Proposition 2, a California ballot measure in the upcoming November general election, would authorize a $10 billion commitment to enhance public school and community college facilities in California.

Currently, individual school districts share costs with the state for renovation projects. No additional bond money has funded facilities since 2016.

The structural state of public schools across California is poor. A 2020 report from the Public Policy Institute of California found that 38% of students attend schools that do not meet facility standards, meaning they have damaged floors, power failures or pest infestations, which hinder a positive learning atmosphere in numerous ways. Underserved districts, often with higher numbers of low-income students, do not have the budget to meet baseline infrastructure hygiene.

There is a dire need for funding, which is largely why this proposition has recently gained much voter support. Additionally, research has found that educational environments have the ability to greatly shape the development of students of all ages. Modernized academic facilities are shown to enable greater levels of achievement, higher attendance and lower suspension rates.

“Education is important for children to be successful, and if it costs more, it is an investment in your future,” said Isabella Macias, a second-year human biology and society student.

Nonetheless, Proposition 2 is not an adequate solution because the proposed funding model uses bond capacities, meaning the state will match the amount of money a district can raise from property taxes. Low-income communities can apply for supplemental funds if they cannot raise local funding.

Opponents of Proposition 2 argue California’s budget crisis will only be worsened in approving the hefty $10 billion project. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association claims taxpayers are already burdened, and it would be better to redistribute the existing budget. Furthermore, project prices will likely increase because of the requirement to use project labor agreements, which also discriminate against non-union contractors.

Implementation of Proposition 2 is unreliable and may bring about more challenges than solutions. Voters cannot be sure that new facilities and structural improvements will be realized as fairly as politicians claim.

It is possible that these investments in basic health and safety will only manifest in larger, wealthier school districts, furthering the equity gap. Even if Proposition 2 might create a better learning environment for some larger school districts, past precedent has demonstrated irresponsible management of funding.

“We cannot trust the California Department of Education to responsibly manage funding. California’s reading and math proficiency for students is below the national average, yet somehow we spend more than almost every other state on education,” said Bruin Republicans at UCLA in an emailed statement.

The state spends about $24,000 per student a year. But only 35% of low-income students met the state’s English-language standards and 21% met California’s math-proficiency standards. The state is failing students educationally as demonstrated by a lack of proficiency in core subjects, and more funding in facilities will not change the way public services are provided.

Secondly, allocating more funds may not be the immediate fix that politicians claim; there are deeper causes behind the challenges faced by public schools.

Despite its $128 billion yearly state budget, the California education system is still in crisis educationally and structurally: students are not getting quality education, teachers often buy educational material on their own dollar and many teachers are not qualified. This might not be due to a lack of funding, but rather the Department of Education’s mismanagement of resources.

Unreliable financial data and lackluster financial transparency regarding their commitments suggest that extra taxpayer money might not solve issues faced by public schools.

Furthermore, a general lack of awareness about Proposition 2 obscures the topic among voters.

“If I knew that the taxes would be going to a high school … then yes I would be willing (to pay higher taxes),” said fourth-year cognitive science student Victoria Vu.

The disputes among Democrats and Republicans on general tax policy are key deciding factors for voters. Yet, little is known about local policy such as the specifics of every proposed project.

“I am voting, but I have not read about the different propositions,” said Vu.

Staying informed and reading about each proposition is time-consuming, especially for students during midterms. Many UCLA students, particularly those who attended public high schools or community colleges, might initially consider this proposition beneficial. Propositions, however, are often ambiguous and misleading, resulting in misinformed voting.

There are better, more equitable ways to fund renovations in public schools. The solution is policy that ensures funds are managed properly and responsibly.

This proposition is a false promise responding to a devastating issue, and voters have a right to know that.