On June 2, Contra Costa County voters will decide whether to saddle themselves — and their children — with the largest bond debt in the history of the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD). Measure G asks for $920 million in new borrowing. With interest, the true cost climbs to $1.88 billion, with final payoff projected in 2059. CoCoTax has opposed this measure in official ballot arguments, in public presentations, and in a detailed response to a recent article in the Contra Costa College Advocate.
The case against Measure G is straightforward: it is far too much money, sought too soon given outstanding bond debt, by a district that hasn’t demonstrated the fiscal discipline to deserve it.
Already Drowning in Debt
4CD still owes on three bond measures as is: 2002’s Measure A ($120 million), 2006’s second Measure A, ($286.5 million), and 2014’s Measure E ($450 million) — totaling $856.5 million in principal alone. County taxpayers still owe nearly $727 million on those existing obligations, with the final payment on Measure E not expected until 2039. Measure G would pile $1.88 billion more on top of all that. If it passes, total bonded indebtedness reaches $2.61 billion, secured by Contra Costa County property values — with no senior exemption.
Enrollment Is Down 28% — Yet They Want to Build More
4CD advertises “nearly 50,000 students,” but that figure is misleading. California’s actual funding metric is Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES). According to the State Chancellor’s October 2025 FTES Report, 4CD’s count was just 21,940 — down 28% from 30,648 when Measure A passed in 2002. Expanding costly new facilities while enrollment trends sharply downward is the opposite of responsible stewardship.
“Deferred Maintenance” — Deferred Forever?
Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, HVAC upgrades, and electrical work appear repeatedly in 4CD bond project lists going back to 2002. How many bond measures must pass before these basics get done? There’s a core problem: 4CD’s maintenance budget has crept from just 0.10% to 0.20% of Plant Replacement Value over the past decade, when the commercial building standard is 2–5%. Routine maintenance gets deferred so the general fund can support other priorities — including lavish administrative compensation — and then bond money pays for the fixes, with interest on top.
Executive Pay That Outstrips the Governor’s
While seeking $920 million in new principal from taxpayers, 4CD’s Chancellor drew a $404,238 salary (as of 2024) — plus $130,674 in benefits, for total compensation reaching $548,112. That salary alone exceeds the official pay of the President of the United States and far surpasses Governor Newsom’s $245,929. Vice Chancellors, College Presidents, and Directors also earn hundreds of thousands in total compensation. Lavish pay and lean maintenance are two sides of the same General Fund coin.
Who’s Funding “Yes on G”?
The pro-Measure G campaign has raised nearly $400,000 so far — with the bulk coming from the tax-exempt Contra Costa College Foundation ($100,000), the DVC Foundation ($50,000), and multiple construction unions (IBEW Local 302, Plumbers Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and others). Contractor unions have a direct financial interest in a $920 million construction program. Ordinary property-tax-paying residents have no equivalent organized voice — a textbook example of what economists call “Public Choice Theory.”
The Bottom Line
Property owners already pay an average of $13.97 per $100,000 of assessed value toward 4CD’s existing bonds. Measure G adds another $10 — and that rate could rise if the county’s assessed values don’t grow at the 4% annual pace 4CD projects, projections that, by 4CD’s own admission, “are not binding upon 4CD.”
4CD should maintain its existing buildings with its existing budget rather than repeatedly turning to taxpayers for borrowed billions. Vote NO on Measure G.
Dear Antioch Unified School District Board Members,
Given the severity of the district’s deficit, the community deserves to understand why the Board continues to authorize expensive contractors to perform work that qualified district staff are fully capable of handling. In education, sustainable improvement comes from setting clear expectations, providing support, and building internal capacity. Antioch is a resilient community filled with talented professionals. Our people deserve the opportunity and the trust to meet the standard.
It is also important to acknowledge that many of these same consultants were used in Pacifica and Sequoia, districts where the Superintendent departed in under two years amid controversy. Why would the Board select a leader without a demonstrated record of long-term, successful superintendent leadership.
