back
106 comments
Related: In the German state of Baden-Württemberg they were miscalculating the number of active teachers for 20 years due to a software error, causing the state to employ 1440 fewer teachers than actually intended.

https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/bildung/baden-wuerttemberg-s...

How is that related? That's a long term calculation error vs short term forecasting error.
From my point of view, the Jedi are a state-funded militia coded as a tax exempt non profit!
Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted with mass layoffs this year and next, and the miscalculation looks like 2/3 of the budget shortfall, hiding such a basic and impactful error requires a much better explanation than I see in that article. It looks like it was done to stifle debate about budget allocations, which would be necessary in the circumstances.
The education system seems one of the only places where vastly improving technology over the past 30 years has not translated to cost savings or improved outcomes.
It turns out that our kids learn better from humans than machines.

Ever dealt with a kid who has had too much screen time? It’s fucking awful.

Isn’t this just Baumol’s cost disease?

Gains in efficiency due to technology improvement, as far as I know, are always attributable to fewer people being able to do more / produce more. There are some things that will never have gains in efficiency. Technology will not reduce the number of players on a football field from 11 to 10.

Why would we expect schooling to get…cheaper?

The vast majority of the cost is hiring teachers. It should be staying in line with inflation or even increasing.

in this thread: people discover Baumol's cost disease
Technology needs to form a union if it wants to fight existing union structures.
It shouldn't be surprising when you see what the educational technology money is actually spent on. Ive seen like a dozen "smart boards" purchased by my schools from the 00's and never once seen one used. Or how about the completely dog shit computer testing software that fails one-two word answers based on random capitalization or punctuation with no indication on what they expect. Each thing sold as the solution to all the past problems, but introducing more problems itself without actually solving any old ones.
$2 billion dollars is a pretty small piece of the $90 billion the state pays towards schools.

The budget cuts are because enrollment is down.

I already posted this, but the budget cuts are also because Federal funding was up to historic level due to COVID and has been cut significantly below baseline by the current administration. California should not calculate school funding the way it does anyways. A teacher is paid the same regardless of whether their class size is 20 or 30, whether some kids are home sick or not. So a more complex allocation system that takes this into account is absolutely required. Failure to do so is intentionally under-funding schools.

My point was simply that it is shady to hide the miscalculation, and I indicated the point in the budget under severe stress right now I would have liked to see funded should the appropriate discourse have been possible. The cause of the stress is irrelevant. 2 billion goes a long way when everything is being cut. It could save 2 billion in services.

> Given that school budgets are absolutely gutted

What now?

https://edsource.org/2026/how-california-compares-to-other-s...

https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...

Compared to cost of living though?
It is just a fact that California schools are laying off a large percentage of personnel and getting rid of many programs. Pink slips by the thousands have been sent out that will take effect in a couple months at the end of the school year. If you don't know that, you are not informed.

Those links are completely irrelevant because they are out of date. Budget had temporarily increased due to the availability of COVID funds, and now there is a very harsh snap in the other direction. Shortfalls are directly linked to actions by the Trump administration, and their downstream impacts. Every state needs to step up and deal with it.

Here is one example of how that is happening, it is a far more significant problem than just this: https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr25/yr25rel35.asp

Your own link says CA spends less than UNESCO’s 15.0% standard.

Also, you could frame this in a much more information dense way by making an active claim about something instead of just spamming a bunch of links.

If you want a vivid illustration (from an adjacent state) about the impact of pessimistic fiscal projections: Oregon has an infamous "kicker" law that refunds income taxes collected in excess of projections (plus a 2% margin). The state faces the same budgetary challenges as California... but can't project too pessimistically lest it leave money off the table.
Oregon's kicker law is a textbook example of bad economic policy, sadly. It essentially means that in boom years the state can't accumulate any general funds for recessions, which is half of the point of a state-level political entity in the first place. Balanced budgets and pay as you go are fabulous over the medium term, but over the short term of a year or two during a disaster or recession, governmental spending is critical as a counterbalance to reduced investment and general employment income.
California is also required to refund taxpayers if it accumulates too much revenue. The state's spending is capped at some limit set in 1979 with adjustments for inflation and population.

https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/qa-why-hitting-gann-li...

Well maybe they should "project" a certain amount of revenue that goes to savings every year automatically, instead of waiting for a boom year windfall.
> in boom years the state can't accumulate any general funds for recessions

Genuine question: have states had the discipline not to raid these coffers in the boom years?

