The Decay of California Schools: Counteracting Proposition 13
California holds a unique position as the most highly regarded center for higher learning in the world, while also possessing one of the most lackluster K-12 education systems in America. Despite the overall wealth and size of the state, California consistently ranks in the bottom ten of every category related to childhood schooling(Scholaroo). While the shocking contrast in education quality is a bleak reality for California’s families, this divide was not always the case. According to census data from 1960–1969, California once boasted some of the most diverse, well-attended, and highest-scoring public schools in the nation(Department of Education). However, after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, California’s schools entered a steady decline that left them in an “unsatisfactory state”(Catteral and Brizendine 327). Proposition 13 was an initiative that “resulted in two major changes, a decline in the average property tax rate, and a schedule that made tax rates depend on housing tenure”(İmrohoroğlu et. al 24). Essentially, Prop 13 locked California tax rates at their 1975 levels, freezing property tax rates at 1 percent, and limiting future tax increases to 2 percent per year. With these changes, the net income for the State of California dropped considerably, and education spending was cut by a third, resulting in disastrous consequences that affect schools to this day. In areas with lower levels of property tax, the curriculum has been consistently cut down and administrative issues like low wages have become prominent, resulting in ineffective education for students(Danforth). While corrective measures have been attempted to resolve this massive issue, they have struggled with the scope of suggested changes. Proposition 13 permanently changed the education landscape by upending funding structures, and only in a precise address of the education issues can this damage be undone.
The popularity of Proposition 13 makes combatting the bill very difficult, as most California voters stand in support of its policies. Proposition 13 lowers property taxes, so property owners consistently resist the reversal of the precedents set by it. For most homeowners and business leaders, Proposition 13 creates a positive impact on their yearly revenues and income streams. This monetary bonus directly combatants any sentiment opposing Proposition 13 whenever new initiatives are proposed. In “Proposition 13: An Equilibrium Analysis,” İmrohoroğlu points out that Proposition 13 fragmented Californians into two key groups, homeowners and renters. For renters, Proposition 13 drove up rental prices and lowered the number of subsidies that their communities could offer them, while homeowners experienced the opposite effect. The majority of Californians are homeowners, so this push towards lower property taxes is viewed as a net positive and remains popular. The favorable aspects of the 1978 bill are partially why 2020’s Proposition 13 failed. This new initiative was meant to be an exact counter to the 1978 legislation, undoing the freezing of property taxes and allowing relief for new homeowners. Governor Newsom also received backlash from most of the unions across the state because the changing of property tax law would cost corporations and individual workers far more than they could reasonably allow(Whalen 134). Addressing the original initiative directly is simply not an option in modern California, even if Proposition 13 crushes lower-income communities.
Currently, the funding structures of school districts are arranged categorically, so only select items can be purchased with district funds, which results in the unbalanced spending seen in the post-Proposition 13 landscape. With Proposition 13 already limiting the total funds allocated to school districts, this style of spending cannot persist. Before Proposition 13, California schools had an excess of funds, and this categorical “LCFF system” only determined where excess funds would be allocated. However, this funding pattern reflects in “eight percent” of all school expenses, and these numbers are likely far higher in low-income areas(LaFortune). I have seen the bizarre impacts of these policies, in my personal life and my volunteer work with 826LA. Every year, my mother, a Title I school teacher, would complain about how funds were being allocated to additional programs, like iPads for every student, while basic playground equipment rusted and books fell apart. In her case, she spent thousands of dollars each year to get the students adequate equipment for school, while tens of millions were spent on items the schools did not require. In my high school years, I saw as every teacher received an iPad TV screen to satisfy the spending requirements imposed by the state guidelines. In both cases, the items that were given were not only unused but purchased despite essentials like facility management and teacher resources being neglected, reflecting the “new reality” as described by Danforth. The root cause of these discrepancies is the misallocation of funds caused by the LCFF system, in which the government incentivizes districts to pour hundreds of millions into politically favorable categories. I was appalled to see this trend perpetuated in far less affluent areas during my time with 826LA. In classrooms without air conditioning, containing only six students per class, iPad TVs lined the walls. Sitting in a modern California classroom feels wrong. The school itself is built on a foundation of inadequacy, with expensive accessories hiding the shortcomings of the state.
