California Boards Voting Themselves 400% Raises — Classrooms Still Waiting

A California law sold as “equity” and “access” is now letting local school boards vote themselves 300–500% pay hikes while classrooms struggle for basics.

Story Snapshot

AB 1390 raised legal pay caps for California school boards by up to 500%, after 40 years without changes.
Local boards can now jump stipends from a few hundred dollars a month to as high as $7,500, if they vote for it.^[1]^[3]
Some boards are grabbing 300–400% raises while districts talk about layoffs, school closures, and funding “crisis.”^[4]^[6]^[7]
Teacher pay has barely kept up with inflation, even as board compensation explodes.^[14]^[15]

AB 1390: The Law Behind the Big Pay Hikes

Assembly Bill 1390, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, opened the door for massive pay raises for school board members across California.^[3] The law lifted old caps that had been in place since 1984 and multiplied them by five. For example, districts with 1,001 to 10,000 students saw their maximum monthly board pay jump from $240 to $1,200.^[1] Larger districts can now go much higher, up to $7,500 per month in some cases, if their boards choose to take the full amount.^[1]^[4]

The bill’s sponsor, the California School Boards Association, argued that board pay had not kept up with inflation or the “exponential” growth in responsibilities.^[1]^[2]^[3] Supporters said higher stipends would help working parents and people with regular jobs afford to serve. They claimed outdated pay levels made it hard for everyday citizens to sit on boards that control billions in education spending.^[2]^[3] The law does not force any district to give raises, but it clears the way for very large increases after a single local vote.^[1]^[4]

Local Boards Cash In While Budgets Strain

Once AB 1390 took effect, boards around the state began voting themselves huge raises that shocked many taxpayers.^[12]^[18] In one Northern California case highlighted by the New York Post, a board approved nearly 300% pay hikes and set a path to $3,000 a month in future years, the maximum allowed for that district size.^[17] In San Diego County, trustees in multiple districts moved stipends from roughly $275 a month to $1,200—a jump of more than 300%.^[12]^[18]

Reports and local watchdogs say some of these districts are at the same time warning about budget shortfalls, declining enrollment, and possible teacher layoffs or school closures.^[4]^[6] One analysis noted that AB 1390 allows up to 500% increases because caps were reset to reflect either inflation since 1984 or what the maximum would be if boards had taken 5% raises every year.^[5] Instead of phasing in modest changes, many boards have gone straight to the new ceilings. That choice fuels the sense that these votes are about self-benefit, not student needs.^[5]^[6]

Teacher Pay Stagnates While Governance Costs Climb

These board raises are landing in a system already under stress. Education research groups describe a long-running “funding crisis” in California schools, with core costs such as special education, pensions, health benefits, and insurance rising faster than revenue.^[7]^[14] Districts must pull more money from their general funds to cover these obligations, leaving less for classroom instruction, supplies, and support services. Parents and teachers see the impact in larger classes, fewer aides, and constant talk of budget cuts.

At the same time, national teacher pay data show that, after adjusting for inflation, teachers earn less than they did a decade ago, even with small nominal raises.^[15]^[16] In other words, educators are losing ground while some board members give themselves three- to five-fold increases. Media outlets have noted that these pay votes are happening while teachers strike for better pay and schools scramble to fill positions.^[12]^[22] For conservative taxpayers, this raises a simple question: why are elected officials putting their own stipends near the front of the line when the people in the classroom are still waiting?

What Transparency and Accountability Should Look Like

Supporters of AB 1390 stress that raises must be approved in public meetings and that boards should only act if they have the “financial capacity” to do so.^[3] Yet, in many of the high-profile cases, districts have not published detailed local studies of board workload, time spent, or inflation impact to justify jumping straight to the maximum allowed.^[2]^[5] There is often no clear data showing more meetings, more training hours, or specific duties that would explain a 300–500% raise for a part-time role.

Fiscal conservatives argue that, at minimum, districts should release budget audits proving they can afford added governance costs without cutting classrooms.^[14] They also call for meeting minutes and clear explanations any time a board votes on its own compensation, so families can see who supported the raise and why. Without that openness, these moves look like insider deals pushed by lobby groups rather than careful stewardship of taxpayer money.^[1]^[5] In a state already facing serious education funding challenges, many parents and taxpayers want local boards focused on kids and teachers first—and their own pay last.