Newsom’s Law Supercharges School Board Pay

A little-known California law is letting local school boards vote themselves 300–500% pay raises, even as families struggle with high taxes, weak schools, and stretched budgets.

Story Snapshot

AB 1390 lets California school boards boost their own pay up to five times prior limits after decades without an update.
A Northern California board okayed nearly 300% raises and plans to go as high as $3,000 a month, angering taxpayers.
Supporters say inflation and workload demand higher pay, but offer little local proof and no clear link to student results.
Conservatives see another example of Sacramento empowering insiders while teachers, parents, and kids face budget pain.

How Newsom’s Law Unlocked Massive School Board Pay Hikes

California’s Assembly Bill 1390, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2025, radically raised how much local school board members can be paid each month.^[3] For many districts, the cap jumped by up to five times, with districts of 1,001 to 10,000 students allowed to go from $240 to $1,200 per member each month.^[1] Larger districts can now go far higher, with some boards able to reach between $3,000 and $7,500 monthly stipends, depending on size and attendance.^[1]^[7]

Supporters, led by the California School Boards Association, pushed AB 1390 as a “long-overdue” fix because the caps had not changed in about 40 years.^[1]^[2] They argued that inflation and new duties — like more public meetings, extra training, and policy work — made service harder, especially for members with families and regular jobs.^[2]^[3] Newsom’s signing statement said the law would help boards with “financial capacity” modestly raise pay so service stayed “accessible to all Californians.”^[3]

The Northern California Board That Sparked Public Fury

Once AB 1390 took effect on January 1, 2026, some boards moved fast to grab the new higher pay.^[7] A Northern California board drew headlines when it voted itself nearly 300% raises, planning to climb from hundreds of dollars a month today to as much as $3,000 a month in a future school year.^[17] The New York Post reported that local residents reacted with “fury,” seeing the move as self-serving, even though the board acted within the new state limits.^[17]

Similar votes have happened across the state. In San Diego County, one board unanimously boosted pay from about $275 to $1,200 per month after the law kicked in.^[18] Another district discussed increases as high as 400% while also facing teacher layoffs and even school closures.^[9]^[13] Conservative watchdogs like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association called such pay jumps a “questionable priority” while districts claim they are too broke to fully fund classrooms.

Do Huge Raises Make Sense When Classrooms Are Hurting?

Education funding experts say California schools are already squeezed by rising costs such as special education, pensions, health benefits, and insurance, even as student enrollment falls in many areas.^[14] That means less money follows fewer students, but big fixed costs remain, leaving less for instruction and support in each classroom.^[14] At the same time, national teacher pay has barely kept up, with average salaries gaining on paper but still losing ground when adjusted for inflation.^[15]

One report found teachers make more than 5% less in real buying power than a decade ago, even after recent raises.^[15] Yet AB 1390 lets some board stipends multiply overnight, with no requirement that local districts first meet clear goals for student achievement, teacher pay, or school safety.^[7] The law only requires that any raise be approved in a public meeting, and that the board have the “financial capacity” to increase compensation — a term the state does not strictly define.^[3] That leaves parents and taxpayers guessing whether their district can truly afford these jumps.

Weak Local Justification and Growing Taxpayer Backlash

Backers of AB 1390 talk often about “increased responsibilities” and four decades of inflation, but local boards rarely offer hard numbers to match the rhetoric.^[2] In the Northern California case, there is no public study showing how many more hours trustees now work, how many more meetings they attend, or how much inflation really eroded the old $240 cap.^[2] There is also no widely shared audit proving the district has the financial room the law calls for before raising pay.^[3]

Instead, the pattern is simple and troubling: Sacramento lifts the ceiling, the lobby group that pushed the law cheers, and local boards quickly vote themselves raises, often up to the new maximum.^[1]^[5] Many of these votes pass with little debate on the board, but they spark sharp anger once taxpayers hear that trustees grabbed 300–500% hikes while test scores lag and families pay more for everything else.^[17]^[18] For many conservatives, it looks like classic government behavior — insiders first, students and taxpayers last.

What This Means for Conservatives Across the Country

For Trump-supporting conservatives, this California story hits several nerves at once: government self-dealing, weak accountability, and laws written more for special interests than for parents or students. AB 1390 was sponsored by the California School Boards Association, which represents boards, not taxpayers.^[1] Critics warn this looks like regulatory capture — the people who benefit most from higher pay helped design the rules that allowed it.^[5] That raises clear questions about whose voice matters in California’s education system.

Beyond California, the lesson is clear. When government quietly changes pay rules for insiders, the public often finds out only after the money is already committed. Without strong conservative voices at local meetings, watching budgets and demanding proof of need, these raises will keep spreading. Parents and taxpayers who want serious reform — safer schools, better reading and math scores, real respect for teachers — must stay engaged and push back every time government tries to reward itself before it delivers results for kids.