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
Gov. Gavin Newsom would protect schools and community colleges from the brunt of an $11.3 billion projected drop in state revenue for education, under a proposed 2024-25 state budget he released on Wednesday. The budget calls for covering all current levels of funding and existing commitments for new and expanded programs, plus a less than 1% cost-of-living increase for next year.
The three-year decline in revenue, both for schools and the overall $38.7 billion in the state general fund, is $30 billion less than the Legislative Analyst’s Office had projected a month ago, easing the burden of balancing the budget and avoiding the possibility of drastic budget cuts or late payments — at least for community colleges and TK-12.
However, Newsom is proposing to defer the promised 5% increases in revenue to both the University of California and California State University systems. UC and CSU would borrow that funding this year and get reimbursed in next year’s budget.
“We are deferring but not delaying, and there’s a distinction in the law that will allow UC and CSU just for one year to be able to borrow against that commitment,” Newsom said.
Newsom would protect schools and community colleges by withdrawing about $7 billion from the $10.8 billion TK-14 rainy day fund to cover the current year’s shortfall and meet the minimum obligation in 2024-25. The state would not seek reimbursement for what turned out to be funding above the minimum Proposition 98 statutory obligation for the prior two years.
Proposition 98 is the funding formula determining the portion of the state’s general fund that must be spent on TK-12 and community colleges. With the addition of transitional kindergarten, that share will rise about one percentage point to 39.5% of the general fund. In 2024-25, Proposition 98 funds will be $109.1 billion. That would be about $3.5 billion more than the revised projection for 2023-24, reflecting expectations of improved state revenues in the next fiscal year.
The Legislature was handicapped when it passed the 2023-24 budget last June. There were indications but no hard numbers that economic conditions were worsening, because the deadline for paying state and federal income taxes had been extended from April 15 to Oct. 16 in response to massive flooding last winter. As it turned out, state revenues had fallen sharply from slower home sales, a drop in new startups in Silicon Valley, and declining income of the top 1% of earners, who contribute 50% of the personal income tax receipts.
But with the stock market rebounding since then, Newsom said more optimistic revenue projections for next year and savings in state government operations would account for two-thirds of the difference between the state Department of Finance revenue projections and the legislative analyst’s forecast. A remedy for dealing with a two-year, $10-plus billion drop in Proposition 98 funding would account for the rest of the disparity. In a news conference, Newsom chided the “ready, fire, aim” projections of the news media and others for assuming a more dire financial outlook without the latest data.
Many districts, nonetheless, will face financial stress. More than two-thirds are facing declining enrollment, which will lower their share of state funding. And the 1% inflation adjustment for 2024-25 will not cover cost increases and, for some districts, negotiated staff raises. Districts are receiving an 8% cost-of-living adjustment this year, down from a 13% bump in 2022-23.
Newsom’s January budget will now undergo six months of negotiations with the Legislature over their priorities. Revenue updates by June will reveal whether his optimism will hold up, and what the Legislature must do if it doesn’t.
Newsom reiterated that the state would uphold its education commitments to schools using record post-Covid revenues. These include the addition of transitional kindergarten and appropriating $8 billion combined to create community schools and add summer programs and after-school hours for low-income students. These would continue to be funded at promised levels.
Also surviving is an additional $300 million for the state’s poorest schools. The governor said that this proposal, known as an “equity multiplier,” is also a high priority by the California Legislative Black Caucus. Another priority that Newsom mentioned is funding for the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.
“In the face of a large deficit, it’s reassuring that the governor committed to maintaining his transformative investments in education, including community schools, universal TK, and the equity multiplier,” said John Affeldt, managing attorney for the student advocacy nonprofit Public Advocates. “That the governor particularly called them out with a ‘don’t touch’ message to the Legislature indicates he’ll fight hard to maintain them.”
Despite $6 billion in one-time state funding for post-pandemic learning recovery, chronic absences soared to 30% in 2022-23 and remained high last year. Statewide post-pandemic test scores also plummeted in math and English language arts in 2022-23 statewide and almost remained flat last year.
Recognizing that students can’t learn when they aren’t in school, Newsom is proposing changes in the law that will allow school districts to provide attendance recovery programs in response to chronic absences and loss in learning because of floods, wildfires and other climate conditions. Districts, in turn, would benefit from offsetting revenues lost from student absences. The new law would specify that districts could fund Saturday programs and intercessions to respond to students with many absences.
