Legislative Talking Points

Background: California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was designed to establish a more equitable, student-centered funding system by providing districts with a base level of funding, supplemented according to student needs. LCFF funding is financed through a combination of local property taxes and state funding.  

Challenge: The current formula treats local property-tax revenue differently depending on a district's funding status. For LCFF-funded districts like NUSD, local property-tax revenue is credited toward the district's LCFF entitlement and reduces the amount of state aid required. Basic-aid/community-funded districts, whose property-tax revenue exceeds their LCFF entitlement, retain revenue above that entitlement and may also receive certain state funding provisions.  

Position: We support the goal of equitable and student-centered school funding. However, the current system warrants review to ensure that districts with similar student needs are not placed at a structural disadvantage based solely on how their funding is generated.

Advocacy: We believe the State should reconsider the funding model with:

• A review of LCFF calculations to ensure equitable treatment of LCFF and basicaid/community-funded districts;
• Evaluation of how Redevelopment Agency and other local property-tax revenues are treated in LCFF calculations;
• Reconsideration of how Education Protection Account (EPA)and other minimum state funding provisions apply to basic-aid and LCFF districts 

Background: Of NUSD’s approximately $125 million annual budget, nearly 17%, or $20 million, is transferred from the unrestricted General Fund to support special education services. Because state and federal funding does not cover the full cost of providing required services, the gap places a substantial and ongoing burden on local resources. Changes in state law, mandates, or funding formulas can therefore have an immediate and significant impact on both the District’s financial stability and its ability to sustain services and supports for students and families.

Position: We strongly believe in supporting every student, including students with disabilities, while also being responsible stewards of limited public resources. The question is not whether we provide these essential services, it is how we can deliver them effectively, efficiently, and sustainably, ensuring students receive the support they need while protecting the long-term financial health of our schools.

Advocacy

• Increase and stabilize state and federal special education funding to better reflect the actual cost of services;
• Develop funding formulas that recognize varying levels of student need, particularly high-cost services and placements;
• Expand funding for early identification, intervention, and evidence-based programs that improve outcomes and may reduce long-term costs;
• Provide incentives and resources for districts to develop effective, sustainable indistrict programs when appropriate; and
• Increase support for recruitment and retention of specialized special education staff.

Review:  LAO’s February 2026 Financial Analysis – Proposition 98 Guarantee and K-12 Spending Plan 

Background: Established in 1968, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) promotes transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to government records, while recognizing limited exemptions to protect privacy and other legitimate interests. School districts have an obligation to maintain processes that ensure timely, consistent, and legally compliant responses to public records requests.

Challenge: Public records requests have become increasingly frequent, expansive, ambiguous, and time-consuming. The growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created new opportunities to generate large-volume, highly detailed, or repetitive requests, creating additional demands on school district staff and resources.

Position: We support government transparency and the public's right to access public records. At the same time, increasingly complex and expansive requests can require significant staff time to research, review, redact, and produce records. This can divert educators and other staff from their primary responsibilities of supporting student learning and school operations, while requiring districts to dedicate substantial resources to ensuring compliance and protecting student and employee privacy.

Advocacy: We support reasonable guardrails that preserve the intent of the CPRA while allowing school districts to respond efficiently and consistently, to include:

• Establishing reasonable parameters for the scope and specificity of requests, including search terms where appropriate;
• Addressing repetitive or substantially duplicative requests;
• Providing appropriate parameters for requests for information that is already readily available on district or other public websites; and
• Ensuring that districts have sufficient time and resources to conduct appropriate searches, review records, apply legally required redactions, and protect confidential student and employee information.

Review: California Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis SB1159 

Background: California establishes numerous requirements for school districts to promote student well-being, accountability, fiscal oversight, and compliance with state and federal law. State law provides reimbursement for certain qualifying mandated activities, either through the traditional claims process or the K–12 Mandates Block Grant. However, not all requirements qualify for reimbursement, and the reimbursement process does not necessarily reflect the full administrative impact on individual districts.

Challenge: School districts face a growing volume of state-mandated programs, data collection, reporting, and compliance requirements. These requirements can require significant staff time and resources and may be duplicative, overlapping, or disproportionate to their intended benefit. The Legislative Analyst's Office has noted that categorical programs, for example, can create additional administrative burdens because staff must comply with additional reporting requirements and program rules.

Position: We support appropriate state standards, accountability, transparency, and programs that benefit students. However, the state should recognize the cumulative financial and administrative impact of its requirements on local school districts. Educators and district staff should spend their time and resources as efficiently as possible on teaching, supporting students, and operating schools, not on unnecessary or duplicative administrative requirements.

Advocacy: Advocate for greater local control and a comprehensive review of state mandates and reporting requirements. Support:

• Full and timely funding for reimbursable state mandates;
• Elimination of obsolete, duplicative, or low-value reporting requirements;
• Standardized reporting processes and greater use of information districts already collect;
• Coordination among state agencies to reduce redundant data requests;
• An assessment of the financial and administrative impact of proposed new mandates before they are enacted; and
• Reasonable flexibility for districts to meet legitimate state requirements without unnecessary administrative burden.

Review: LAO’s Office, The 2026-27 Budget: K-12 Mandates