This technical report is part of the Getting Down to Facts III project, a comprehensive review of California’s PreK-12 education system designed to diagnose challenges and inform policymakers working toward meaningful reform.

School buildings shape the daily experience of California’s 6.2 million public school students, but not equally. Where you learn—and in what conditions—is still largely determined by the wealth of your community. This report documents the persistence of facility funding inequity and the changes that are making facilities an especially urgent issue today.

What We Found

Our analysis surfaces five key findings that together paint a troubling picture of inequity and inaction.

• Demographic shifts are reshaping facility needs in uneven ways. Widespread enrollment decline, the expansion of universal Transitional Kindergarten, and increasing emphasis on hands-on learning all create new facility pressures. But districts vary enormously in their capacity to respond. Those with older buildings, lower property wealth, and declining enrollment face steep challenges that they are largely having to solve on their own.
• Climate disruption is a growing, unevenly distributed threat. Extreme heat, wildfires, and flooding are increasingly interrupting learning across California, but facility resilience—whether a school has effective HVAC, good air filtration, or reliable energy—varies dramatically by district wealth and geography. Students in under-resourced communities are the most exposed.
• California’s facility funding system remains fundamentally wealth-driven. About 90% of revenues for facility improvements and construction come from local funding—most of that from voter-approved general obligation bonds. The state’s primary funding, the School Facility Program (SFP), requires local matching funds that depend heavily on local property wealth, compounding the structural inequity. Consequently, the SFP’s modernization program has been challenged as unconstitutional by a coalition of students and school districts.
• The SFP reinforces disparities and remains underfunded relative to demand. The program does not systematically assess need or set priorities across the state. Demand far exceeds available funds, meaning districts must wait years in line—with wealthier districts better positioned to bridge the gap while they wait.
• There is no statewide data on facility quality. No state agency systematically collects or analyzes data on the condition of California’s school buildings. Existing local assessment requirements appear to be falling well short of their intended purpose. This lack of data makes it difficult to identify pathways for reform that would more effectively target state investments to where they are most needed.

Why This Matters Now

The GDTF III makes clear that California is at an inflection point. The state has made real progress over the past two decades on school funding equity through the Local Control Funding Formula, on early childhood access, and on academic standards. But facilities have been left behind. The buildings and grounds where children spend their days affect air quality, temperature, light, noise, and ultimately learning—and today the quality of that environment is largely determined by the wealth of the local community.

We are honored to be part of the GDTF III project, which brings together 112 researchers to take stock of California education and point toward a stronger future. We hope our report contributes to an urgent and long-overdue conversation about what it will take to ensure every California student has a safe, healthy, and climate-resilient place to learn.

• Read the full report: California’s School Facilities in a Changing Climate: Funding, Equity, and Resilience
• Watch a summary overview: YouTube
• Explore all GDTF III reports: gettingdowntofacts.com