According to California law, the state is required to split the cost of new school construction projects 50-50 with local school districts. In reality, the state rarely pays its full half of the cost.[2] The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that, on average, the state pays about 40 percent of that cost.[3] Even if the state contributed its full half, significant disparity would continue to exist in the amount of state funds that reach different districts. Several districts continue to have difficulty raising their local match; districts with higher property values are able to raise more funds via bond financing and, therefore, receive higher matching state funds than those that are property-poor. Further, the eligibility requirements that districts must meet in order to access state funds systematically disadvantage urban and rural school districts; state funds for new school construction flow, instead, to new suburban sprawl.
The need for investment in increasing the quantity and quality of schools is particularly acute in California. Its public schools are among the most crowded in the nation. Three factors have primarily contributed to this overcrowding: Proposition 13, demographic changes, and class-size reduction. In 1978, voters approved Proposition 13, which lowered property taxes, a main source of school funding. The measure also required a two-thirds’ vote—rather than a simple-majority vote—for facilities bonds to be approved. This super-majority requirement significantly slowed new school construction while the state’s student population grew rapidly. Increases in immigration compounded a surge in birthrates throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The state’s student population, under 4 million in 1980, grew to nearly 6 million by 2000. The need for new classrooms was further compounded by policies adopted in the late 1990s to reduce classroom sizes. Starting in 1996, districts were required to reduce class sizes or risk losing state funding.[4]
________________________
[2] There are several exceptions to the 50-50 match, such as Hardship Grants and a 60 percent state match for modernization projects, but the bulk of the program is 50-50 match. For more information on regulating funds for school construction, see State Allocation Board, Office of Public School Construction, An Overview of State School Facility Programs, 2007, retrived from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/Publicatons/Other/SFP_info.pdf.
[3] Chris Guyer et al., “A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance,” Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2001, p. 19.
[4] Catherine Hazelton, “Overcrowded Schools, Desperate Measures: Survey Indicates California’s Schools Often Ineligible for Facilities Funds, Use Poor Remedies to Meet Enrollment Demands,” 2005.