California’s program for funding school construction is broken, favoring local districts that already have access to money over those that don’t.
A statewide $10 billion bond measure on the Nov. 5 ballot would perpetuate the inequity and continue to leave the state vulnerable to litigation. Voters should reject Proposition 2.
The measure would authorize the state to borrow money to fund $8.5 billion for local school construction and $1.5 billion for community colleges.
From similar measures California voters previously passed, the state already has $39 billion in outstanding school bonds. State debt payments for that were $2.9 billion last fiscal year.
The $10 billion in Proposition 2 would increase bond repayments by an estimated $500 million annually for 35 years. If the money were being wisely spent, Proposition 2 would merit consideration. But it’s not.
The state plays a small role in the funding of school construction. About 85% of the money comes from local bond measures voters approve for the school districts they live in, according to numbers from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office and calculations by the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools.
The debt from those bonds is paid by local property tax assessments. Districts with higher property values — places where home values are greater or there are strong commercial cores — are generally able to provide more bond funding for school construction.
The state program should be filling in the gap, first helping so-called lower-wealth districts, in which total property tax value per student is less. Examples include the San Lorenzo, Castro Valley, Antioch, Oakley and Pittsburg unified school districts.
Instead, the state does just the opposite, mostly handing out money on a first-come, first-serve basis as matching funds that cover half the cost of new construction and 60% for renovation projects.
That rewards districts that already have construction money and disadvantages financially challenged districts, the state auditor concluded in a 2022 report. As a result, districts in California’s wealthiest communities received $4,000-$5,000 more in state funds per student to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities, according to a study by the UC Berkeley center.
Whereas the state attempts to provide extra operating funding for schools with poor children, there is no similar effort to equalize financial allotments for school construction. In fact, the state does just the opposite, providing help first to districts that need it the least. That’s not only bad policy, it’s also legally suspect.
Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm representing low-income communities, warned state lawmakers that the current system constituted wealth-based discrimination that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. In a February memo, the nonprofit said it was prepared to sue if state officials didn’t fix the program’s distribution system.
When state lawmakers later drafted Proposition 2, they made some small changes to the current system that marginally improved the funding available for lower-wealth districts. For example, the matching money could increase up to 55% for new construction and 65% for renovation projects. And more very small school districts could apply for additional state funding.
But the fundamental problems were not addressed in a meaningful way.
This was an opportunity missed. As a result, Proposition 2 perpetuates a flawed funding system for school construction. Voters should reject it.