School Facilities
California is making positive strides toward increasing public investment in school facilities. The passage of Proposition 39 in 2000 reduced the two-thirds’ vote requirement for a local school construction bond to a 55 percent vote requirement. As of 2005, school districts passed more than 250 local bond measures for more than $20 billion. Almost half of these would not have passed if the super-majority vote was still required.[5] In 2002 and 2004, voters approved two large statewide bond measures, Propositions 47 and 55, which generated $21.4 billion in bond funds for K–12 school construction.
The state also began to address equity issues in public investment in schools. By passing Assembly Bill 16 (AB 16), which created the Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS) program, the legislature allowed districts with a high ratio of students per acre to reserve state funds through a preliminary apportionment system. The bill acknowledged that inner city school districts face a scarcity of available land for the construction of new schools, and therefore take longer to complete an application, losing out in a first come, first serve funding system with finite resources. By giving these districts the ability to reserve funds for up to four years before submitting a complete application, the bill gave them more time to find and develop sites and qualify for state funding. This step forward eliminated one significant barrier that previously made it difficult for many overcrowded urban districts and for those that faced fiscal, administrative, and other constraints to access state funds for school construction. However, not enough state funds were set aside to eliminate overcrowding, and certain program eligibility rules continued to make it difficult for some of these districts to participate in the program.[6]
In 2004, the state also entered into a landmark settlement in the case of Williams v. State of California, a class-action lawsuit that challenged the state to provide all California students with basic educational necessities, including adequate school facilities. The state allocated an additional $800 million toward emergency repairs for school facilities. In 2005, following the Williams settlement, PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) released a report that included recommendations for addressing the true level of overcrowding in the state and resolving state construction program eligibility barriers. PolicyLink and MALDEF worked with legislators, advocates, and grassroots organizations such as the Advancement Project, Californians for Justice, and the Educational Justice Collaborative to publicize the overcrowding crisis and proposed solutions. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and several legislators agreed that a new school bond was needed to meet the demands of a growing population as well as an aging and overcrowded inventory of school facilities. Legislative staff cited the PolicyLink and MALDEF report in committee hearings on the bond; PolicyLink and MALDEF staff were also invited to provide expert testimony at these hearings. The governor and the legislature signed off on a $7.3 billion, K–12 school facilities bond proposal, with $1 billion set aside specifically for overcrowded schools. Language was included in this proposal that would attempt to resolve the program eligibility barriers described in the PolicyLink/MALDEF report.[7]
___________________
[5] Ellen Hanak and Mark Baldassare, eds., California 2025: Taking on the Future, Public Policy Institute of California, 2005.
[6] Raymond A. Colmenar et al., Ending School Overcrowding in California: Building Quality Schools for All Children, PolicyLink and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 2005; available at http://www.policylink.org/Research/SchoolOvercrowding/.
[7] Ibid.