How did Newsom handle education funding and K–12 policy during his tenure?
Executive summary
Governor Gavin Newsom largely protected K–12 spending through multiple budgets, using one‑time reserves and deferrals while proposing targeted investments—universal transitional kindergarten, early‑literacy funding and expanded after‑school/summer programs—yet his accounting moves and use of Proposition 98 reserves drew legal and political backlash (see Prop. 98 reserve withdrawals and deferrals) [1] [2] [3]. Newsom’s 2025‑26 budget proposals included a 2.3% COLA for schools and roughly $2.5 billion in additional district funding and programmatic investments while drawing on rainy‑day funds to sustain those commitments [4] [5] [6].
1. Newsom protected K–12 dollars but leaned on one‑time fixes
Newsom’s budgets in this period prioritized maintaining K–12 program funding even as state revenues weakened; to do that his administration withdrew from the Prop. 98 rainy‑day fund and used payment deferrals to smooth cash flow, moves that protected near‑term spending but reduced reserves and prompted pushback from districts and school boards [1] [2] [3]. Independent analyses and education groups noted that the approach “saved schools from potential budget cuts” in the short term while leaving longer‑term questions about sustainability [7] [2].
2. Targeted investments: early childhood, literacy, expanded learning
Newsom pushed several targeted K–12 priorities: universal transitional kindergarten expansion, significant early‑literacy investment (including bills and one‑time training dollars), community schools and funding for after‑school and summer programs. Advocates highlighted new billions for TK expansion and literacy, with budget language and bills backing teacher training and phonics initiatives [8] [6] [9] [10] [4].
3. The numbers: COLA, Prop. 98 guarantees, and rainy‑day tradeoffs
In the 2025‑26 May Revision Newsom set a 2.3% cost‑of‑living increase for schools and put the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee at a lower level than earlier estimates, prompting the administration to draw on Prop. 98 reserves and delay some payments by one month to manage cash flow [5] [6]. Reports cite figures such as $2.5 billion in additional district funding in the January proposal and a Proposition 98 guarantee around $114.6 billion in the May revision—numbers that underscore both continued scale and tightened fiscal conditions [4] [6].
4. Political friction: school boards, lawsuits and mixed public views
The California School Boards Association sued, saying Newsom’s accounting violated the state constitution and jeopardized guaranteed funding—illustrating the political cost of his strategies even as many educators praised avoided cuts [3] [7] [2]. Public opinion was divided: roughly half of Californians approved of Newsom’s handling of K–12 education in 2025, with parents showing higher approval, signaling mixed public confidence amid the budget maneuvers [11].
5. Outcomes and accountability: improved metrics, but enduring gaps
State announcements tied Newsom’s investments to rising graduation rates and “continued improvement” in dashboard metrics and touted record per‑pupil funding in recent budgets, yet independent coverage pointed out that many students still lag pre‑pandemic levels and that gains were partial [8] [12]. EdSource and other outlets emphasized that while schools were largely shielded from cuts, deferred payments and reliance on one‑time dollars could complicate multi‑year program stability [13] [6].
6. Competing perspectives: advocates praise strategy; critics warn of risk
Supporters—teacher groups, child‑advocacy organizations and some policy shops—commended Newsom for prioritizing early learning, reading instruction and community supports and for avoiding deep cuts [2] [9] [14]. Critics, including conservative analysts and the CSBA lawsuit, argued the approach masks structural shortfalls and shifts real pain into future budgets through reserve draws and deferrals [15] [3] [1].
7. What reporting doesn’t (yet) say
Available sources do not mention comprehensive, multi‑year independent audits proving the long‑term effects of the prop‑98 reserve withdrawals on future classroom services beyond the state and local forecasts cited; nor do they present a final judicial ruling on the lawsuits alleging constitutional breaches—those outcomes were not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Conclusion: Newsom’s K–12 record in this period is a blend of sustained programmatic investment and fiscal engineering. He secured money for TK, literacy and expanded learning while relying on reserves and deferrals that drew legal challenges and divided opinion—an approach that preserved near‑term service levels but left questions about intergenerational budget risk and long‑term program stability [6] [3] [9].