Board President Dr. Jag Lathan, you are currently running for County Superintendent. If effective oversight and leadership cannot be demonstrated in a mid‑sized district like Antioch, how will you lead an entire county. Voters are watching and waiting for you to do what is right.
The district’s increasing reliance on high‑cost consultants is fiscally irresponsible and deeply concerning especially during a financial crisis. This year alone, consultant contracts are projected to exceed half a million dollars, including external providers for executive coaching, financial consulting, data analysis, and organizational climate assessments. Only a small portion of these contracts appear justified given staffing shortages. The rest raise serious questions about duplication of services, transparency, and fiscal priorities. The district already employs dedicated, effective leaders who have invested their careers and their hearts into serving Antioch’s students. Overlooking this internal capacity wastes resources and damages morale. Replacing qualified internal leaders with consultants occupying long‑term roles is unjust, irresponsible, and demoralizing. At what point will the Board accept accountability for these decisions?
There has also been a mass exodus of leadership and long‑term teachers. This exodus is directly tied to the current district leadership. Why is the Board not interviewing these long-standing, highly respected employees to understand why they are leaving AUSD?
Attorney fees have been repeatedly discussed at board meetings and often dismissed by comparing them to previous years. But this year, the number of law firms brought in under Dr. Williams has significantly increased legal costs. If the highly publicized employee bullying lawsuit from last year were removed from the comparison, would last year’s attorney fees still exceed the current year’s. That is a question the community deserves answered.
According to individuals familiar with the superintendent hiring process, community panelists were puzzled by the Board’s decision. Several candidates reportedly ranked higher among parents, staff, and students including two Latino leaders who panelists felt could more closely relate to and serve the district’s student population. Insiders state that Dr. Williams ranked last among five finalists in some community feedback summaries. Despite these concerns, Dr. Williams assumed leadership of AUSD in July 2025.
It is public knowledge that entering the 2025–26 school year, AUSD faced an approximate $12 million deficit. The CBO in place at the time who had full knowledge of the deficit and a fiscally sound plan to address it without harming student services or requiring staff layoffs was placed on leave almost immediately by Dr. Williams. It has been stated repeatedly at board meetings that the approved raises and continued 100% district‑paid health benefits did not contribute to the now $31 million deficit. That is not accurate. The increased deficit is directly tied to the raises and benefits negotiated by Dr. Williams and her attorney.
Another contributing factor is the Superintendent’s newly created salary schedule. Historically, AUSD superintendents were placed on salary schedule 734 with a 260-day work year. Dr. Williams negotiated a new 737 range with a 225-day work year 35 fewer days than her senior management team. The previous superintendent, at year six, earned $358,340 annually ($1,378 per day). Dr. Williams began at $361,165 annually ($1,605 per day) and will top out at $1,728 per day.
Despite this significantly higher, per‑day rate, district staff report that Dr. Williams is rarely present in the district office, and when she does arrive, it is often afternoon. She is not beginning her day at school sites, and her whereabouts during the workday are frequently unaccounted for. Given these concerns, why was an entirely new salary schedule created without any data demonstrating long‑term success, improved student outcomes, or consistent leadership presence. Her history shows the opposite, with districts left in turmoil.
At what point will the Board seek honest insight from current and former employees rather than relying on soundbites and publicity efforts. The community is asking for transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of AUSD funds. Every dollar spent should reflect a commitment to students, staff, and the long‑term stability of this district—not to unnecessary contracts, unchecked legal fees, or inflated administrative compensation.
Respectfully,
Amy Bettencourt, former Director of Educational Services, Antioch Unified School District and Concerned Staff, Parents and Citizens
In a note included with the emailed letter to the editor Bettencourt wrote, “I know I left Antioch USD at the end of February due to the toxicity and storm the new superintendent brought to the district, but I continue to hear from a large group of employees who are desperately trying to elevate their concerns publicly.”
