A statewide bond measure that would allow California to borrow $10 billion to build and repair thousands of K-12 public schools, community colleges and career-and-technical education campuses will appear on the November ballot.
The measure, the first in four years, comes as schools across the Bay Area face scrutiny over poor infrastructure and health and safety concerns. In July, a group of parents, staff and educators sued West Contra Costa Unified School District over allegedly dangerous building conditions and environmental hazards. And just last month, Oakland Unified School District horrified community members after the district revealed it had found elevated levels of lead in the drinking water at 22 schools.
RELATED: Statewide poll shows runaway support for Prop. 36 measure to toughen theft, drug crime penalties
Such concerns are not limited to the Bay Area. The California Department of Education estimates that approximately 30% of the state’s K-12 classrooms are at least 50 years old and 10% are 70 years old. And a Public Policy Institute of California report found that across the state, 38% of students attend schools that do not meet minimum facility standards — including adequate lighting, plumbing and damage-free structures.
But unlike some other states, like Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico, which send aid to districts for construction costs and do not require repayments, funding for school facilities is not part of California’s education budget. Instead, schools have to get buy-in from voters to raise funds, through local or state bonds that collect money through local property taxes.
While hundreds of school districts across the state, including San Jose Unified, have school bonds on the November ballot, which would fund everything from new buildings and upgraded classrooms to affordable housing for teachers, proponents of Prop 2 say a statewide measure is necessary TK TK
The last time voters approved a statewide bond was in 2016 for $9 billion in facilities construction and renovations for K-12 public schools, charters and community colleges.
Voters rejected the last statewide measure in March 2020, a $15 billion proposal that would have funded education facility projects. The measure was the largest school bond proposal in state history and the first to fail in more than two decades, falling just short of the required 50% voting threshold with roughly 47% of the vote.
If approved by voters, Prop 2 would provide $8.5 billion to public schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate schools or construct new facilities. Some of the public school funding would also be set aside for reducing lead in school water, building or updating career-and-technical education facilities and creating transitional kindergarten classrooms – a move intended to alleviate the $550 million transitional kindergarten facilities grant that was cut in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s May budget revision.
The money for the funds would be distributed to schools through matching grants, on a first-come, first-served basis. To receive money, schools and community college districts must raise their own funds, which the state will then match on a sliding scale – up to 65% for renovations and 55% for new construction. The formula aims to provide a higher match to districts with lower assessed property values and a higher share of low-income students and English learners. The bond measure also allows school districts that are unable to raise more than $15 million from local bonds to apply for additional state funding – up to a 100% match.
But some opposed to the measure have argued the matching grants formula would primarily benefit wealthy schools, since districts primarily receive a match based on the funds they can raise. Districts in higher-income areas can raise more money and get more state money, while those in areas with low wealth and property values are more limited.
A recent UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools report found that districts in California’s wealthiest communities received $4,000 to $5,000 more per student to modernize facilities than districts in the least affluent communities.
“On average, the wealthiest 20% of districts have 17 times more assessed value per pupil than the poorest 20%, sometimes as much as 25 times more,” argued Public Advocates, a public interest law firm opposed to Prop 2 because of its inequitable funding formula. “The existing system…advantages resource-rich districts that can more easily meet their match and more.”
Others argue Proposition 2 asks taxpayers to bear the financial burden for education financing that should have been included in this year’s $288 billion budget package. And the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association points out that bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, with interest.
California has about $80 billion outstanding bond debt, plus $35 billion in bonds not yet sold, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The state is currently paying about $6 billion each year from the general fund to repay bonds. If Prop 2 passes, that would increase by an estimated $500 million each year for 35 years.
But early polling by the Public Policy Institute of California shows voters may be more inclined to pass a statewide education facilities bond this time around.
The institute polled voters earlier this spring and found that 53% of likely voters said they would vote yes on the school facilities bond and 44% said they would vote no. Voters were slightly more divided on how they would vote on a local school district bond measure for school construction, with 50% of likely voters saying they would vote yes and 48% saying they would vote no.
To pass, Prop 2 requires a majority of the vote — more than 50%. Local school bond measures typically require at least 55% of the vote.
Prop 2 supporters say the measure puts local voters in control of how the funds are spent and includes strict taxpayer accountability to ensure funds are spent on dire school repairs.
Support for the bond has raised over $3 million in contributions. The bond’s supporters include State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the Association of California School Administrators, California School Boards Association and the California Teachers Association.
“California’s schools and community colleges need major upgrades to ensure that students are learning in adequate conditions,” said the California Teachers Association. “With previous school bond funds nearly depleted, our schools and community colleges are in need of a new school facilities bond.”