If California truly wants fully staffed schools, competitive compensation, smaller classes and expanded student supports, then the conversation must expand beyond local bargaining to include the state’s funding architecture, its manipulation of Proposition 98, and the absence of a coherent statewide strategy to support school districts and county offices of education.

Despite what some may claim, school board members and superintendents don’t accept these positions because they harbor a secret desire to sabotage the labor movement or to impoverish teachers. They stepped into those roles because they cherish education, respect its value to society and want to develop the best possible version of public schools for their communities. Trustees and superintendents recognize how integral teachers are to that vision, and they want to reward teachers for their incredibly important work. Yet, these desires don’t occur in a vacuum.

For governance teams, the ultimate goal is to facilitate high-quality outcomes for all students. Meeting that goal requires tough choices, and financial realities mean it’s impossible to satisfy every demand without jeopardizing the solvency of the school district. Mortgaging the future is not putting students first, it’s living in the moment. Governance teams don’t have that luxury; they have to serve today’s students and staff, while also creating a sustainable path for the students and staff of tomorrow.

When the leaders of California’s local educational agencies sit down at the bargaining table they bring with them a laundry list of constraints and financial pressures that restrict their ability to meet union demands. Uncertain state and federal economic conditions, volatile state revenue forecasts, declining enrollment that reduces ongoing funding, expiring one-time federal relief dollars, growing student need, rising special education costs, increased employer pension contributions, skyrocketing health benefit costs and unfunded and underfunded mandates from the state tie the hands of local bargaining teams.

Yet, instead of acknowledging the adverse environment in which LEAs operate, one that is largely determined by the state, some local bargaining units ignore or downplay financial pressures, instead casting the district as stingy or mendacious when it fails to meet their demands. The frustration is understandable, but the energy is misdirected. Instead, local teacher unions and, especially, the statewide California Teachers Association (CTA) should turn its attention to the state.

In Sacramento, for the third consecutive year, state budget proposals have included maneuvers that withhold or manipulate Proposition 98 funding rather than fully honoring the guarantee. Prop 98 was enacted by voters to provide stable, predictable funding for schools and is embedded in California’s Constitution. Yet, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and the Legislature continue to sidestep the law and the will of the voters. Most recently, $5.6 billion — roughly $900 per student — was withheld through calculations that delay constitutionally guaranteed funding needed to support students and settle contract negotiations. For a small school district with 2,500 average daily attendance, that amount equals $2,250,000, a significant sum.

These are the funds districts use to retain teachers, maintain manageable class sizes, provide mental health services and support special education, among other important purposes. CTA’s “We Can’t Wait” public relations and negotiations campaign takes the unprecedented step of aligning contract expiration dates and establishing common bargaining across 32 target districts to create a wave of overlapping labor actions including strikes. This campaign reflects legitimate frustrations about staffing shortages, compensation pressures and student needs, yet it focuses its ire on the wrong place. District leaders share many of the concerns identified in “We Can’t Wait” and want to provide stable working conditions for staff and productive learning environments for students. But local districts cannot manufacture revenue streams and are further undermined when the state withholds or destabilizes needed funds.