Cobos Smith text to Lathan rescinding her endorsement on April 19, 2026, and Lathan’s campaign Facebook page post on May 19, 2026, showing Cobos Smith (in yellow circle) included. Source: Olga Cobos Smith
School board disagreements spill over into campaign
“This is literally the unilateral decision making that has frustrated me for months now.” – Antioch Trustee Olga Cobos Smith
By Allen D. Payton
In a post on her official Facebook page on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, Antioch School Board Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos Smith complained about the use of her photo in a Facebook post promoting the campaign of her colleague, Board President and Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan, who is running for Contra Costa County Superintendent of Public Instruction. The post of Lathan’s endorsements was shared on her campaign Facebook page, earlier that day, according to Cobos Smith but has since been removed.
Screenshots of Cobos Smith’s Facebook post on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, which includes Lathan’s post from earlier in the day.
It read, “Dr. Jag has built a coalition of educators, families, students, and elected officials across the State and County who care deeply about the education and wellness of our students and the educators that serve them. This multigenerational, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious rich coalition of leaders demonstrate her gift to bring people together for one purpose: our children.”
Her post also showed photos of 14 people, including Cobos Smith, Contra Costa DA Diana Becton and District 5 Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston who Lathan claims have endorsed her campaign, including three superintendents from other counties.
In response, Cobos Smith shared screenshots of both Lathan’s post and text messages between the two and wrote, “Today I was notified of an image dated today (5/19/2026) circulating with my likeness on it promoting the campaign of Dr. Jag Lathan, AUSD Board Member, Area 2. I was deeply offended by the lack of respect it took to post my picture in campaign materials as I explicitly asked on April 19, 2026 for my image to be removed from all such materials. This is literally the unilateral decision making that has frustrated me for months now.”
Screenshot of Lathan’s response post on her official Facebook page on May 19, 2026.
Later in the day, Lathan responded in a post on her official Facebook page. It included a photo of Cobos Smith, Lathan and a man taken inside Cobos Smith’s bookstore in Antioch with Lathan holding her campaign sign. The candidate wrote, “I’m sorry to hear that you were upset by the image showing your support of my candidacy. You were one of the very first people to host an event for my campaign, and I have always appreciated your support and valued the relationship we have shared as colleagues. It was never my intention to cause harm or disrespect you.
“More importantly, I sincerely wish you healing, strength, and peace during this time, and I will continue to keep you in my prayers.
“I also believe that, as board members, our focus must remain on working together to continue improving our district and supporting the students, staff, and families we serve. Our students deserve nothing less.”
Screenshot of Lathan’s response on Cobos Smith’s official Facebook page on May 19, 2026.
That comment has since been removed. But Lathan then posted the same comment on Cobos Smith’s Facebook page below the post about the matter and again, included the photo inside Cobos Smith’s bookstore.
Screenshot of announcement of Cobos Smith’s endorsement of Lathan posted on the candidate’s campaign Facebook page on March 20, 2026.
Endorsement Announced March 20th, Rescinded April 19th
On March 20, Lathan announced Cobos Smith’s endorsement in a campaign Facebook post, which was still up as of Tuesday, May 19, 2026. That post reads, “We’re proud to share that Olga Cabos Smith, School Board Trustee for Antioch Unified School District, has endorsed Dr. Jag Lathan for Contra Costa County Superintendent.”
But on April 19th, Cobos Smith sent a text to Lathan writing, “Good morning. (Smiley face emoji) I have an ask: if my name, image, or likeness is on any of your campaign imagery please pull it. I am rescinding any endorsement of your campaign. I am now undecided.”
Cobos Smith Offers Reasons for Rescinding Endorsement, Takes Swipes at Lathan’s Leadership
When reached for comment about the matter Cobos Smith said on Tuesday, “I didn’t want to make a spectacle of it. At first, I assumed it was something old. I was told it was posted a few hours ago.”
Asked why she rescinded her endorsement and if it’s due to the recent challenges on the Antioch School Board, the first term trustee said, “There are challenges with all of us. The leadership is obvious. I literally asked her, ‘could we please work as a team?’ As board president, she should be working to coalesce us as a team. I don’t feel like I’m getting the answers to my questions. We bring things up we want to discuss. Mary said it the other day, ‘I don’t know what I have to do to get these numbers out of you.’”
