California Is Spending More Than Ever on K–12 Education. Can We Follow the Money?
Updated: Aug 27
Did you see our recent Fox News Article? California controller candidate slams massive education spending despite worse student results | Herb Morgan says K-12 funding jumped from $97B to $151B while states spending half as much report higher NAEP results
California is making a historic investment in public K-12 education. For the 2026–27 fiscal year, the state is putting $27,418 behind every student, with total TK–12 funding reaching $151.4 billion.
Those are enormous numbers. But the most important question isn't simply how much California spends.
Can Californians actually follow that money and determine what it purchased, whether it reached the students it was intended to serve, and whether problems were corrected when something went wrong?
Our latest California Radical Transparency Review takes a deep look at California's K–12 financial system to answer those questions.
California Spends More in K-12 Education — But Results Tell a Different Story
Using comparable national spending and student-performance data, California ranks 15th among states in spending and 40th in student results.
Even more striking: 27 states spend less per student than California while producing higher combined national assessment scores.
That doesn't mean spending more on education is inherently ineffective. States such as Massachusetts and New Jersey demonstrate that high spending can coexist with strong academic results.
It does mean taxpayers should be able to determine what California's education dollars are actually buying.
Right now, that is much harder than it should be.
We Followed a California K-12 Education Dollar
The review maps the path of K–12 funding from Sacramento to the classroom.
A dollar can pass through at least nine stages: from legislative authorization and Department of Education calculations, through the State Controller's payment process, counties, school districts or charter schools, vendors and employees, audits, and ultimately services for students.
At the beginning of that journey, California provides substantial financial information.
Then the trail begins to break.
Once money reaches the county level, there is no single public record connecting the state's payment to the district or charter school's receipt, the eventual expenditure, the service purchased, any audit finding or correction, and the ultimate result.
California doesn't necessarily lack the data.
The systems simply don't connect it.
Five Funding Streams. Eight Questions. No Complete Trail.
To test the system, the review examined five major K–12 funding streams against eight basic accountability questions:
Who received the money?
Why did they receive that amount?
What was it for?
Did it arrive?
What did it buy?
Was it checked?
Were identified problems fixed?
And can the public follow the entire chain?
The five areas examined were principal apportionment, audit findings and recoveries, charter debt deductions, expanded learning programs, and school facilities.
Not one passed all eight tests.
That distinction matters. A missing public record does not prove money was stolen or misused. But a state record showing that a payment was properly issued doesn't prove that the money was ultimately used correctly, either.
The problem is that California's current public systems often cannot distinguish between the two.
When Oversight Fails, the Numbers Can Become Enormous
The paper also examines several documented cases that demonstrate why financial controls and audit quality matter.
They include the roughly $400 million A3 charter-school fraud scheme, the embezzlement of nearly $16.7 million from Magnolia School District, at least $16.3 million in related-party payments involving SCALE Leadership Academy, and a State Auditor finding that Highlands Community Charter inappropriately received more than $180 million in K–12 funding.
These cases involved different circumstances and different types of failures. They should not be treated as identical.
What they demonstrate collectively is the importance of reliable financial controls, timely audits, independent verification, and a system capable of following problems through to resolution.
An Accountability Report That Hasn't Been Publicly Updated Since 2014
One finding deserves particular attention.
The State Controller's website links to an Audit Finding Resolution Report designed to show questioned costs, management decisions, resolution status, and resolution dates.
The publicly linked report covers fiscal year 2013 and was generated April 8, 2014.
The Controller's office says updated reports are sent quarterly to agencies with unresolved findings, but the review found no newer statewide version publicly posted on the Controller's website.
That leaves Californians without a current public statewide ledger showing whether audit findings were corrected, recovered, appealed, or otherwise brought to a documented conclusion.
Transparency Has to Follow the K-12 Education Money
California's education debate cannot be reduced to a choice between spending more or spending less.
The more fundamental question is whether the state has the financial infrastructure to demonstrate what happens after the appropriation is made.
A modern accountability system should be able to connect authorization, payment, local receipt, expenditure, audit findings, corrective action, service delivery, and measurable outcomes.
The full Radical Transparency Review examines where those connections currently break, recent reforms including AB 126 and AB 181, the limits and authority of the State Controller, and a proposed framework for making California's K–12 financial system more traceable.
Read the full white paper, review the methodology, explore the cases, and examine the underlying sources: Follow the Money: California's K–12 Accountability Gap — Read the Full Radical Transparency Review
California is spending more on education than ever.
Californians should be able to follow the money.
Comments