‘Black mold, leaky roofs’: Proposition 2 puts $10B for school repairs on ballot
(Shrey Chaganal/Assistant design director)
By Amy Wong
Oct. 29, 2024 11:44 p.m.
California voters will decide next Tuesday whether to approve a $10 billion bond for school renovations.
If passed, Proposition 2 will allow the state to sell $8.5 billion in bonds to repair K-12 schools and $1.5 billion in bonds to improve community college campuses, said Steven Brint, a distinguished professor of public policy and sociology at UC Riverside. Paying back the bond will cost the state budget $500 million a year for the next 35 years, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
This bond will be restricted to capital expenditures – which are separate from day-to-day expenses and can include funds for construction or renovation, said John Affeldt, managing attorney and director of education equity at nonprofit law firm Public Advocates. The $1.5 billion dedicated for community colleges, if approved, can also be used for a mix of new buildings, renovations, land purchases and equipment, according to the LAO.
Under California’s constitution, the state is responsible for maintaining and managing the public school system, including renovating public school facilities, Affeldt added. Since many schools in California were built more than 25 years ago, they are in need of funding and renovation, he added.
“There are some districts, some parts of the state that are growing and they have new construction needs. But the biggest needs are the renovation of old school facilities,” he said. “Many students in different parts of the state are going to schools with black mold, leaky roofs, no air conditioning, and old electrical and plumbing systems.”
The need for air conditioning is especially important for students as climate change leads to higher temperatures, Brint said. It is difficult to learn in heat, making air conditioning important, he added.
$115 million of the funding for public schools is also earmarked for reducing lead levels in water, according to the LAO.
The current bond program began in 1998, and its formula predicts that local districts contribute 40% of funding for a project, while the state pays for the other 60%, Affeldt said. The formula remains the same, regardless of how wealthy a district is, he added.
While some may argue this means the bond program treats everyone equally, others may point out that wealthier districts in the state have a higher capacity for raising bond money than lower-income communities, and this is not accounted for in the formula, Affeldt said.
Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association – which opposes Proposition 2 – said the distribution of state money to school districts is unfair because of its first-come, first-served model. She added that this model means schools that rush their funding applications may have an advantage over schools with the highest need.
As such, wealthier school districts with connections in the California Department of Education and access to lawyers and consultants are prioritized by the system instead of underfunded schools, Shelley added.
Proponents of the proposition argue that low-quality school infrastructure negatively impacts student achievement, Brint said, adding that he believes some who oppose Proposition 2 may not recognize the value of an educated population because they do not have kids in school.
Brint said he believes that if Proposition 2 does not pass, another similar measure might be introduced in the near future, or the state legislature or governor will improve on emergency measures.
The current shared funding formula – with the local districts pitching in 40% and the state paying the rest – has its origins in a 1970s case initiated by Public Advocates, in which California created legal precedent, Affeldt said.
“The California Supreme Court broke new ground nationally in saying it (the previous formula) violated the state equal protection clause to base educational opportunities on local wealth, and the funding system at that time looked a lot like how we are doing our bonds here,” Affeldt said. “Local districts were, by and large, funded by how much they could raise local property taxes.”
While the formula is progressive, there are still improvements that can be made, he added.
“It’s not adequate, it’s not enough – but it is progressive,” Affeldt said. “It’s time for our state policymakers to catch up to what they’ve been doing on the operation side and bring that into the capital planning side.”