School Board Cash Grab Explodes- 400% Raises

Exterior view of a modern brick building with a landscaped area and pathway

California school trustees are quietly voting themselves massive pay hikes under AB 1390 while classrooms face funding crises and taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Story Snapshot

New state law AB 1390 lets school boards boost their own pay by up to 500% after 40 years without changes.
A Northern California board and others have grabbed 300–400% raises as districts warn about budget pressure and teacher pay falling behind inflation.
Supporters say higher pay helps “equity” and workload, but offer no hard local data on meetings, duties, or finances to justify the exact increases.
Taxpayer advocates question why politicians get big stipends while teacher strikes, layoffs, and school closures hit families.

AB 1390: How Sacramento Opened the Door to Huge Board Pay Raises

California Assembly Bill 1390 changed the rules for school board pay for the first time since the 1980s, and it did so in a big way.^[1] The law raised state caps on monthly compensation based on district size, with some ranges jumping fivefold. For districts with 1,001 to 10,000 students in average daily attendance, the legal maximum climbed from $240 to $1,200 per month.^[1] State records show the overall range now runs from $600 up to $4,500 a month, depending on enrollment.^[6]

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1390 in 2025 after its author, Assemblymember José Luis Solache, argued that board duties have “grown exponentially” and that pay limits had not moved in more than 40 years.^[2] His press release claims the bill will help boards “with the financial capacity to modestly and responsibly increase their compensation” so service stays open to working families.^[2] The California School Boards Association, which sponsored the bill, called it a “long-overdue adjustment” to match inflation and expanded workload.^[1]

From Legal Ceiling to Local Cash Grabs: What Boards Are Now Doing

AB 1390 does not force any district to raise pay; it simply lifts the cap and leaves the choice to local boards.^[2] Yet many boards have raced to the new maximum the moment the law took effect. In San Diego County, trustees in several districts moved their stipends from roughly $275 a month to $1,200, a jump of more than 300%.^[18] Local reports in Modesto and Stockton describe similar moves, with one board going from $750 to $3,000 a month under the new ceiling.^[21] Votes have often been unanimous and taken in quick public meetings.^[18]

A Northern California board at the center of recent outrage followed the same pattern. Coverage notes that trustees agreed to boost pay nearly 300%, with plans to climb even higher in later years under AB 1390’s limits.^[17] These decisions meet the law’s basic requirement for a public vote, but the boards have not released detailed minutes or data tying the exact raise to more meetings, longer hours, or specific new duties. There is also no district audit made public that proves they truly have the “financial capacity” the governor’s office says should guide these raises.^[2]

Taxpayers See Perks for Politicians While Classrooms Struggle

Parents and taxpayers across California are asking a simple question: if schools are short on money, why are board members giving themselves big pay bumps? Independent education analysts describe a long-running “funding squeeze,” with rising costs for special education, pensions, benefits, and insurance eating into classroom budgets.^[14] As these fixed expenses grow, districts have less left over for instruction, even before inflation drives up basic costs. The result is pressure for layoffs, school closures, and larger class sizes in many communities.^[14]

Teacher pay tells a similar story. National data from the National Education Association show that, after inflation, average teacher salaries are about 5.3% lower than they were a decade ago, even though the dollar amount rose slightly.^[15] In California, research finds that instructional salaries have fallen as a share of total spending while benefits and “other spending” have grown.^[23] That means many educators are doing more with less, as trustees use a new law to multiply their own stipends. Media reports have already highlighted strikes for better teacher pay happening at the same time boards vote themselves raises.^[12]

Supporters Talk “Access” and “Equity,” But Hard Numbers Are Missing

Backers of AB 1390 say higher board pay is needed so working parents and diverse candidates can afford to serve.^[2] They point out that old caps, set around 1984, did not keep up with inflation or the time spent in meetings, training, and public events.^[3] Some advocacy pieces argue that if boards had taken the allowed 5% yearly increases all along, current pay would be much higher already.^[4] On paper, that sounds like a technical fix to catch up after decades of neglect.

The problem is that, at the local level, boards are not sharing clear proof that their workload really jumped or that smaller raises would fail to attract candidates. The Northern California board in question has offered no public study of meetings per year, hours of training, or community events since 2020.^[3] There is also no testimony from trustees explaining why $240 or $765 was impossible but $1,200 or $3,000 is suddenly essential. Without that, many taxpayers see the talk of “equity” as a cover for self-approved pay perks.

Where Conservatives Draw the Line: Accountability, Not Blank Checks

For many conservative voters, the issue is not that public service should be unpaid. It is about priorities and transparency. When a law lets politicians who control school budgets vote themselves 300–400% raises, while teachers, parents, and students feel squeezed, it reads like classic government self-interest. Even before AB 1390, state law already allowed small annual increases. Jumping straight to the new cap, instead of matching real inflation, looks less like fairness and more like opportunism.^[4]

Assemblymember Solache himself admitted the raises would be “a tough sell” in districts facing budget constraints.^[10] That warning is proving true. Taxpayer advocates and local parents are pushing for full budget audits, detailed meeting logs, and open debate before any board touches its own pay. Until boards can prove that every extra dollar for stipends does not hurt classrooms, conservatives will rightly question why Sacramento and local trustees chose bigger checks for themselves over relief from overcrowded classes, low teacher pay, and the broader education funding crisis.^[7]