Districts would be required to offer students access to remote instruction, including enabling families to enroll in neighboring districts “for emergencies” lasting five or more days. A budget trailer bill will spell out details, including whether students could seek tutoring under this option.
The budget calls for $6 million to research hybrid and remote learning and develop new models.
“We have to use the experiences of recent years to think forward for ensuring that kids can gain access to the learning and instructional opportunities that they deserve,” said Hedy Chang, founder and executive director of Attendance Works, a group that tracks chronic absenteeism.
Newsom also proposes to relax some requirements to become a teacher, due to a persistent teacher shortage. Teacher candidates will no longer have to take a test or coursework to prove they have the basic skills to earn a credential, according to the state summary of the budget. The state will now recognize completion of a bachelor’s degree as satisfying the basic-skills requirement.
Currently, teacher candidates must pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test, a combination of other tests, or complete specific coursework to prove they have the basic skills to teach. The CBEST tests reading, math and writing skills and is usually taken before a student is accepted into a teacher preparation program.
The governor’s budget calls for streamlining the process of credentialing aspiring arts teachers in response to the passage of Proposition 28, the groundbreaking arts education initiative. It directs the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to create a new Elementary Arts and Music Education authorization for career technical education teachers. This pathway currently only exists for secondary education, and many arts education advocates have pressed to expand it to elementary school classrooms.
“Governor Newsom’s proposal is an important step in the right direction,” said Austin Beutner, the former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, who authored Proposition 28. “The money from Prop 28 is the enabler, but students will only benefit when schools use it to hire great arts teachers in all grade levels.”
The budget summary also refers to several other proposals that will make it easier to become a teacher, although it offered no additional details about those proposals.
The budget proposal also includes:
The budget contains good and bad news for districts seeking immediate funding for facilities. Newsom would reduce the General Fund by delaying $550 million for new and retrofitted facilities for adding transitional kindergarten. And he proposes to cut $500 million he committed to the state School Facilities Program, which has run out of state funding. However, Newsom committed to negotiate a multibillion-dollar school facilities bond with the Legislature for the November 2024 ballot.
Questions on the size of the bond needed to win voter support and whether it should include higher education must be answered, Newsom said. “All that’s being worked on, but a real issue to address is that we’ve exhausted the previous bond, and it’s important to advance a new one.”
In 2022, Newsom made agreements with both UC and CSU to give annual 5% base funding increases over five years in exchange for increasing enrollment and improving graduation rates.
Under his latest proposal, UC and CSU would borrow a combined $499 million this year — $258.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU. That includes this year’s 5% increase for the systems as well as $31 million for UC to increase enrollment of resident undergraduate students.
If lawmakers agree to Newsom’s plan, the two systems would receive two years’ worth of 5% budget increases in next year’s state budget to make up for this year’s deferrals.
“These decisions will position our state and its students for a prosperous future once budgetary challenges subside,” Michael Drake, UC’s systemwide president, said in a statement Wednesday. “During economic downturns, the University of California’s role in California’s economic development is even more important, and we are grateful to state leaders for their visionary leadership and commitment to maintaining the funding compact.”
Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia said that given the state’s financial challenges, the governor’s plan acknowledges his financial commitment to CSU students while also attempting to address the state’s budget situation. But the proposal also puts the system in a precarious position.
“This proposal would deliver the same level of funding per fiscal year as originally outlined in the compact, although with additional risk to the CSU if the state’s budget condition further erodes and the state cannot fulfill this restructured commitment,” Garcia said. “We will explore our funding options to advance compact-related goals during the one-year delay and will proceed with financial prudence as we review the impacts and implications of this budget proposal.”
Newsom’s spending plan would not fund a significant expansion of the Cal Grant, the state’s main financial aid program. He and lawmakers agreed in 2022 to overhaul the Cal Grant beginning in 2024-25 by simplifying the awards and extending eligibility to more students, but only if state revenues were sufficient to do so. With the state facing a shortfall, the governor is not committing funding to that expansion, though negotiations on the issue are expected to continue through the spring. A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance said Wednesday that the department will wait until May to make a final determination.