“If I can’t trust somebody’s leadership at this point, how can I endorse them for an even more intense leadership position?” Cobos Smith asked rhetorically. “I was not trying to put my thumb on the scale. I did not say I was endorsing Dana Eaton. But I have to say, I’ve watched some videos of him and I’m impressed.”
“This shows me the lack of respect for my boundaries and personhood,” she stated. “I shouldn’t have had to make a public statement.”
“You can’t even unify your five-member board. How are you going to unify the community?” Cobos Smith asked, again rhetorically.
Lathan Does Not Answer Questions
Multiple efforts to reach Lathan were unsuccessful prior to publication time. She was asked if the endorsement announcement posted on her campaign Facebook page was a flier printed before April 19th, if she saw the text from Cobos Smiththat day, if she was aware Cobos Smith’s original endorsement post was still up and why Lathan still used her photo a month after her colleague rescinded the endorsement.
She was also asked what she meant by, “I sincerely wish you healing, strength, and peace during this time.”
Lathan faces one opponent in the race, Brentwood Union School District Superintendent Dana Eaton. Whichever candidate gets a majority of votes in the June 2nd Primary will be elected.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Winners of the GFWC Woman’s Club of Antioch 2026 Writing Contest are (Left to Right) Natalia Saucedo (5th grade/Kimball) 3rd place; Marcus Hamilton (4th grade/Orchard Park) 2nd place; Aissatu Diallo (5th grade/Mno Grant) 2nd place; Madeline Cortes (4th grade/Fremont) 1st place; Hayley Corado (4th grade/Marsh) 3rd place and Alyssa Bennett (5th grade/Mno Grant) 1st place. Photo: GFWC WCA
Theme: Antioch Through My Eyes
By Terri Hamilton, GFWC Woman’s Club of Antioch
The GFWC Woman’s Club of Antioch hosted an award ceremony and ice cream social on May 7, 2026, recognizing the winners of the “Antioch Through My Eyes” writing contest.
The district-wide contest invited all fourth and fifth grade students in Antioch Unified School District to share their perspectives, creativity, and voices through writing. The program was designed to support local schools while giving students a meaningful opportunity to express themselves and write with purpose.
Winners were selected in each grade level, with first ($100), second ($50), and third ($25) place awards presented to top essays. In addition, one student from each participating class was recognized with a special “Top of the Class” ($10) award.
The ceremony was held at the Woman’s Clubhouse and brought together students, their families, teachers, principals, board members to celebrate the young writers’ achievements. The event concluded with an ice cream social in honor of all participants.
In 1902, 11 of the 15 ladies founded the Woman’s Club of Antioch and pledged: “To improve and beautify the town, to do any business which shall promote the educational industrial benevolent, social or political welfare of its members or the community at large.” For m ore information visit www.gfwcwomansclubofantioch.org.
Class of 2026 is largest graduating class in LMC history; to be held at Concord Pavilion
By Juliet V. Casey, Director of Marketing, Los Medanos College
Pittsburg, Calif. — Los Medanos College (LMC) will celebrate the achievements of the Class of 2026 during its 52nd Commencement Ceremony at 10 a.m., Friday, May 22, 2026, at the Toyota Pavilion at Concord, 2000 Kirker Pass Road, Concord, CA 94521.
This year marks the largest graduating class in the college’s history, with 1,623 students earning a total of 2,755 awards. Graduates will receive a range of credentials, including 48 noncredit certificates awarded to 35 students, 1,075 certificates of achievement, and more than 1,640 Associate Degrees of Science and Arts. The Class of 2026 reflects the rich diversity of the community, with graduates ranging in age from 16, two of the youngest recipients, to 71, the college’s two eldest scholars.
The Class of 2026 represents significant growth for the institution, increasing 19.4% from 1,358 graduates in 2025 to the largest cohort to date. Total awards are up 21.5% over the 2,266 awards given last year. The certificates of achievement increased 54% this year from 698 in 2025, and associate degrees saw a 19.8% boost over 1,398 from the prior year. These milestone underscore Los Medanos College’s expanding role in providing accessible, high-quality higher education and career training opportunities across the region.
