California teachers declare war on Gavin Newsom with ad shaming the state's 'monumental' school crisis

The union representing California's teachers is continuing to push an ad against Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom despite his reversal on cutting school funding.

In mid-may, the ultra-progressive California Teachers Association announced a public campaign aimed at blocking part of his plan to balance the budget because they say it 'would wreak havoc on funding for our schools.' 

'California classrooms face a monumental crisis, tens of billions of dollars in cuts to public education over the next three years, bigger class sizes, thousands of teachers laid off, essential resources like counselors, nurses and special education aides, gone,' the ad claims.

Even though Newsom came to an agreement with the union that promised to roll back the school budget cuts - after initially attempting to cut $12 billion from the state budget - union President David Goldberg says they're waiting for it to pass the state legislature.

'As always, we will closely monitor any attempt to weaken the constitutional protections behind the Proposition 98 funding guarantee,' Goldberg said in a statement.

'We will continue to work with the Governor and the Legislature to safeguard constitutionally protected school funding for the 2024-25 budget year and beyond,' he said. 

The CTA has previously been a key ally to Newsom, having donated $1.8 million to support him in the attempted recall against the Democrat in 2022.

The union had previously threatened to take Newsom to court over the budget cuts. 

In a statement to Fox News, a spokesperson for Newsom claimed 'we have resolved our policy differences with CTA.' 

'This agreement is a smart and balanced policy solution that incorporates feedback from California's educators,' Newsom said. 

'Similar to the proposal in our revised budget, the agreement accomplishes the administration's primary goals – no cuts to schools in the immediate and long-term future while ensuring budget neutrality.' 

California Policy Center Vice President Lance Christensen accused teachers of running a 'disinformation campaign.'

'Putting Gov. Gavin Newsom on full-blast because he was trying to modestly fix a budget he nroke is tantamount to a temper tantrum, not honest negotiation,' Christensen said. 

'While CTA claims to have a deal, we'll have to wait and see how badly this impacts the whole budget package.'

Newsom previously said his original plan - a complex accounting maneuver - would shield public schools from $8.8 billion in immediate cuts. 

But Goldberg alleged it would end up costing districts nearly $12 billion in the future.

Goldberg said the union, which represents 310,000 educators across the state, would launch advertisements to 'raise awareness about this unconstitutional maneuver.' If that doesn't work, he said a lawsuit could be next.

'We will not stand by and let this happen,' he said during a news conference. 'When you have clear violations of the Constitution, often you go to legal remedies. So that is definitely one of the tools in our toolbox.'

The public opposition from teachers signals a turning point for Newsom, who until now had mostly avoided major fights with core constituencies during the state's recent budget troubles. 

Newsom addressed last year's shortfall by borrowing while deferring and delaying spending that preserved most major programs. But the deficit has only gotten bigger, squeezing Newsom - who is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate.

In early May, Newsom announced a budget deficit that, when including previous actions agreed to by his administration and the Legislature, is at least $45 billion. 

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office says the deficit is actually $55 billion - mostly because of the cuts to public education spending that Newsom has not counted as part of the deficit.

Newsom defended his proposal, saying it was the best option for public schools because it would protect them from immediate spending cuts.

'I don´t want to see thousands and thousands of pink slips go out. I don´t want to see disruption in the system,' he said.

The issue is the voter-approved formula for how California pays for public schools, known as Proposition 98. 

The formula says schools will get a certain amount of money each year. California gave public schools $76 billion in the 2022-23 fiscal year because that's what they thought the formula required. However, state tax collections that year ended up being 25% less than what the state had predicted.

The Newsom administration says that retroactively impacted the formula for public school funding. Now, they say the state was only required to give schools roughly $67 billion that year. It's an $8.8 billion difference.

The state´s accountants would not immediately count that $8.8 billion in spending. Instead, they would spread this cost out over future budgets, starting in 2025-26. It´s the equivalent of the state giving itself a zero-interest loan.

'It´s pretending it doesn´t exist. Literally just saying ignore that $8.8 billion,' said Karen Getman, an attorney and school funding expert who has represented the California Teachers Association.

California can afford to float this spending because, while it has a budget deficit, it still has plenty of cash. 

The state had $95.8 billion in unused borrowable resources at the end of April, according to state Controller Malia M. Cohen.

A large chunk of it is sitting in reserves. Other portions are committed to things like large construction projects that have not been built yet.

School advocates were alarmed because, while the maneuver would protect districts from immediate cuts this year, they say it would slash their budgets in the future. 

By not including this $8.8 billion in the public education budget, it changes how the formula for school spending is calculated. 

The California Teachers Association calculates that this means schools would get nearly $12 billion less in public spending this year and next year than it otherwise would have received.

'They are trying to rewrite history in order to drive down the proposition 98 guarantee going forward,' Getman said, adding: 'That´s a fiction with no basis in fact or law.'

Kevin Gordon, a lobbyist for school districts in California, said instead of changing the past, Newsom could instead change the future. 

Newsom could negotiate with school districts to suspend the school funding formula, meaning the state would not have to pay them all of that nearly $12 billion they were supposed to get. Instead, districts could be repaid that money over time.

'The overpaid $8 billion is kind of a fiction. What's real is they probably owe schools ($12) billion more and the school community is willing to say, `We know you don´t have it, so we can forego that and do a suspension,' he said. 'The approach the governor used needs to be fixed. But ... the goal of insulating public schools from cuts is the right goal.'

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office also doesn't like the proposal, calling it 'bad fiscal policy' that 'creates a binding obligation that will worsen out-year deficits and require more difficult decisions in the future.'

Newsom didn't see it that way. He says his proposal would 'maintain the commitments in terms of the investments we´ve made' in previous years.

'We respectfully disagree with that position,' he said.