Funding the future: Mark DeSaulnier's plan for stronger public schools
Mark DeSaulnier spent years in the California State Senate championing classroom resources before taking his fight to Washington. His campaign archive outlines a detailed approach to lifting base per-pupil funding, modernising school buildings, and giving parents a louder voice in how dollars are spent. The plan reads like a practical response to the kind of chronic under-resourcing that has shaped education debates in many Western democracies.
For Australian readers, the parallels are hard to miss. The Gonski funding review reshaped how Canberra and the states share the cost of schooling, yet many schools in western Sydney, the Northern Territory and rural Queensland still argue they get short-changed. DeSaulnier's blueprint addresses similar structural gaps, focusing on equity, transparency and long-term investment rather than one-off grants.
The case for a serious rethink
Public education funding in the United States has long relied on a patchwork of local property taxes, state contributions and federal supplements. That patchwork leaves wealthy suburbs with gleaming science labs while districts a few kilometres away patch leaking roofs. DeSaulnier argues that a child should not have their opportunities set by their postcode, a sentiment that resonates strongly in Australia where families in remote communities still board their kids at hostels hundreds of kilometres from home.
His campaign literature points out that the country spends less on K-12 education as a share of GDP than many of its peers. Closing that gap, he suggests, requires sustained political will rather than emergency bailouts whenever a crisis hits. The same pattern played out in Australia after the 2009 Building the Education Revolution, when one-off capital programs lifted facilities but left recurring teaching positions stranded once the photo opportunities faded.
How the funding model would change
DeSaulnier's plan restructures the way money flows from Washington to the classroom. The federal share would rise, with new grants tied to student need rather than enrolment numbers alone. Districts serving higher numbers of low-income families, English learners or students with disabilities would receive a weighted top-up, similar in spirit to the needs-based loading now used in the Australian School Resourcing Standard.
States would still administer the money, but they would have to meet clearer reporting standards. Annual budget summaries would show exactly how much reached each school, breaking down spending on teachers, support staff, infrastructure and learning materials. The idea is to make the system harder to game and easier for parents to understand when they ask where the money went.
The plan also proposes a multi-year capital fund for school buildings, moving away from emergency repairs when something breaks. Combined with the operating grants, the goal is predictable funding that school boards can plan around, rather than feast-or-famine cycles tied to election years.
Getting resources to the schools that need them most
Equity sits at the heart of the blueprint. Districts that have historically struggled to levy enough local revenue would finally see a reliable baseline, reducing their dependence on emergency aid or wealthier neighbours chipping in. In practice, this means a Title I-style entitlement that follows the student rather than the school district's negotiating power.
Campaign materials also flag the cost of doing nothing. Underinvestment translates into larger class sizes, outdated textbooks and a steady loss of experienced teachers to better-paid districts. DeSaulnier's team argues that every dollar spent on early intervention saves several more down the track in remediation, justice and welfare costs, a calculation that Australian state treasurers have made when justifying full Gonski implementation.
Supporting the people in the classroom
Teachers and support staff are a core pillar of the plan. The blueprint proposes federal scholarships for teacher preparation in shortage areas, including special education, STEM and bilingual instruction. It also funds paid internships for future educators in high-need districts, helping universities and schools partner more closely.
Pay and conditions get attention too. The plan backs a federal grant program that rewards districts which raise starting salaries and invest in mentoring for new teachers. It is a recognition that recruitment drives in places like outback South Australia or the Pilbara collapse when graduates cannot afford housing or face four-figure relocation costs alone. Campaign blog update on the campaign site tracks how these ideas evolved through the policy committee.
| Support area | Current approach | DeSaulnier's proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher preparation | Varies by state, often unpaid placements | Federal scholarships in shortage fields |
| Starting salaries | Set locally, often below living wage | Grants reward districts raising pay |
| Mentoring | Inconsistent and informal | Funded mentor programs for new teachers |
| Housing assistance | Rare and piecemeal | Targeted support for remote and high-cost districts |
Beyond recruitment, the plan addresses retention. Veteran teachers often leave the profession because of stacked extra duties, behaviour challenges and a lack of planning time. The blueprint funds released time for collaboration, counselling staff and reduced paperwork through better data systems. These changes aim to keep experienced educators in the classroom rather than pushing them into administration or out of the profession entirely.
Modernising buildings and digital infrastructure
The physical plant is the third pillar. Many American schools were built in the mid-twentieth century and have not seen a major upgrade in decades. The plan creates a dedicated federal stream for repairs, ventilation upgrades and accessibility work, with priority given to buildings containing asbestos, lead pipes or unreliable heating.
Digital infrastructure is treated as core equipment, not a luxury. Funding covers reliable broadband for remote campuses, device lending libraries for students who cannot afford a laptop at home, and cybersecurity tools to protect student data. These are the same pressures facing schools in regional Tasmania or coastal Western Australia, where connectivity remains patchy and grant programs come and go with each state budget cycle.
Accountability, parents and community voice
No funding plan survives without accountability. DeSaulnier's blueprint sets up an independent review every five years to assess whether the additional money is actually translating into better outcomes. The review would publish data on graduation rates, literacy and numeracy results, and equity gaps, broken down by district and demographic group.
Parents and local communities would also get a formal seat at the table. School site councils would receive training and small operating budgets so they can scrutinise spending decisions rather than rubber-stamp them. It echoes the voice-and-choice reforms that Australian parent bodies have pushed for through organisations like the Australian Parents Council, where genuine consultation often feels like the missing ingredient in education policy.
Taking the plan from page to policy
The campaign archive notes that turning the blueprint into law requires both chambers of Congress and a willing president. That is why the policy team briefed local mayors, county supervisors and parent groups across the district throughout the campaign. Building a coalition outside Washington was treated as essential to sustaining pressure once the election was over.
Supporters who wanted to keep the conversation going could volunteer, attend town halls or donate through the campaign portal. The site also pointed voters to polling locations and offered rides to the polls on Election Day, recognising that civic engagement is the other half of the funding story. Condemning hate speech on the campaign blog set the tone, framing public education as a shared democratic project worth defending from those who would tear it down.