6 ms·

Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted with mass layoffs this year and next, and the miscalculation looks like 2/3 of the budget shortfall, hiding such

by sgc 6mo ago

Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted with mass layoffs this year and next, and the miscalculation looks like 2/3 of the budget shortfall, hiding such a basic and impactful error requires a much better explanation than I see in that article. It looks like it was done to stifle debate about budget allocations, which would be necessary in the circumstances.

dmitrygr 6mo ago
> Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted What now? https://edsource.org/2026/how-california-compares-to-other-states-in-per-student-spending/752906 https://edsource.org/2026/how-california-compares-to-other-s... https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...
- idiotsecant 6mo ago
  Your own link says CA spends less than UNESCO’s 15.0% standard. Also, you could frame this in a much more information dense way by making an active claim about something instead of just spamming a bunch of links.
  - dmix 6mo ago
    A quick google search of the UNSECO target is "at least 15% of total public expenditure (or 4–6% of GDP)" and both the US (~5%) and California (~4-5% of gdp) already pass that criteria.
    - rayiner 6mo ago
      The UNESCO target is calibrated for developing countries. Few developed countries spend that much on non-tertiary education: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-e.... Canada spends about 3.3%, less than California. (I think your numbers include tertiary education. My numbers are K-12 only. I’m not sure which of those the UNESCO target is based on.)
    - _--__--__ 6mo ago
      The confusion/disconnect between those two benchmarks suggests something about the size of CA's public expenditure...
  - rayiner 6mo ago
    The UNESCO standard is meant for developing countries. In 2021, California spent about $121 billion on K-12, out of a GDP of $3.4 trillion, or about 3.5% of state GDP. That puts it above the OECD average of 3.3%, around the same as France at 3.5%. blob:https://www.oecd.org/702dcc03-0749-41b6-af41-112fd1af1bfb https://www.oecd.org/702dcc03-0749-41b6-af41-112fd1af1bfb. (This is the parent page: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-e.... You have to select non-tertiary education, which is basically what we call K-12.)
- thatfrenchguy 6mo ago
  Compared to cost of living though?
- sgc 6mo ago
  It is just a fact that California schools are laying off a large percentage of personnel and getting rid of many programs. Pink slips by the thousands have been sent out that will take effect in a couple months at the end of the school year. If you don't know that, you are not informed. Those links are completely irrelevant because they are out of date. Budget had temporarily increased due to the availability of COVID funds, and now there is a very harsh snap in the other direction. Shortfalls are directly linked to actions by the Trump administration, and their downstream impacts. Every state needs to step up and deal with it. Here is one example of how that is happening, it is a far more significant problem than just this: https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr25/yr25rel35.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr25/yr25rel35.asp
  - hollerith 6mo ago
    Your link claims that the Trump admin is illegally impounding $1 billion that should go to CA. But that is only a tiny fraction of CA spending on K-12, which (according to a comment in this thread) amounted to $121 billion in 2021.
wiseowise 6mo ago
[flagged]
oatmeal1 6mo ago
The education system seems one of the only places where vastly improving technology over the past 30 years has not translated to cost savings or improved outcomes.
- aaomidi 6mo ago
  Why would we expect schooling to get…cheaper? The vast majority of the cost is hiring teachers. It should be staying in line with inflation or even increasing.
  - reassess_blind 6mo ago
    Not to mention there are more students.
    - mistrial9 6mo ago
      in California there are not more students.. all tiers of schools show falling enrollments, year after year. Except community colleges, where they have discovered that more than 15% of all students are ghost enrolled. -- California K-12 public school enrollment fell by 74,961 students (a 1.3% decline) for the 2025-26 school year, marking the largest drop since the pandemic. This loss was significantly higher than the state’s Department of Finance projection of only 10,000 students. The decline is driven by lower birth rates and a reduction in immigration, with the latter exacerbated by families fearing enforcement actions. Los Angeles County accounted for nearly half of the state's total loss, losing 32,953 students, largely due to a decrease in newcomer students within the LAUSD. Private schools saw a steeper drop of 6.6%, while homeschooling declined by 3.7%. The enrollment drop is causing budget deficits, leading to staff layoffs, program cuts, and potential school closures. Hispanic students experienced the largest numeric loss (48,064), while white students saw the largest percentage decline (2.68%). English learner enrollment fell by 8.2%, partly due to reclassification and partly due to out-migration.
      - reassess_blind 6mo ago
        That's surprising. Surely there are still more than there were 30 years ago?
legitster 6mo ago
$2 billion dollars is a pretty small piece of the $90 billion the state pays towards schools. The budget cuts are because enrollment is down.
- sgc 6mo ago
  I already posted this, but the budget cuts are also because Federal funding was up to historic level due to COVID and has been cut significantly below baseline by the current administration. California should not calculate school funding the way it does anyways. A teacher is paid the same regardless of whether their class size is 20 or 30, whether some kids are home sick or not. So a more complex allocation system that takes this into account is absolutely required. Failure to do so is intentionally under-funding schools. My point was simply that it is shady to hide the miscalculation, and I indicated the point in the budget under severe stress right now I would have liked to see funded should the appropriate discourse have been possible. The cause of the stress is irrelevant. 2 billion goes a long way when everything is being cut. It could save 2 billion in services.