Perhaps the greatest effect of Proposition 13 on American education was the widening of the attainment gap caused by the state’s reliance on local tax revenues to fund schools. One of the primary categories that are siphoned for the current funding of public schools under the LCFF formula is the revenues of locals, meaning that low-income schools receive less money than more affluent areas. Previous initiatives like Proposition 98 attempted to fix some of these smaller gaps by setting “basic incomes” for school districts across the state, but the issues persist. (Hoene 55). While attempts to close these gaps are earnest, there remains a critical hole left by the lack of property tax revenue in poorer areas. In these minority-dominant areas, the spending is almost unrecognizable in comparison to predominantly white neighborhoods. Additionally, lower-income students are the ones who need the most support in their educational endeavors, rendering students twice disadvantaged by the changes. Danforth calls this two-sided affront to low-income students a resurrection of “redlining” and a perpetuation of “the racialized wealth gap.” Danforth and many others believed there was initially hope during the COVID-19 pandemic’s resetting of the California economy, however, the pandemic only widened racial gaps, with minority communities being hit the hardest by economic struggles in the last few years(CalMatters). By nearly every metric, Proposition 13’s passage has created an imbalance in state funding centered around the way school districts are drawn, grouping minority students into massively impoverished hotspots.
To combat the outlined issues and create lasting changes to statewide attainment gaps, I propose an initiative that would argue for the reallocation of funds equitably across school districts without affecting current taxpayers. If a new initiative were to be passed trying to address these issues, it could not target current property taxes. If any initiative was tried, it would find the same backlash as 2020’s Proposition 13, and be struck down by the homeowners of the state. Instead of increasing the funds afforded to the government, this new initiative would need to find ways to reallocate funds. I propose that the new initiative reallocate funding within the education budget to solve core issues, so the general voter is not directly affected. By making this a purely education-centered issue, legislators would avoid the ire of homeowners and unions. However, this struggle in restructuring school funds has to first overcome the politicized nature of current primary and secondary school budgets. As school budgets are run in the LCFF system, they are reliant on a system that locks crucial funds from the people. In the era of the LCFF, teachers struggle while administrators drown them in ridiculous expenses. The first change of this new initiative would be the erasure of this funding structure, allowing grants to be written for any type of expense. Under the current system, asking for help seems impossible, and this change would empower teachers to challenge the funding issues at the heart of schools. With the open allocation of funding, schools would finally be able to address the achievement gap created by Proposition 13’s passage. Most of the educational oppression of minority groups and the working class could be solved by the centralization of school funds. Currently, schools are still dependent on district borders that were drawn to enforce racial segregation over fifty years ago(CalMatters). To fully realize the change that is invited by the removal of the LCFF, an initiative needs to address district mapping issues. A statewide redistricting of the schools would be an extensive process, but if it were completed, California schools would once again experience the diversity that they boasted before Proposition 13. Revenues would be distributed based on the needs of each school rather than the prosperity of the area. Programs like Title I would be made unnecessary, as every school would receive specific funding based on student needs. This diversity of students would also solve some of the issues brought up in Catteral and Brizendine’s piece, which analyzed the shrinking of programs in different school districts. By filling districts with a wide array of economic backgrounds, these programs would naturally arise again, as more supported families would push for better programs. With an overhauled funding structure, student needs could once again be met.
Many arguments against these solutions have been brought up by current administrative powers, with the most prominent being the sheer effort and struggle the adjustments would cause. However, I would argue that positive change is defined by that very struggle. These points are clearly illustrated by Joan Gaynor Mowat in her analysis of the Scottish attainment gap. After deliberating over relatively minor issues for the majority of the piece, Mowat concludes that “The translation of policy from inception to practice is highly complex involving multiple layers of interpretation…but ultimately holds” (Moway 309). Mowat’s thinking on the matter of social progress is ultimately hopeful, deciding that the positive end justifies the challenge. Closing the attainment gap will require tremendous effort, but the reward will make the conflict worthwhile. Additionally, restructuring the funding and organization structures of school districts would not directly demand a change in statewide fiscal policy. These changes would be free from criticism through the eyes of critics like Isaac Martin who voices taxpayer unease regarding money funneled into education. According to Martin, the common taxpayer has “grown to see education as a pit for funds” that never seems to improve(Martin 528). The beauty of my initiative suggestions is that there would be no additional taxes required. Education in California is already well funded, but the funds for education are merely mishandled.