“Our ceremony highlights the transformative role that higher education and career training play in shaping students’ futures, while strengthening our community,” LMC President Pamela Ralston said. “Graduates will cross the stage representing a wide spectrum of academic pathways and career goals, including transfer-bound scholars and workforce-ready professionals.”
Source: LMC
This year’s ceremony will feature two student speakers whose stories reflect the spirit and mission of Los Medanos College:
Benjamin N. Osborn, a founding member and president of RISE, LMC’s support program for students who have experienced the justice system, will deliver a graduate address. Osborn is also a representative of the Berkeley Underground Scholars program at LMC and leads the nonprofit “From Shackles to Scholarships,” advocating for educational access and second chances. His journey exemplifies perseverance and the transformative impact of education.
Maria Guadalupe Mendoza, an honors student, will also address the graduating class. Over the past three years, Mendoza has balanced her academic pursuits with extensive community service, volunteering with Kaiser Permanente in the mom-baby and labor and delivery units. She has also supported local communities through her work with the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano and Clean Start Homeless Outreach, demonstrating a deep commitment to service, compassion, and leadership.
Family members, friends, faculty, and community supporters are invited to attend and celebrate the achievements of the Class of 2026.
Ceremony Admission & Seating Information
The ceremony is general admission and no tickets are required to attend. There is NO RESERVED SEATING at the pavilion. The pavilion has wheelchair access with limited seating for people with disabilities. Designated ASL seating will be available in section 104 for guests who require sign language interpretation. Guests should arrive early for optimal seating.
About Los Medanos College (LMC): LMC is one of three colleges in the Contra Costa Community College District serving the East Contra Costa County community. Established in 1974, LMC has earned federal designations as a Minority-Serving and Hispanic-Serving institution. It offers award-winning transfer and career-technical programs, support services, and diverse academic opportunities in an inclusive learning environment. With exceptional educators, innovative curriculum, growing degree and certificate offerings, and state-of-the-art facilities, the college prepares students to succeed in their educational pursuits, in the workforce, and beyond. LMC’s Pittsburg Campus is located on 120 acres bordering Antioch, with an additional education center in Brentwood. For more information visit www.losmedanos.edu.
The governor included $1.7 billion in his allocation to K-12 and community colleges, but is keeping $3.9 billion until next year.
Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA from 2.87% to 4.31%.
The revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%.
With one contentious exception, school districts can check off most items on their wish list for 2026-27 with the release on Thursday of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised state budget.
Newsom is proposing to target unexpected billions of dollars from surging state revenues to the priorities that school district leaders had prized, including a higher cost-of-living adjustment, billions of dollars more annually for special education, and a one-time, much larger discretionary block grant.
Also, all employees of community colleges and TK-12 schools will be entitled to up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave beginning in 2026-27, which the higher COLA will pay for.
But there remains a major point of contention: Newsom is still withholding $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funding that school organizations say should go to schools and community colleges now.
School districts had complained loudly that their base funding hadn’t kept up with rising expenses, particularly special education and declining enrollment. Amid overall record state funding, Newsom prioritized new initiatives, including the addition of transitional kindergarten, the creation of community schools and expanded learning after school and during the summer.
“People were looking for base money in their pocket,” said Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. “The attention to a higher COLA and special education is welcome news.”
Source: EdSource.org
Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, said, “Big picture, the May revision puts $8.1 billion more than the January budget into education. While it’s not perfect, we really appreciate it. The governor and Legislature have done a better job in the last couple of years of protecting funding. That said, kids are still way behind.”
Tempering praise for the higher COLA and special education funding, California School Boards Association President Debra Schade said in a statement, “Unfortunately, the Governor’s May Revise masks the underfunding of the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee and the prolific use of one-time money to inflate funding levels in the short term without providing the stability and predictability schools need to plan effectively for student support. “
In his January budget, Newsom said he would withhold $5.6 billion from schools and community colleges until he was certain, early in 2027, that state revenue had actually come through. Schools objected, and the California Teachers Association and the school boards association have threatened to sue on the principle that the Prop. 98 allocations are a voter-approved constitutional guarantee.