The alternative is borrowing in downturns. That works because during recessions interest rates are low. The opposite problem then manifests, however, which is the state continuing to borrow through the recovery.

Maybe instead of citing shortfalls and surpluses, such laws should cite unemployment and income growth.

> Oregon's kicker law is a textbook example of bad economic policy, sadly

You must be talking about non-economic textbooks, otherwise this makes no sense.

The article doesn't really explain the overall budget, for scale it looks like in the 2025-2026 budget year CA planned to spend about $228B compared to $216B revenue ($227B in the previous year).

https://ebudget.ca.gov/2025-26/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/Sum...

This is wild. A mistake of this magnitude should result in several positions becoming vacant and many politicians being ineligible for any future offices.

If a government can’t budget accurately everything else they do is likely even less competent. Every number and statistic they report should be treated with suspicion. Without clear data who is to say they are doing anything helpful at all?

The errors were all within the CalPERS pension fund. The pensions are guaranteed by the state, so the fund is notorious for a complete lack of fiduciary duty, and these types of errors track with the general quality of their operation.
Alternatively, since we're spit balling, the administrators and/or accounting staff decided to strategically error on the side of a shortfall because its politically impossible to get the state to fully fund the pension obligations or to stop effectively raiding it.
"Gov. Newsom in January projected the state would have to grapple with a $2.9 billion shortfall. The confirmed miscalculation means that shortfall could be much smaller."

So, the title is just plain misleading.

California is less in deficit than they earlier calculated.

Correction: This is a correction to the forecast - not the budget.

By the state's own admission, there could be as much as an $18 billion dollar budget deficit if the state economy fails to grow as projected. It could also be a smaller shortfall if the economy is even better than expected.

Miscalculations are pretty common and this is why they are revised several times a year.

A little “bank error in your favor” sitchu. We love to see it.
"See what?" --Gavin
Didn't something like this just happen last year (or year before) but in the opposite direction?
> "This isn’t a calculation error – it’s revision to better estimate how these payments are made," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Newsom's Department of Finance.

Nice excuse. Reminds me of "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

"The memo stated Gov. Newsom's administration made two errors. The first involved double counting CalPERS contribution rates for the upcoming year, which the LAO said was a $1.6 billion miscalculation. The second issue involved incorrect contribution rates when the administration calculated how much money the state would need to contribute to CalPERS in the years ahead. The LAO stated that mistake amounts to about $450 million. "

...

"This isn’t a calculation error – it’s revision to better estimate how these payments are made," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Newsom's Department of Finance. "We told legislative leaders and the LAO back in February that we would update how we estimate these payments once this issue was identified. We’ve already made that adjustment, and it will be reflected in the revised budget next month."

Can someone please explain to me how double-counting isn't a calculation error? Best attempt wins.

When a political organization has no qualms about putting out a statement like that, it's a sign that they do not respect you.

Oops! They're still far easier to deal with than any federal agency.
They should have used Claude Code for Excel.
it’s less than 1% of the budget, and the state keeps overspending. Don’t get too optimistic
2 billion surplus? that's good for about 150 linear feet of high speed rail track in the middle of Salinas.
Another indicator that the administration hasn't got a fucking clue what or where their (your) money goes.
Give it back?
> California's legislative leaders have known for months but did not make the issue public.

Why would they give up a chance to make more money from the people? The government never misses an opportunity to pad its coffers. Reminds me of the CA State Parks department, which squirreled away millions of dollars and then was crying about lack of funding and hence wanted to shut down some parks.

Fun fact: I recently vacationed in Hawaii and couldn’t help but notice, despite groceries costing about 2x, gas there is a dollar cheaper than at home in California. California just can’t get enough tax money.
My Opinion:

Anyone who thinks this is a glitch in the system, or an honest mistake, should shift their mindset and start thinking more like a detective and less like a politician.

California has been steadily declining for years, now. Waste, mismanagement, fraud are commonplace. This needs to be investigated by impartial third parties that can't be bought and paid for whose commitment must be verified via polygraph. Those that are found guilty need to be prosecuted and jailed.

Being that this is California, what will end up happening is that the politicians will end up investigating themselves and miraculously be found not liable.

******

Unbiased-AI Deep Dive:

https://archive.ph/jdyO4