by sgc 6mo ago

dmitrygr 6mo ago

> Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted What now? https://edsource.org/2026/how-california-compares-to-other-states-in-per-student-spending/752906 https://edsource.org/2026/how-california-compares-to-other-s... https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...

idiotsecant 6mo ago
Your own link says CA spends less than UNESCO’s 15.0% standard. Also, you could frame this in a much more information dense way by making an active claim about something instead of just spamming a bunch of links.
- dmix 6mo ago
  A quick google search of the UNSECO target is "at least 15% of total public expenditure (or 4–6% of GDP)" and both the US (~5%) and California (~4-5% of gdp) already pass that criteria.
  - rayiner 6mo ago
    The UNESCO target is calibrated for developing countries. Few developed countries spend that much on non-tertiary education: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-e.... Canada spends about 3.3%, less than California. (I think your numbers include tertiary education. My numbers are K-12 only. I’m not sure which of those the UNESCO target is based on.)
  - _--__--__ 6mo ago
    The confusion/disconnect between those two benchmarks suggests something about the size of CA's public expenditure...
- rayiner 6mo ago
  The UNESCO standard is meant for developing countries. In 2021, California spent about $121 billion on K-12, out of a GDP of $3.4 trillion, or about 3.5% of state GDP. That puts it above the OECD average of 3.3%, around the same as France at 3.5%. blob:https://www.oecd.org/702dcc03-0749-41b6-af41-112fd1af1bfb https://www.oecd.org/702dcc03-0749-41b6-af41-112fd1af1bfb. (This is the parent page: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/public-spending-on-e.... You have to select non-tertiary education, which is basically what we call K-12.)
thatfrenchguy 6mo ago
Compared to cost of living though?
sgc 6mo ago
It is just a fact that California schools are laying off a large percentage of personnel and getting rid of many programs. Pink slips by the thousands have been sent out that will take effect in a couple months at the end of the school year. If you don't know that, you are not informed. Those links are completely irrelevant because they are out of date. Budget had temporarily increased due to the availability of COVID funds, and now there is a very harsh snap in the other direction. Shortfalls are directly linked to actions by the Trump administration, and their downstream impacts. Every state needs to step up and deal with it. Here is one example of how that is happening, it is a far more significant problem than just this: https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr25/yr25rel35.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr25/yr25rel35.asp
- hollerith 6mo ago
  Your link claims that the Trump admin is illegally impounding $1 billion that should go to CA. But that is only a tiny fraction of CA spending on K-12, which (according to a comment in this thread) amounted to $121 billion in 2021.

wiseowise 6mo ago

[flagged]

oatmeal1 6mo ago

The education system seems one of the only places where vastly improving technology over the past 30 years has not translated to cost savings or improved outcomes.

aaomidi 6mo ago
Why would we expect schooling to get…cheaper? The vast majority of the cost is hiring teachers. It should be staying in line with inflation or even increasing.
- reassess_blind 6mo ago
  Not to mention there are more students.
  - mistrial9 6mo ago
    in California there are not more students.. all tiers of schools show falling enrollments, year after year. Except community colleges, where they have discovered that more than 15% of all students are ghost enrolled. -- California K-12 public school enrollment fell by 74,961 students (a 1.3% decline) for the 2025-26 school year, marking the largest drop since the pandemic. This loss was significantly higher than the state’s Department of Finance projection of only 10,000 students. The decline is driven by lower birth rates and a reduction in immigration, with the latter exacerbated by families fearing enforcement actions. Los Angeles County accounted for nearly half of the state's total loss, losing 32,953 students, largely due to a decrease in newcomer students within the LAUSD. Private schools saw a steeper drop of 6.6%, while homeschooling declined by 3.7%. The enrollment drop is causing budget deficits, leading to staff layoffs, program cuts, and potential school closures. Hispanic students experienced the largest numeric loss (48,064), while white students saw the largest percentage decline (2.68%). English learner enrollment fell by 8.2%, partly due to reclassification and partly due to out-migration.
    - reassess_blind 6mo ago
      That's surprising. Surely there are still more than there were 30 years ago?

legitster 6mo ago

$2 billion dollars is a pretty small piece of the $90 billion the state pays towards schools. The budget cuts are because enrollment is down.

sgc 6mo ago
I already posted this, but the budget cuts are also because Federal funding was up to historic level due to COVID and has been cut significantly below baseline by the current administration. California should not calculate school funding the way it does anyways. A teacher is paid the same regardless of whether their class size is 20 or 30, whether some kids are home sick or not. So a more complex allocation system that takes this into account is absolutely required. Failure to do so is intentionally under-funding schools. My point was simply that it is shady to hide the miscalculation, and I indicated the point in the budget under severe stress right now I would have liked to see funded should the appropriate discourse have been possible. The cause of the stress is irrelevant. 2 billion goes a long way when everything is being cut. It could save 2 billion in services.