Newsom also proposed doing away with a program that would provide interest-free loans to colleges and universities to build affordable student housing. In total, that would save $494 million for the state’s 2024-25 budget: $194 million that was appropriated last year plus $300 million this and every year through 2028-29.
Mike Fong, chair of the Assembly’s higher education committee, said in a statement that he’s disappointed that Newsom proposed eliminating the Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund and didn’t include funding to reform the Cal Grant.
“We must continue to find new ways to increase accessibility to higher education, especially for our most vulnerable communities who need these vital resources to complete higher education,” Fong said.
The budget largely holds steady for early education and child care. It maintains ongoing funding for the newly expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and earmarks $1.7 billion toward long-awaited increased pay for child care providers. It also continues to gradually add subsidized child care slots, with about $2 billion going to fund about 146,000 new slots to be filled by 2024-25, toward an ultimate goal of 200,000 new slots.
“Overall, the proposed budget stays true to the historic investments California has made in pre-K and child care,” said Scott Moore, head of Kidango, a nonprofit organization that runs many Bay Area child care and preschool centers. “Yet schools and child care providers are struggling to expand due to a lack of staff, facilities funding, and post-pandemic challenges. We must do more now to support this growth, otherwise low-income babies and preschoolers will be left out.”
EdSource reporters Michael Burke, Ashley S. Smith, Mallika Seshadri, Betty Márquez Rosales, Karen D’Souza, Diana Lambert and Emma Gallegos contributed to the article.
Panelists discussed dual admission as a solution for easing the longstanding challenges in California’s transfer system.
A grassroots campaign recalled two members of the Orange Unified School District in an election that cost more than half a million dollars.
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.”
Comments (12)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
Helen 4 months ago4 months ago
School districts waste too much taxpayer money. School administrators are not qualified to run schools or hire qualified teachers. Many principals taught under five years and some were P.E, teachers. How are these people qualified to evaluate a teacher when they barely have the skills needed? It takes at least five years for a professional to hone their skills. These school districts are too top heavy with administrators and office workers, that money … Read More
School districts waste too much taxpayer money. School administrators are not qualified to run schools or hire qualified teachers. Many principals taught under five years and some were P.E, teachers. How are these people qualified to evaluate a teacher when they barely have the skills needed?
It takes at least five years for a professional to hone their skills. These school districts are too top heavy with administrators and office workers, that money should be used in the classrooms to aid students. Hire more aids, mentors, and less of the other. Stop making teachers pay for supplies.
Millie O'Donnell 4 months ago4 months ago
Gosh, Dan Walters says this in the OC Register:
Newsom and his fellow Democrats in the Legislature are closely allied with groups that support spending on social welfare, education and health care, which makes deep reductions that a major deficit would require much more difficult.
Sounds like Newsom is fudging things.
Millie O'Donnell 4 months ago4 months ago
Gosh I’ve read that the state budget deficit is $68 billion, not $38 billion. What happened? Certainly Newsom and crew didn’t cut much, did they? Lots of people (and tax dollars) leaving the state due to the poor policies and the poor public school education.
Replies
John Fensterwald 4 months ago4 months ago
Millie, a governor's January budget uses revenue projections for the next 18 months: the last 6 months of the current year and the year ahead starting next July. Those projections will differ, based on who you ask. The $68 billion projected deficit you referred to is by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which acknowledges the deficit could be a lot bigger or smaller, depending on whether a long anticipated recession actually occurs Gov. Newsom based … Read More
Millie, a governor’s January budget uses revenue projections for the next 18 months: the last 6 months of the current year and the year ahead starting next July. Those projections will differ, based on who you ask. The $68 billion projected deficit you referred to is by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which acknowledges the deficit could be a lot bigger or smaller, depending on whether a long anticipated recession actually occurs
Gov. Newsom based his budget on a more optimistic revenue forecast; the difference accounts for half of the $30 million difference with the LAO. We’ll see in coming months who’s right. His budget includes no employee layoffs, but there would be $800 million in savings by not filling vacancies in state departments. He would delay pay raises for health care workers, and make cuts and delays of about $5 billion in climate action programs.
An LAO analysis, released on Jan. 13, also found Newsom would delay paying $8 billion in current spending obligations until future years, which would compound potential budget challenges if revenues don’t rebound.