In the May revision, Newsom included $1.7 billion in his allocation, but is still keeping $3.9 billion until early next year, when the next governor can reassess. This continues to frustrate school organizations.
“ACSA rejects the Administration’s proposal, as these funds belong in classrooms supporting students,” said Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators. “As budget negotiations move forward, ACSA will continue advocating for a final budget that fully honors the state’s constitutional commitment to public education.”
CTA President David Goldberg said withholding the funds “causes serious harm to public schools. This means overcrowded, under-resourced, destabilized classrooms.” This week, he said, “more than 2,000 educators will find out if their layoff notice is permanent heading into the next school year … and their future is in jeopardy with threats to withhold vital funds from our local school districts.”
Asked about the issue during a state budget presentation Thursday, Newsom said education advocates should take a wider view.
“We made some accommodation to that concern, and I would just have them look at the entire balance sheet and be hard-pressed to find an administration over a seven-year period that’s invested more in transforming our TK — a brand new grade — to 12 education system,” Newsom told reporters “(We’ve made) unprecedented, historic investments per pupil, investments that are the envy of many other states.”
The revised funding estimate for Proposition 98, the 40% of the state general fund that must go to TK-12 and community colleges, would be a record $127.1 billion in 2026-27. Per student funding would increase to a record $21,013 per pupil. Funding per pupil from federal and other sources would be $28,282.
That overall revenue estimate, however, would appear at least several billion dollars less than the Senate and the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office had forecast. The May revision marks the starting line for a final dash toward the Legislature’s June 15 deadline, followed by negotiations between Newsom and legislative leaders, with final passage by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.
Laird said that including the withheld $3.9 billion for schools and community colleges will be one of the items. Additional revenue projections, based on May tax receipts, will be a factor.
The table presents proposed and revised budget year expenditures for each agency area. These totals are comprised of State funds which include General Fund, special funds, and selected bond funds. These totals do not include federal funds, other non-governmental cost funds, or reimbursements. Source: Office of the California Governor
Here are some budget specifics:
COLA: Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA of 2.87%, determined by a federal formula that does not consider the price of housing, to 4.31%. The effect would raise COLA for districts’ operating expenses, through the Local Control Funding Formula, from $3.1 billion proposed in January to $4 billion. Other programs, including special education, would get the statutory COLA of 2.87%
The 4.31% would become the new base for determining COLA calculations in future years.
SPECIAL EDUCATION: State and federal special education fall well short of districts’ obligations for students with disabilities. Additional state funding for special education offsets districts’ base expenses. Newsom would add $1.8 billion to the extra $509 million increase he proposed in January for a total of $2.4 billion — 43% more than a year ago.
Newsom characterized it as “the largest investment in special education in California’s history … maybe in American history.”
“It’s an area that has continued to be anxiety-inducing because you meet with parents, and they’re demanding more, and we’ve heard that call,” he said.
BLOCK GRANT: In January, Newsom proposed a one-time $2.8 billion grant; he has raised it to $5 billion. He calls it the Student Support and Professional Development Block Grant, and implies it should be used for teacher training for math, reading and literacy support for English learners, along with career pathways and expanding dual enrollment. But districts will have wide latitude to spend the money as they choose.
RAINY DAY FUND: Newsom would raise the Proposition 98 reserve to $10.3 billion, approaching the statutory maximum, as a cushion in the event of a recession or if the spigot of projected revenues from tax receipts from AI startups runs dry.
John Affeldt, managing attorney for Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, warned that the state should plan for that to happen. “Our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles,” he said. “To build a budget that will enable our residents to thrive, California needs more robust permanent revenue streams to support our schools and healthy communities. We cannot ask teachers to transform students’ lives while those same teachers are being priced out of the communities they serve.”
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: Newsom would add $1 billion to the $4.1 billion previously invested in creating 2,500 community schools, which provide community partnerships involving wellness, mental health and career opportunities. His May revision would also repurpose nearly $500 million in extension grants to add more community schools.