Education in California can rise to a competitive standard, but it will require the upending of educational plans that date back decades. Conceptually, my solution is most similar to Donald McKinley who argued for the “equalization of education funds” across the state(McKinley 144). However, I differ in one key aspect. While McKinley wanted the funds allocated to individual students to be equal, I argue for them to be equitable. If districts were managed to reflect the diversity of the state, and funds reflected the needs of the educators within districts, then the damages of Proposition 13 would be mitigated. California voters have proven that they are afraid of the financial stress caused by a mass overhaul of popular initiatives, so the CTA will need to lobby for more pinpoint internal fixes. If these changes are not made, California will continue to lag behind other, less profitable states, and continue to produce some of the least educated graduates in the country(World Population Review). The key to success in the future is to raise a generation that is educated to the highest degree, and with higher learning institutions losing students each year, the education of the youth must take priority to build a thriving world.
Works Cited
“2023 State Education Rankings — Best to Worst.” Scholaroo, State Education Rankings, 23
January 2023, https://scholaroo.com/report/state-education-rankings/.
“Best Countries for Education.” US News, Best Countries, Best for Education, 2023
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-education.
Canoe, Ricardo and Joe Hong. “Mind the achievement gap: California’s disparities in education,
explained.” CalMatters, Explainers, 19 January 2022,https://calmatters.org/explainers
/achievement-gap-california-explainer-schools-education-disparities-explained/.
Catterall, James S., and Emily Brizendine. “Proposition 13: Effects on High School Curricula,
1978–1983.” American Journal of Education, vol. 93, no. 3, 1985, pp. 327–51,
https://doi.org/10.1086/443804.
Danforth, Evelyn. “Proposition 13, Revisited.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 73, no. 2, 2021, pp.
511–53.
Downes, Thomas A. “An Examination of the Structure of Governance in California School
Districts before and after Proposition 13.” Public Choice, vol. 86, no. 3/4, 1996, pp.
279–307, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136523.
Hoene, Christopher. “Fiscal Structure and the Post-Proposition 13 Fiscal Regime in California’s
Cities.” Public Budgeting & Finance, vol. 24, no. 4, 2004, pp. 51–72,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0275-1100.2004.00347.x.
İmrohoroğlu, Ayşe, et al. “Proposition 13: An Equilibrium Analysis.” American Economic
Journal. Macroeconomics, vol. 10, no. 2, 2018, pp. 24–51,
https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20160327.
LaFortune, Julien. “Targeted K-12 Funding and Student Outcomes.” Public Policy Institute of
California, 2021, https://www.ppic.org/publication/targeted-k-12-funding-and-student-
outcomes.
Martin, Isaac. “Does School Finance Litigation Cause Taxpayer Revolt? Serrano and Proposition
13.” Law & Society Review, vol. 40, no. 3, 2006, pp. 525–58,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00272.x.
McKinley, Donald R. “California Schools: Life After Proposition 13 and Other Tax Limitations.”
Contemporary Education, vol. 55, no. 3, 1984, p. 144–.
Mowat, Joan Gaynor. “Closing the Attainment Gap — a Realistic Proposition or an Elusive
Pipe Dream?” Journal of Education Policy, vol. 33, no. 2, 2018, pp. 299–321,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1352033.
U.S. Census Bureau. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts.” Census.gov, California, Population
Estimates, 2023, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA.
Whalen, Bill. “Tax Avengers: Endgame? A Recent Schools Tax Measure Failed — and Failed
Badly. Californians May Not Be All That Eager to Weaken Proposition 13 after All.” Hoover Digest, no. 4, 2019, p. 134–.
