|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
All school districts in the Tri-Valley are now part of a statewide coalition of districts, teacher unions and other school organizations who are asking state legislators to consider raising the base level of funding for public schools in California.
Pleasanton Unified School District Superintendent Maurice Ghysels explained how the initiative is not only trying to strengthen the state’s funding formula for school districts at a time when virtually all of them are facing mass budget cuts due to things like declining enrollment, but it is looking to do so without burdening taxpayers.
“This is, basically, to increase our (Local Control Funding Formula) base grant and secure additional state funding for Pleasanton students and not (have to) increase local taxes,” Ghysels said during the Feb. 26 Board of Trustees meeting.
In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment which establishes a minimum annual funding requirement. It essentially determines how much money is guaranteed to schools and colleges based on state and local taxes.
“Each year’s Prop. 98 guarantee is calculated based on a percentage of state General Fund revenues or the prior year guarantee adjusted for K-12 attendance and an inflation measure,” according to the California Budget and Policy Center website. “Since some of this information is not available until after the end of the state’s fiscal year, the legislature funds Prop. 98 at the time of the annual Budget Act based on estimates of the Prop. 98 minimum funding level.”
But then, in 2013, the state also implemented the Local Control Funding Formula.
The way LCFF funding works is districts get a certain base grant for different grade spans. On top of that, districts can also receive additional supplemental funding and add-ons for unduplicated disadvantaged students, transitional kindergarten and other similar components.
Both the LCFF and Prop 98 work together in the sense that the funding formula determines how the Prop 98 money is divided among school districts. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, the LCFF focuses on providing more funding for disproportionately disadvantaged students such as low-income, English learners, foster kids and those who need special education.
“Out of the $104.1 billion General Fund Proposition 98 funding provided to K-12 education in the 2025-26 budget, $84.5 billion (81%) is provided through LCFF for school districts, charter schools, and (county offices of education),” the LAO stated in a January 2026 report. “Schools pay for most of their general operating expenses (including employee salaries and benefits, supplies, and student services) using these funds. Over half of the remaining $19.6 billion is provided through two categorical programs for special education ($6.1 billion) and the Expanding Learning Opportunities Program — which funds before/after and summer school programs ($4.6 billion).”
For years, this formula has been the state’s primary public school funding system. But because LCFF funding is allocated to school districts based on the average number of students in class each day throughout the year, school leaders across the state have become increasingly concerned about how declining enrollment, along with other inflationary costs, are affecting their finances.
At PUSD, in particular, district leaders have been very vocal about how LCFF funding is just not keeping up anymore with their growing expenditures.
“The district ranks in the bottom decile statewide in per-student funding, largely because fewer students qualify for additional state funding targeted to low-income students, English learners, and youth in foster care,” the district said in a statement to the Weekly. “At the same time, growth in LCFF base grant funding has not kept pace with rising operating costs such as salaries, pensions, special education services, insurance, and utilities, which are particularly significant in high-cost regions like the Bay Area.”
That’s why PUSD, along with every other school district in the Tri-Valley — and dozens more across the state — have joined a growing initiative called Raise the Base, which is seeking to increase the dollar amount of base grant funding per student.
“Strengthening the LCFF base grant, as proposed through the Raise the Base initiative, would help sustain core academic programs and student services that all students rely on, while also increasing targeted funding for students with greater needs because this additional funding is calculated as a percentage of the base,” the district stated. “In this way, Raise the Base is intended to support both adequate and equitable school funding.”
The initiative was first launched toward the end of 2025 by David Roth, superintendent of Buckeye Union School District in El Dorado Hills, as a way to challenge how the LCFF currently works.
“The problem is that since the LCFF has been implemented … we have (had) a number of very inflationary issues occurring within schools,” he said. “Schools face unique inflationary factors that the public often isn’t aware of.”
These inflationary factors, which have been pointed out by PUSD employees plenty of times over the past few years, include higher pension costs, salaries and benefits, increased insurance premiums, and overall supplies and materials.
However, one of the main inflationary costs that continually affects PUSD and virtually every other school district in the state is declining enrollment.
“These structural pressures are further intensified by declining enrollment, driven by lower birth rates statewide and amplified locally by the high cost of living,” according to the district. “Since the 2018/19 school year, Pleasanton Unified has lost approximately 2,000 students, reducing ongoing state funding by an estimated $24 million, as LCFF funding is largely tied to student attendance.”
And even though PUSD has implemented millions of dollars in spending reductions and is now looking to finalize over $11 million of budget cuts for the following school year, given the enrollment trends it will continue to be difficult for the district to address these financial pressures.
That’s why, according to Roth, there needs to be a larger shift in how the LCFF works.
“As we’re thinking about how we fund schools, we have to think about maintaining balance between adequacy and equity,” Roth said. “We need to be addressing both.”
The change to the formula, as proposed by the Raise the Base initiative is fairly straightforward: instead of focusing on new taxes or expanding Prop 98, the state should allocate any new dollars or revenues to the LCFF base grants.
“I’m not talking about cutting anything,” Roth explained. “What I am suggesting as we go forward: don’t create new grants, when dollars come into Prop 98 put them into the LCFF on the base and just focus every new dollar that comes into Prop 98 that’s intended to go to public schools … Those dollars need to be focused on those base grade span grants.”
He came to this conclusion after diving deep into the data and researching the vast funding disparities seen across school districts in the state. However, he also noted that disparity alone is not the only issue.
“It’s that when the inflation is so significant, and the base revenues aren’t keeping up with that, well then we find ourselves — and I would say virtually every district in the state finds themselves — at this moment in time inadequately funded,” Roth said.
But he said raising the base, as proposed under the statewide initiative, will at least help begin addressing these funding challenges.
“The only proposal that addresses adequacy and equity in a balanced manner, sufficiently benefiting all districts while maintaining a commitment to ensuring students with greater need receive greater resources, is the (Legislative Analyst’s Office) proposal to raise base funding levels by 7.24%,” Roth noted in the Raise the Base website.
The analyst office’s report to which Roth referred came out in January, outlining how a 7.24% base increase would proportionately increase funding for all districts.
He also noted how raising the base would not have any negative effects on disadvantaged students.
“It would address both adequacy and at the same time, it would remain equitable if they were to raise base grants right now,” Roth said. “If they choose not to do that, then … districts will not be able to maintain — and have not already, in many cases, been able to maintain — base programming.”
According to Roth, the Raise the Base coalition is still in its early days of advocacy as school districts like PUSD begin communicating the initiative with their communities. Over the next couple of weeks and months, PUSD leaders said they will continue to raise awareness regarding the initiative and begin talking with legislators in order to start getting support in Sacramento, especially as the state gets ready to select a new governor.
PUSD has already scheduled meetings later this month with two local legislators, State Senator Jerry McNerney and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.
“Our public schools are the foundation of thriving communities, and ensuring they have the resources they need is one of my top priorities in Sacramento,” Bauer-Kahan told the Weekly in a statement Monday. “I deeply respect the work that PUSD and the Raise the Base coalition are doing to spotlight the real funding gaps our schools face every day. I am committed to being a partner to our local districts as we fight for the resources our kids deserve.”
