performance and teacher quality disparities at school sites,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney and director of education equity at Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm. “We look forward to working with the administration to more effectively target the equity multiplier funds to the lowest-performing students.”
Child care: Amid the ongoing child care crisis, a long-standing problem worsened by the pandemic, many families can’t afford the skyrocketing cost of care, while many child care workers can’t survive on their pay. In response, the governor is proposing extending the existing waiver on family fees, the money that low-income families pay toward the cost of subsidized care, until Sept. 30. Many child advocates, however, were hoping for a more permanent fix on saddling struggling families with fees.“We are pleased that “family fees” — the money that families who receive child care subsidies must pay out of pocket — have been waived,” said Gina Fromer, president and CEO of Children’s Council of San Francisco. “But we need to work towards the goal of eliminating these fees altogether.”
The Legislature has proposed a roughly 25% raise in the reimbursement rate to child care centers to care for low-income families; it is currently pegged to the 2016 market cost. The governor is proposing to extend only the 8.2% cost-of-living adjustment to the centers. Child advocates were disappointed that the governor didn’t provide more.
“Families with young children and providers are continuously being asked to wait and sacrifice, and businesses continue to struggle to find workers,” said Stacy Hae Lim Lee, senior managing director for early childhood at Children Now, an advocacy group. “Child care is essential for getting people back to work and ensuring children do not fall behind.”
Transitional kindergarten: Parents have been slow to enroll children in TK, which serves 4-year-olds who turn 5, and the state has been slow to fund upgraded facilities needed to offer the program. Some parents are also citing a lack of after-school care beyond a half-day program for their reluctance to participate.
The state is rolling out the program over four years, starting this year. Because of declining projections, the state is cutting funding for the current year from $609 million to $337 million and paring back next year’s funding by $100 million, to about $600 million.
After-school, summer programs: Two years ago, the Legislature included $4 billion in ongoing funding for two hours of after-school and six weeks of summer programs for elementary grades, with penalties to districts that failed to offer them to low-income students, English learners and children in foster care. Recognizing that districts have had post-Covid difficulties setting up the programs, the administration would waive the penalties for two years and extend the deadline for spending the money to June 30, 2024.
EdSource reporters Karen D’Souza, Carolyn Jones, Ali Tadayon, Emma Gallegos, Zaidee Stavely and Michael Burke contributed to this article.
Legislation that would remove one of the last tests teachers are required to take to earn a credential in California passed the Senate Education Committee.
Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track and at a lower pay rate, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
A bill to mandate use of the method will not advance in the Legislature this year in the face of teachers union opposition.
Nearly a third of the 930 districts statewide that reported data had a higher rate of chronic absenteeism in 2022-23 than the year before.
Comments (1)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Cintya 11 months ago11 months ago
Again. No mention of support for disabled students. All that you list here, and a lot more that you don’t, concerns them. As parents or caregivers of disabled children, it is painful to witness how our children, in all of their diversity, are abandoned in educational discourse and practice. You are doing it here as well.