WHITE PAPER: Classrooms First: Rethinking California’s TK-14 Education Funding to Put Teachers and Students Ahead of Bureaucracy

California invests enormous resources in public education from Transitional Kindergarten (TK) through community colleges—collectively known as the TK-14 or K-14 system. Under Proposition 98, the constitutional minimum guarantee for TK-12 schools and community colleges recently stands at approximately $125.5 billion. Total TK-12 spending (all sources) approaches $149.1 billion annually. Per-pupil funding for TK-12 reaches roughly $20,427 under the Prop 98 guarantee and climbs to $27,418 when all funding sources are included.

The Prop 98 base consists primarily of state General Fund contributions (nearly 40% of GF revenues under Test 1) plus local property taxes. The additional dollars to reach the higher all-sources total come mainly from federal funding—including Title I grants for low-income students, special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), child nutrition programs, and other categorical grants (typically around 6% of total K-12 funding) along with certain other state and local revenues outside the Prop 98 formula.

Despite this massive investment, student outcomes (the only metric that matters), particularly in foundational skills, remain disappointing. On the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), California’s fourth graders showed only about 29% proficiency in reading and 35% in math, while eighth graders lagged further, often placing the state in the lower half nationally.

The problem is not teachers. California’s educators work hard every day to deliver instruction under challenging conditions. The real issue lies in budgeting and resource allocation. Imagine planning dinner for your family. You wouldn’t hand a big stack of cash to a delivery service or a grocery store clerk, letting them decide what to buy based on their own priorities, and then hope enough of the right ingredients make it to the person doing the cooking. You’d go straight to the cook in the kitchen and ask: “What do you need to make this meal work—fresh produce, meat, bread, seasoning?” Only after that would you handle the shopping list, delivery, and pantry stocking.

Right now, California education funding does the opposite. We hand large block grants to districts and county offices first under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for TK-12 and the Student-Centered Funding Formula (SCFF)for community colleges. Then we trust the administrators’ assurances that the money is being spent wisely. Significant portions disappear into administrative overhead, compliance, professional development, and other non-classroom priorities before anything meaningful reaches the front lines. 

Too often, our tax dollars support  initiatives such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training, sensitivity or cultural competency workshops, ongoing professional development on non-core topics, Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS) programs, Olweus anti-bullying initiatives, and various equity-focused compliance efforts. While some of these programs can support school climate and student well-being, their effectiveness varies, and they should be evaluated against their impact on core academic outcomes. Classroom support must be the primary funding priority: competitive teacher salaries and benefits, core instructional materials, classroom supplies, and direct tools for teaching and learning. 

The solution is a fundamental shift: Classrooms First budgeting. Begin the budget process at the classroom level—what individual instructors and students need—then build upward. Policymakers and administrators must listen directly to teachers about their priorities, because teaching is the ultimate priority. This ensures money flows to where education happens instead of trickling down after layers of overhead. 

While funding levels have climbed, California’s NAEP performance in core subjects reveals a persistent gap:

• Fourth grade reading: ~29% proficient (below national average).

• Fourth grade math: ~35% proficient.

• Eighth grade reading and math: Even lower proficiency rates, with California often ranking around 30th or below among states.

These foundational weaknesses affect the entire pipeline into our community colleges & universities where many students require remediation. While demographics, English learners, and poverty contribute, the data show that pouring more money into the existing top-down structure has not produced proportional gains in literacy, numeracy, or college readiness.  Instead, research suggests that how resources are allocated within systems also plays a critical role in determining outcomes.

What’s Broken: Top-Down Block Grants and Overhead

Under the current system:

• TK-12 districts receive Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) base grants, supplemental grants, and concentration grants as flexible block funding at the district or county office level.

• Community colleges receive funding primarily through the Student-Centered Funding Formula (SCFF), also allocated at the district/system level.

In both cases, dollars first support central administration, operational overhead, compliance requirements, various categorical programs, and non-instructional initiatives—including "nice-to-have" programs like DEI training, sensitivity workshops, and extended professional development on equity or behavioral frameworks. Classroom-level needs—teacher salaries and benefits, instructional materials, supplies, and direct student support—frequently come later in the allocation chain.

The result is inefficiency: record aggregate spending, yet many TK-12 classrooms still report shortages of basics, while district-level bureaucracies and indirect costs expand. The same dynamic appears at the community college level, where system-wide overhead can crowd out direct instructional resources.

The Solution: Classrooms First Budgeting

We do not need to reflexively demand ever-higher total spending. We must first spend existing dollars differently by redesigning the budget process from the ground up—and by listening to teachers, who are closest to the work of actual teaching and learning:

1. Start at the Classroom Level — Require individual instructors (TK-12 teachers and community college faculty) and school sites to submit prioritized needs first: core instructional materials, classroom supplies, technology, and competitive compensation to attract and retain effective educators. Teaching is the ultimate priority.

2. Fund Direct Instruction and Teacher/Faculty Compensation Next — Make salaries, benefits, and classroom supports a transparent "must-have."

3. Layer Site-Level and Then District/System Overhead — Only after core classroom needs are met should operational costs at the site level be added, followed by central administration, compliance, and "nice-to-have" programs (such as DEI initiatives, sensitivity training, or non-essential professional development)—with strict caps and justification requirements.

This inverted “Classrooms First” process flips the current top-down model. It forces every layer above the classroom to demonstrate value in supporting actual teaching and learning. Enhanced transparency—detailed public reporting, outcome-linked tracking, or even technology-enabled visibility into allocations—would help prevent diversion of funds.

The California Legislature would need to amend the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Student-Centered Funding Formula (SCFF) statutes to require a Classrooms First budgeting process: classroom-level needs assessments and teacher-submitted priorities must be completed and funded first, before any district or system-level overhead is allocated.

Complementary steps could include stronger performance incentives tied to student results, streamlined categorical programs, and greater input from teachers, faculty, and school sites on spending decisions.

Conclusion: Results Over Rhetoric

California already commits tens of billions annually to TK-14 education at levels that should produce far stronger outcomes. The evidence points to misallocation. This literally prioritizes bureaucracy, overhead, and secondary initiatives over direct classroom impact.  

Adopting a Classrooms First budgeting framework would redirect resources where they matter most: to the teachers delivering instruction and the students who deserve results. It replaces vague block-grant “local control” with disciplined, bottom-up priority setting that puts classrooms—and the educators who make them work—ahead of everything else.

California does not lack funding—it lacks prioritization. Until budgets are built around classrooms rather than systems, increased spending will continue to yield limited results.