Proposed $10 Billion Bond Raises Concerns Over Favoritism in California School Funding

When legislators put the finishing touches on a school facilities bond slated for the November election, some superintendents from low-income and smaller districts expressed a familiar sense of being underfunded and disregarded.

“Am I angry? Yes, I am very angry,” shared Gudiel Crosthwaite, the superintendent of Lynwood Unified in a low-income area of Los Angeles County. “California has a duty to educate its children, irrespective of their location. This bond shows preference to larger, wealthier districts at the expense of districts like ours.”

Lawmakers reached a deal late on Saturday concerning Assembly Bill 247, a $10 billion bond aimed at funding repairs and enhancements at K-12 schools and community colleges statewide. The dire need for funds is evident as the current school repair fund is nearly depleted, and the voters rejected the state’s previous school facilities bond in 2020.

Although everyone acknowledges the requirement for funding to address dry rot issues and construct new science labs, some superintendents and the civil rights law firm Public Advocates have advocated for a fairer distribution of funds. Presently, state facilities funding is allocated through 50-50 matching grants, favoring districts with significant local fundraising capacity, usually higher-income regions.

Public Advocates has threatened legal action against California unless a broader sliding scale for fund distribution is implemented. The current agreement features a sliding scale range of 60% to 65%, falling short of the 5% to 90% range advocated by Public Advocates. This distribution scheme ensures that even the wealthiest districts in the state receive marginally less than the neediest.

Additionally, the current proposal offers the potential for schools to receive increased funding by engaging union contractors for construction work, providing an advantage to urban areas where union labor is more accessible.

Brooke Patton, a spokeswoman for the State Building and Trades Council of California, emphasized the advantages of hiring union workers for school projects due to their high level of training and efficiency. Union projects also incorporate apprentices from local communities, benefiting the region in the long run.

The bill must secure a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses and the governor’s signature this week to take effect. It also requires a simple majority approval from voters in the upcoming fall election.

‘A Compromise for Progress’

Although the bill fails to address all of California’s educational needs, some education advocates believe it’s better than nothing.

“It’s not flawless; it represents a compromise,” noted Derick Lennox, senior director at California County Superintendents, backing the bill and viewing it as a crucial step toward equity and improvement.

The bill offers support for smaller and low-income districts by allocating additional funding for project managers and broadening the eligibility for hardship funds. It also reserves 10% of the funds for smaller districts.

The California School Boards Association stands behind the bill, alongside a companion bill, AB 2831, sponsored by Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Republican from Folsom, offering additional relief for small and low-income districts following the passage of the school bond in November.

“We understand the challenges faced by small districts,” expressed association spokesperson Troy Flint, emphasizing the importance of getting a school bond on the ballot under the current circumstances. Focus now shifts towards securing its passage to ensure the well-being and safety of California students.

‘Aging Infrastructure and Basic Needs’

Fabio Robles, the Superintendent of Trinity County, welcomed any financial support for schools in his region, describing the dilapidated conditions that some schools face due to limited local funding options.

Robles highlighted issues such as the absence of air conditioning in the gym and outdated kitchen facilities in Lewiston, alongside a 40-year-old heater at Van Duzen Elementary in the mountains.

While indicating a preference for a broader sliding scale, Robles acknowledged the significant assistance the current proposal would provide for his district. The contrast with neighboring affluent districts like Pasadena Unified, pursuing substantial bond measures, underscores the disparities in facilities and resources available.

Superintendent Crosthwaite from Lynwood shared his frustration over the disparities faced by low-income students in his district, stressing the urgent need to address inadequate facilities such as lack of green spaces, basic amenities, and academic resources.

“Our students should not consider these conditions as normal. We must reassess our resource allocation to ensure equitable access and opportunities for all,” Crosthwaite emphasized.