Your guide to Proposition 2: Education bond

Proposition 2 is a bond measure that would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to help fund repairs and upgrades at thousands of public elementary, middle and high schools and community colleges across California.

The money from the last successful school bond, which passed in 2016, has long since been spent, and the state’s school repair fund is expected to be depleted by January. There is a wait list of districts hoping the new bond will pass so that $3.4 billion can be given for already approved projects to repair hazardous mold, leaky roofs, and septic systems, as well as to build classrooms, modernize science labs and replace aging buildings.

Voters rejected the last school bond in March 2020, a $15-billion proposal that got only 47% of the vote. This time around, after months of closed-door debates, the governor and legislators have lowered the price tag; they hope voters will be in more of a spending mood come November. A simple majority is needed to approve the bond.

A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 54% of likely voters said they would vote yes on Proposition 2.

Proposition 2 would provide $8.5 billion in facility renovations and new construction for TK-12 schools, with 10% of the funds dedicated to small school districts. Community colleges would receive $1.5 billion.

To receive bond money, districts must raise a local bond of their own and then apply to the State Facilities Program for a funding match on a sliding scale up to 65% for renovations and 55% for new construction — 5% more than previous bonds. The exact state match is based on a complicated points formula that seeks to provide a higher match to low-wealth districts that cannot afford to generate much local funding, and those with a high percentage of disadvantaged districts. Districts that are unable to raise more than $15 million can receive up to a 100% match.

Districts can also apply for supplemental funding to help build or renovate transitional kindergarten facilities. This is intended to replace a $550 early education facilities grant that was cut from the governor’s most recent budget.

Proposition 2 allows the state to sell a $10-billion bond to fund school facility improvements. The cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million per year over the next 35 years, which would come out of the state’s General Fund. Because the state has to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid up front, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The school bond has been endorsed by both the California Democratic and Republican parties. A coalition of more than 150 groups has also expressed support, including the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Assn. of California School Administrators, the California School Boards Assn., and the Coalition for Adequate School Housing.

Unlike many other states, California does not have a permanent funding stream for school repairs. Supporters of Proposition 2 say that new money is badly needed to improve the dilapidated conditions of many California schools, and that changes in the way funds are distributed will make the process more equitable. There is already a waiting list of districts hoping the new bond will pass so that $3.4 billion can be provided for already approved projects. Meanwhile, districts have already started adding local bonds to the ballot in anticipation of the funds.

Statewide, 38% of students in California go to schools that do not meet minimum facility standards, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Between 2015 and 2019, 108 schools had to close temporarily due to facility issues such as water contamination, mold and pest infestations, the report said. Research suggests that students in schools with substandard facilities tend to have lower attendance and achievement rates.

“These are critical dollars that we’ve been waiting on for too long, unfortunately, for our districts,” said Dorothy Johnson, legislative advocate for the Assn. of California School Administrators. “For some schools this will mean they will have a gymnasium. For some schools this will mean that they can have indoor plumbing. But it will mean something for every district.”

More than $4 million has been raised in support of Prop 2.

Opponents of the bill include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which says the bond would result in higher property tax bills because most school districts must provide a match that would require issuing new new local school bonds. With interest, the local bonds — paid off through increased property taxes — would cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion “for school buildings that may not even be necessary.”

The bond is also opposed by Reform California, a project of former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio’s State Assembly campaign. “Prop 2 is a costly and unfair burden on working families — the spending is unnecessary, and facilities could be improved with existing funds if the government managed its budget better than a drunken sailor,” DeMaio said in a statement.

In addition, some low-wealth districts and Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, opposed AB 247, the bill that created Proposition 2, because they say the proposal did not go far enough in addressing the equity gap that benefits affluent school districts.

A recent report from the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools found that districts in the wealthiest communities got $4,000-$5,000 more, per student, to modernize their facilities than districts in the least affluent communities. This is because districts receive a match based on what they can raise themselves. Districts with low wealth and property values are limited in the amount of a bond they can raise, while wealthy districts and large urban districts like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.

Public Advocates has not taken a formal position on the bond, but wrote in a statement that it “remain[s] concerned that this funding will not reach the low-income students of color in low-wealth districts that need it most.” The group had threatened to sue the state for violating students’ constitutional right to a high-quality education, but said it would not file anything until after the November election.

So far, no money has been raised in opposition of the bond.

This measure is supported by education consulting and construction companies. The Times has not identified any opposing committees.