On Jan. 10, Gov. Gavin Newsom released his proposed budget for the 2025-26 year. For districts statewide, the budget was something like finding out if Santa had brought presents or coal.
As I wrote in my last Learning Curve, San Diego Unified leaders, along with leadership from California’s other large urban districts, sent a letter to Newsom just before Christmas. It detailed exactly what leaders were hoping to see in Newsom’s latest budget proposals – from school funding to immigrant students.
Here’s what districts got from their wish lists and what they didn’t.
On school funding: Districts’ large ask here was a complete overhaul of how the state funds schools. It would have shifted the current formula away from funding schools based on average daily attendance and toward funding based on overall enrollment.
There were big positives to this proposal for district leaders – had the switch happened 90 percent of schools would have received more funding than they currently do, according to at least one study. But the change could have had one big problem: decoupling funding and attendance would mean schools no longer had a financial incentive to drive down chronic absenteeism.
Newsom didn’t bite. Schools will continue to be funded based on average daily attendance – at least for now.
It ain’t Coca-Cola, it’s COLA: There was actually another funding angle that I didn’t mention in my previous newsletter. It’s a little in the weeds, so bear with me. Each year, states issue what’s called a cost-of-living-adjustment, or COLA. This COLA essentially increases school funding to account for inflation. In the letter, leaders write that state Department of Finance number crunchers’ original projection for the 2025-26 COLA was 2.93 percent. More recently, however, that estimate was reduced to 1.79 percent.
No biggie, right? Well, not so fast, school leaders said. They developed their budget estimates based on that original number – 2.93 percent. If the COLA implemented was just 1.79 percent, it could derail everything from planned investments to agreements negotiated with employee unions. The fact that this was all happening at a time when schools were still reeling from the loss of Covid recovery funding, in district leaders’ views, made that potential cut all the more dire.
On this point, Newsom split the difference. His proposed budget institutes a 2.4 percent COLA increase, meaning districts will have to alter some elements of their projected budgets, but not as drastically as they feared. Newsom also included money to fund some math and reading coaches in K-12 schools. So, on the whole, not a terrible outcome for the letter writers.
On transitional kindergarten: When it comes to transitional kindergarten funding, Newsom’s proposed budget is a big win – albeit an expected one. Over the past four years, California schools have been rolling out a new grade called transitional kindergarten. Each year, younger and younger 4-year-olds were allowed to enroll in this new grade. This is the final year of the rollout, meaning all kids who turn four by Sept. 1 are eligible to enroll in the grade.
As part of that rollout process, the state required schools alter the child-to-adult ratios of their TK classrooms, shrinking them from 12 children per adult to 10 children per adult. While that requirement existed, it wouldn’t mean anything if the state didn’t fully fund the grade. Much to schools’ relief, Newsom’s proposed budget fully funds that ratio switch.
On special education funding: A significant shortage of special education teachers has graduated from a problem to a full-blown crisis in recent years. There just aren’t enough special education teachers to fully staff many schools, leading to students falling behind and teachers burning out. Educators have also complained that the existing funding model doesn’t account for the fact that the share of students who qualify for special education services is on the rise.
Disputes about special education staffing have reached a boiling point at San Diego Unified. District and union leaders have been bandying proposals to remedy grievances about special education staff’s caseloads back and forth for months, but they still haven’t reached an agreement. That’s led union leaders to call on teachers to rally at next week’s board meeting.
Unfortunately for schools, the Governor’s proposed budget was silent on this issue.
The immigrant question: President Donald Trump ran, arguably, the most anti-immigrant campaign in presidential history. At least since his 2016 campaign, that is. He’s promised to crack down on legal and illegal immigration, as well as launch a massive deportation program – priorities that were on full display in the slew of executive orders he signed immediately after his inauguration.
Included in the executive orders Trump signed was one that rescinded policies preventing migrants from being arrested in so-called “sensitive areas,” like schools, childcare centers, playgrounds and school bus stops. For some migrant families, the threat of deportation has made them question whether they should send their kids to school at all.
California officials have pledged not to adhere to some of Trump’s strict immigration policies, so local families may have less to worry about than undocumented families in red states. But given Trump’s Department of Justice appointees have also pledged to prosecute officials who resist federal immigration enforcement, it’s not entirely clear how much of an impact statewide leaders can have.
Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a guidance after Trump’s election that existing state law does not require school leaders to allow immigration agents on campuses unless they have a warrant. California lawmakers, and district leaders have also taken additional steps.
In December, San Diego Unified’s board reaffirmed a longstanding policy that largely mimics Bonta’s guidance. It’s probably more accurate to view the board’s action as a simple messaging exercise rather than a significant policy change. But since policy proclamations from statewide officials often don’t filter all the way down to working parents, especially those for whom English is a second language, additional messaging may be helpful in at least ensuring parents know where school officials stand.
“We are doing everything in our power to keep our families, students and staff safe and to ensure they’re physically well, mentally well and emotionally well,” Board President Cody Petterson said. “Our message to families is we want them to feel safe and secure. We do not want children not coming to schools.”