“We lead and dominate the nation in community schools,” Newsom said Thursday.
LITERACY AND MATH INSTRUCTION: Since 2019, the state has funded $715 million to hire and train reading specialists and coaches in high-poverty schools — a key element in the state’s comprehensive early literacy plan. But that money, in one-time grants, will expire over the next three years. Newsom proposes $440 million to extend the grants through 2031.
He would also add $60 million to the $30 million funded last year for the Mathematics Professional Learning Partnership, which is creating a statewide network to train coaches and math specialists in the 2023 math framework. Still missing: funding for elementary schools to hire coaches.
Newsom is also encouraging districts to use some of the $5 billion in the discretionary block grant for literacy and math instruction.
Early education and care
In his presentation, the governor largely overlooked early education and child care. The proposal allocates $15 million toward training to help with the implementation of programs such as Transitional Kindergarten and $5 million in ongoing funding to support the use of the Multitudes dyslexia screener at no cost to districts.
But the revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%. The governor also did not address calls from early education advocates to help support pre-K programs that have been struggling after losing large numbers of children to the new TK programs offered by the state’s public schools.
Patricia Lozano, executive director of Early Edge California, a nonprofit organization that advocates for accessible, high-quality early learning, said the reduction to the cost-of-living adjustment sends a troubling signal to providers who are already operating on the margins.
“Access to affordable child care isn’t just an early learning issue, it’s essential to families’ economic well-being,” she said. “The governor has been a strong champion for children during his years in office, and we’ll be urging the Administration and the Legislature to fulfill the promise of funding additional child care slots and restoring COLA before the budget is finalized.”
In particular, the governor’s plan to significantly increase the cost-of-living allowance for TK-12 schools while cutting it for preschools drew fire.
“He decided to backstop health premiums and local schools, while punting on aiding families who desperately search for affordable child care,” said Bruce Fuller, who co-authored a new report from the UC Berkeley Equity and Excellence in Early Childhood alliance on the dire outlook many pre-K programs are facing.
Lempert, of Children Now, said he hoped the cuts to the early education COLA would be reversed by the Legislature in the final budget.
the STATE BUDGET PROCESS
Governor’s initial budget proposal:
Must be released by Jan. 10.
Assumes an estimate of revenues the state will collect over the next 18 months (by June 30, 2027). Actual revenues often differ significantly due to economic conditions, federal policy and unforeseen events, such as the destructive fires in Los Angeles.
MAY 14 revision:
Governor issues May budget with revised general fund revenues, including its impact on Proposition 98.
LATE MAY to EARLY JUNE:
Legislature’s budget subcommittees report to the full budget committees.
JUNE 15:
Constitutional deadline for the Legislature to pass the budget bill.
MID-JUNE TO LATE JUNE:
Negotiations between the Assembly speaker and the Senate president pro tempore with the governor; the Legislature passes the final budget, and the governor signs it before the fiscal year starts on July 1.
Legislature’s response:
The Assembly and Senate have until June 15 to hold hearings and respond with their own version.
Negotiation:
Behind closed doors, legislative leaders and the governor settle differences. Lawmakers sign off, and the governor signs the final version.
Governors have increasingly used the budget to rewrite statutes outside the legislative process. That’s why it’s important to read the fine print in massive “budget trailer bills” written after the budget is passed.
About 40% of the state’s general fund will go to schools and community colleges. The bulk goes to keeping schools running, but in some years, new money is spent on new programs, such as transitional kindergarten and community schools.
The Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustee cut the budget and 159 positions after saving 16 Classified staff positions during their meeting on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Photos by Allen D. Payton
Over 16 positions saved at request of three trustees, but no teachers
Board first heard from state’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team CEO
By Allen D. Payton
During another long meeting, the Antioch School Board, on Wednesday night, May 13, 2026, on split votes cut the District budget, and laid off 159 employees including 48 teachers and 30 other Certificated staff. Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown voted to abstain on all three votes. But the Board voted unanimously to accept the offer of one-day furloughs by Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams and administrative staff, including principals. That will save the District about $117,000.
