Blog

School Facility Funding is the Most Inequitable Aspect of California Education Finance: Why do the two new school bond bills not address it?

Posted on by jvincent

by Jeff Vincent, co-founder and director of public infrastructure initiatives at CC+S.

Will school buildings be safe and healthy enough for my kids to return to school? That’s the key question millions of parents across the country and California are asking.

Our awareness of the indoor spaces we enter these days, amidst COVID-19, is elevated. As it should be. The virus that causes COVID-19 is respiratory and highly transmittable through the air. Indoor spaces with numerous people and little or no fresh air ventilation or filtration are the riskiest places to be. A conundrum we collectively face is that this describes manymany of our public school classrooms.

Thousands of school buildings in California are aging and, too often, in disrepair. A 2020 Public Policy Institute of California study found that 38% of California students go to schools that do not meet minimum facility standards. 

A main culprit is severely limited funding – most school districts simply do not have enough money to repair and modernize their schools. Analyzing recent years spending by California school districts on their facilities, we found that the majority of school districts underspend on their facilities each year. In fact, more than three-quarters of California’s students attend school in districts failing to meet minimum industry standard benchmarks for annual facilities maintenance and operations investment, capital renewal investment, or both. These school districts accumulate “deferred maintenance” across their school building inventory – minor items of disrepair that, when left unfixed, grow into larger more expensive problems and risk becoming health and safety crises.

Here’s where state funding to help districts with their facilities is important. With limited exceptions, the state only provides funds for facility construction and modernization if the local district matches those funds with funds raised by the district. Primarily the district raises those funds by passing general obligation bonds that tax private property in the district’s boundaries. State law caps the percent of this property that can be taxed, establishing the district’s “bonding capacity.” The wealthiest 10% of school districts have more than $60,000 per student in bonding capacity, while the poorest 10% have less than $6,000. (Average is about $30,000 per student.) School districts with more property value to tax are clearly at a great advantage here.

The effects of this advantage are pernicious, as is clear in a 2018 analysis by Stanford University’s Getting Down to Facts II project of the state funding to school districts: much more state money is paid out per student to districts in high wealth areas than is paid out per student to districts in low wealth areas. The extent of this disparity is quite shocking: in the highest wealth quintile, as measured by local property values, the average state funding per pupil to school districts for school facility modernization was $5,361 during the years 1998-2017. In contrast, in the lowest wealthy quintile, as measured by local property values, the average state funding per pupil was $661. In other words, the highest wealth districts got, on average, eight times the amount of funding from the State of California to modernize their facilities, compared to the lowest wealth school districts.

School facility funding is the most inequitable aspect of California education finance. The recent Getting Down to Facts II study of 20 years of California public school facility finance for found wide disparities in school facility funding from district to district. The consistent patterns of inequitable access to school facility funding are systematically related to school district property wealth, household income, and students’ backgrounds. As a result, the researchers described California’s system of school facility finance as regressive.

November 2020 local school bond election results paint a similar picture – districts with higher property values are raising more dollars. It is clear that the long-standing patterns of inequity in public school facility funding in California remain strong.

Two bills were recently introduced in the state legislature to provide school facility funding – Assembly Bill 75 (O’Donnell) and Senate Bill 22 (Glazer).

Surprisingly, neither bill proposes any meaningful fixes to this problem; they make meager gestures at best. For example, one of these gestures is to allow more districts to qualify for “hardship” and thus get a higher state funding match. Both bills propose increasing the maximum level of total bonding capacity that a school district could have in order to be deemed eligible for hardship status – from $5 million to $15 million. So, for example, a district with $14 million in total bonding capacity could now apply for hardship status and potentially get up to 100% funding for their project from the state (whereas currenlty the district is not eligible).

While this change is a step in the right direction, its unlikely to make much difference. California has 944 K-12 school districts enrolling 6 million students. About 200 school districts (enrolling a total of 70,000 students) have total bonding capacity less than $5 million. Another 135 school districts (enrolling a total of 121,000 students) have bonding capacity between $5 million and $15 million. So, this proposal will also 135 more scool districts to quality for hardship and thus potentially receive a higher state funding match - but this only affects about 2% of California’s students.

The other gestures toward equity in these two bills are similarly weak in terms of their general effectiveness.

Still, AB 75 and SB 22 provide an opportunity to fix these problems. The fact that there is a school funding bill in each house, signals lawmakers’ intent to act. They should consider three key reforms:

First, enable more districts to qualify for “hardship” and thus receive a higher state share of their project costs. This determination should be based not on total bonding capacity, but rather on bonding capacity per student. Because even if a district has relatively large total bonding capacity, if they have high enrollment then those dollars will only go so far across the district's schools.

Second, move to a local wealth-based “sliding scale” funding formula. As noted above, this determination should also be based on bonding capacity per student. Under this approach, each school district would have a state funding match proportionate to its property tax base. In other words, lower wealth districts would get more state funding than higher wealth districts. That’s essentially how we fund the rest of public education in California (through the Local Control Funding Formula). Why wouldn’t we extend that equity-oriented approach to school facilities funding?

Third, prioritize state funding for school buildings in most need of upgrades. State funds should be strategic and wisely used. Provisions in SB 22 that establish prioritization categories – with health and safety projects at the top – are a good idea. But this also requires that the state set up a statewide inventory of public school buildings. In order to appropriately steer funding, we need to know where the problems are. Until we do that, we won't ensure statewide quality and equity in our public school facilities.