Newsom plans to direct about $7 billion from the Proposition 98 rain day fund to cover a big piece of the 3-year funding deficit for community colleges and TK-12 schools. The Legislative Analyst had said that using the rainy day fund would be an option but noted that it would require legislative action. Newsom factored that mitigation into his budget plan, another reason its deficit projection was smaller.
Marguerite 4 months ago4 months ago
Funding education with the rainy day fund is not a good idea – it’s one-time money. Other programs need to be cut to maintain education; education should be a top priority.
Victoria Canote 4 months ago4 months ago
How about offering incentives to those of us who have a CA teaching credential, a bachelor’s degree, the CBEST, and the RICA? Newsom lessens the requirements and raises the salary to new people who are not prepared to teach and have no idea what it entails. Hence, these newbies get in the classroom; and leave within the first year. If the state offered more flexibility, money, and incentives to those of us who are qualified … Read More
How about offering incentives to those of us who have a CA teaching credential, a bachelor’s degree, the CBEST, and the RICA? Newsom lessens the requirements and raises the salary to new people who are not prepared to teach and have no idea what it entails. Hence, these newbies get in the classroom; and leave within the first year.
If the state offered more flexibility, money, and incentives to those of us who are qualified and outstanding, maybe they would retain us.
Replies
Deric English 3 months ago3 months ago
I agree that the lowering of standards for becoming a teacher can sometimes be unfair or problematic. A recent example was a highly qualified teacher applying for a TK position that was overlooked for a less qualified candidate. The overwhelmingly more qualified candidate had years of experience, a Masters in Early Childhood Education, teaching experience at the college level, excellent evaluations, successful grant writing experience, and much more. The district selected a … Read More
I agree that the lowering of standards for becoming a teacher can sometimes be unfair or problematic. A recent example was a highly qualified teacher applying for a TK position that was overlooked for a less qualified candidate. The overwhelmingly more qualified candidate had years of experience, a Masters in Early Childhood Education, teaching experience at the college level, excellent evaluations, successful grant writing experience, and much more. The district selected a classroom aide, most likely because the aide now qualified at the lower standards and could be hired at a significantly lower salary. Sometimes you get what you pay for, and unfortunately quality of instruction becomes secondary.
Joseph Rudnicki 4 months ago4 months ago
Wasn’t the CBEST introduced to create a higher standard of academic achievement for incoming teachers to the profession? Should we be returning to the lower standards we had pre-CBEST? We should be attracting teachers above average among college graduates. We need to implement policies to do just that, instead of reverting back to lower standards.
Replies
Eric Premack 4 months ago4 months ago
Joseph: The intent behind the CBEST, as the late legislative author Gary Hart described it to me, was not so much to ensure a high level of academic achievement of teacher candidates, but more to ensure at least a basic “floor.”
Dr. Bill Conrad 4 months ago4 months ago
All is not well in paradise. We continue the annual ritual of wrangling with the state education budget. Lots of free money. Little accountability. In fact, accountability is headed in the wrong direction with certification requirements for teachers being reduced! With over half of the children in California unable to read at grade level, would it be too much for education and political leaders to demand that all schools teach reading using evidence-based curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments? No. The fix … Read More
All is not well in paradise.
We continue the annual ritual of wrangling with the state education budget.
Lots of free money. Little accountability.
In fact, accountability is headed in the wrong direction with certification requirements for teachers being reduced!
With over half of the children in California unable to read at grade level, would it be too much for education and political leaders to demand that all schools teach reading using evidence-based curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments?
No. The fix is in.
Leaders will settle for improvements in graduation rates that can easily be improved by manipulating the rules that are used to calculate the graduation rates. This malpractice has been deployed at all levels for years. It is the ticket for free money!
The children and families in California deserve much more from their political and education leaders!
The beat goes on!
John Azzizzi 4 months ago4 months ago
John…. what is the proposed/statutory COLA for 24-25. Per the Budget Report it looks like this is 0.76%. Is this correct? While there may not be budget cuts, a 0.76% COLA would be disastrous for schools. Is there any talk of trying to bolster this? ( I expect unlikely with a budget deficit).
Replies
John Fensterwald 4 months ago4 months ago
John, you are correct. It is 0.76% under the federal COLA formula that the state has adopted. In some years it works to schools’ advantage, I am told. But clearly not next year. You have raised an important issue.