The meeting and votes followed split votes the previous Wednesday when the Board majority opposed the budget and staff cuts. The Board again met at 7:00 p.m. in the Deer Valley High School Theater with the expectation of a greater turnout than the District’s Board Room could accommodate. But that, once again, proved to be unnecessary as very few teachers, staff and members of the public attended the meeting.
The District was facing a $31.5 million budget deficit and the proposed budget cuts totaled $18.7 million. But how much was actually cut wasn’t clear due to the over 16 Classified staff positions that were saved. Also saved, was the District from a potential takeover by the State and County Offices of Education, known as receivership.
The Board faced two deadlines requiring them to vote to make the cuts that night. First, the District had to give final layoff notices to employees by Thursday, May 14th as well as submit their financial plan to the County Office of Education by Friday, May 15th.
Very few District teachers, staff, parents and other members of the public attended Wednesday night’s meeting inside the Deer Valley High School Theater.
The trustees heard from District staff, including Bob Carson, president of the Antioch Education Association, the local teachers’ union, who supported the cuts to avoid the takeover and from residents who opposed them.
Then the Board was provided a presentation Regarding Projected Cash Flow by Mike Fine, the Chief Executive Officer of the California Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), which, “assists and provides guidance to local educational agencies in the areas of business and financial management practices.” He described his organization as “the guardian of the receivership process” but stressed to the trustees that FCMAT’s efforts were to work with financially challenged districts to avoid it.
“The majority of our work is absolutely avoiding receivership,” he added, which he estimated to be 80% of FCMAT’s work.
Fine also informed the Board and District leadership that the expected May Revised Budget from Governor Newsom on Thursday would change the financial figures being discussed and that it would be positive for the District. That turned out to possibly be true as the governor’s 2026-27 budget proposal increases spending on K-12 by $2.5 billion. (See related article)
The Antioch School Board Trustees heard impassioned pleas against the cuts by parents before the votes on May 13, 2026.
Trustee Requests & Board Votes
Following several responses to questions by District staff and requests by individual trustees to save certain jobs, including school psychiatrists and Reading Intervention Teachers by Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and Paraeducators by Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown, who was also unsatisfied with requests for information from District staff not being provided, the Board took three split votes.
Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith was satisfied that the District didn’t need one psychiatrist per school because best practices only required one for every 500 to 700 students. That was enough for her to change her “no” vote on the budget from last week. After Rocha was satisfied with the explanation from District staff that they had a plan to handle the loss of the Reading Intervention Teachers, she joined the other three trustees in voting in favor of cutting the Classified staff positions.
The Board approved the proposed list of 78 Certificated staff cuts. Source: AUSD
At 11:34 PM, on a vote of 3-1-1 with Rocha voting “no” and Brown voting to abstain, the Trustees approved the Budget Reduction Plan including the concessions that saved several specific jobs.
The Board the voted 3-1-1, again, on final layoffs of 78 Certificated employees which, were mainly teachers.
After Rocha was able to get the other board members to agree to saving the jobs of the Behavior Support Specialists (3 FTE), Board Certified Behavior Analyst (1 FTE) and Instructional Assistants – Bilingual (12.4275 FTE), the Trustees voted 4-0-1 on final layoffs of a little over 81 Full-Time Equivalent Classified Services employees. Brown again, voted to abstain.
The AUSD Board of Trustees voted to approve the proposed list of cuts to Classified staff positions except for those highlighted in yellow. Source: AUSD. Highlighted by the Herald.
The Board also voted to accept the superficial gesture of one-day furlough by the superintendent and administrative staff including principals. It means those staff members won’t be paid but also don’t have to show up for work that day. After Rocha asked about increasing it to three days, Dr. Williams said that would have to be taken to the Personnel Commission, first. The motion on the matter then passed 5-0, saving the District approximately $117,437.
The Board’s work on the budget is not over as they still face another deadline in October, Dr. Williams shared. But by then, with additional state funds, assuming the governor’s budget proposals are approved by the legislature, the Antioch trustees job may get easier.