The bill has come due for California to attend to its school facilities problems — problems that this pandemic has laid bare. Lawmakers in Sacramento have an opportunity to make meaningful improvements to school buildings across the state. Let’s hope they take a thoughtful look at this problem and work together to add fair, equitable, and much-needed reforms to our school facility finance system.


New CC+S Study: Are California Public School Kitchens Scratch-Cooking Ready?

Posted on by jvincent

A new Center for Cities + Schools study in collaboration with Conscious Kitchen and The Edible Schoolyard Project. One way to serve healthier school meals is by incorporating “scratch-cooking” techniques, whereby many or most of the ingredients are prepared onsite from a raw and/or minimally processed form, into school food service programs. However, the vast majority of public school kitchens across the U.S. and in California are not designed and/or equipped to scratch cook. Raw and/or unprocessed food ingredients have shorter shelf lives and fewer added preservatives, thus requiring specialized kitchen infrastructure and equipment for receiving, storing, and preparing. To understand…


California School Bonds on the November 2020 Ballot: Are they equitable?

Posted on by Jeff Vincent and José Lopez

By Jeff Vincent and José Lopez, Center for Cities + School at UC Berkeley   In each California election, there are sure to be school bonds on local ballots across the state. November 3, 2020 is no different: 55 school districts have general obligation (G.O.) bonds for school facilities revenue going before voters. Two districts – Gonzales USD in Monterey County and River Delta Joint Union SD in Sacramento County – each have 2 bonds before voters. In total, there is just under $12 billion in local bond authority going before voters across the state to modernize and construct public…


Y-PLAN Peninsula Students Lift Up Affordable Housing Proposals, Their Client Facebook is Listening

Posted on by Tira Okamoto

Redwood City, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto high school students involved in Y-PLAN, an action research initiative based at the UCB Center for Cities+Schools, are making media headlines as their Project Client Facebook unveils a $1 million dollar accessory dwelling unit project in response to the students’ affordable housing proposals. In print, on air, and on TV screens, Y-PLAN student scholars are sharing their stories as young planners making change in their communities. The Peninsula is facing a rapid increase in housing costs. With rising rents and home prices, long-term residents, who are often people of color, are at…


To Live in the Community You Serve: School District Employee Housing in California

Posted on by Sean Doocy

Faced with high turnover and a shortage of qualified teachers, California school districts are aggressively adopting new strategies to recruit and retain teachers and staff. A prominent and ambitious strategy is employee housing assistance – particularly direct creation of new rental housing. Employee housing strategies by school districts have emerged as a direct response to the housing affordability crisis in California (for both rental and ownership). The housing affordability crunch is most acute in employment-rich coastal urban areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Across California, school districts, local governments, state governments, private developers, nonprofits, and foundations have taken…


Opportunity Zones Should Help Modernize Public School Facilities

Posted on by Mary Filardo and Jeff Vincent

Mary Filardo, 21st Century School Fund Jeff Vincent, Center for Cities and Schools In 2017, we founded [Re]Build America’s School Infrastructure Coalition (BASIC), a non-partisan coalition to advocate for a ten-year $100 billion investment as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure package. But reducing inequity in our nation’s public school facilities will take a variety of tools. These tools are needed at the local, state, and federal levels. Could the new federal Opportunity Zone Program help modernize public school facilities in low income communities? One of the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the creation of “Opportunity Zones” (OZs). Opportunity Zones are structured to provide…


School as Anchors of Diversity

Posted on by Kfir Mordechay

Across the metropolises of the United States, gentrification is making neighborhoods hardly recognizable. In a short time, what was once a minor force of urban change, gentrification is now sweeping through many cities like a tsunami. By some estimates over the last 15 years, nearly 20 percent of neighborhoods in the 50 largest cities have experienced major gentrification. From New York to Los Angeles, there has been a large influx of middle class families. Some have even begun to do what had long been unthinkable in the post-war decades of white flight from central cities to the suburbs; enroll their…


TOWERS OF POWER: Snapshot of a Future I Want To Inhabit

Posted on by Shirl Buss, PhD.

I am an urban designer and educator.  One of the most joyful things I do is facilitate architecture and urban planning studios for elementary school children in public schools through Youth in Arts and UC Berkeley’s Y-PLAN. Like many adults today, I am asking myself how—in my professional role—can I positively contribute to the #MeToo movement for and with the children in my life? How might I, when I work with young people, respond proactively to the gender inequities and injustices that we are witnessing every day?  How can I help both boys and girls express their own power, free from the…


School Facilities Belong in the Nation’s Infrastructure Portfolio

Posted on by Mary Filardo and Jeff Vincent

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently issued its 2017 report card rating 16 different categories of infrastructure. ASCE includes public school facilities in their infrastructure rating—grading them a D+. However, state and federal plans to rebuild and modernize America’s infrastructure, often omit schools from our nation’s infrastructure portfolio.     Public school buildings and grounds need to be fully included in state and federal planning and funding for the nation’s infrastructure.    First, just like other major water, transit, or port infrastructure, school facilities projects require long range planning and forecasting to ensure efficient use of land and other…


School facilities and student physical activity

Posted on by Hannah Thompson, PhD

National experts recommend that, for optimal health, youth get at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) a day - which is the kind of movement that gets you sweating and breathing harder. However, youth are far from meeting this recommendation. And, unfortunately, significant disparities exist by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and income. The Institute of Medicine has, logically, identified the school setting as an ideal venue for increasing access to physical activity among diverse youth. Image Credit: Hannah Thompson However, many obstacles get in the way of students getting MVPA at school. We know that with limited funding, resources,…