(This commentary first appeared in TOP-Ed.)

California parents often imagine that their children attend a “local” school. They are mostly wrong. In a very real sense, California no longer has local schools – it has a system of state schools.

California voters know that their state school system is under grave financial stress, and that it is harming kids. According to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), most Californians (90 percent) believe that “the state budget situation” is a problem for schools. Two-thirds of voters surveyed said that education quality is a big problem. More than 90 percent were concerned about laying off teachers. Nearly 90 percent were concerned about having fewer days of school instruction.

But here’s the thing: Most California voters don’t want to be taxed by Sacramento. Not even for the kids. Not even with these problems. In the PPIC survey, only 46 percent say they favor raising the state sales tax to support education. Only 40 percent favor raising state personal income taxes. These are dismal numbers. For heaven’s sake, just how bad does it need to get?

Attitudes are very different, however, if it is not Sacramento doing the taxing. Californians aren’t stingy or spiteful; they just want solutions they can believe in. The same annual survey has consistently shown that reliable majorities of voters across the state would be in favor of taxes in support of schools, so long as they are local taxes in support of local schools. This conclusion harmonizes with two other themes in the survey’s findings: Californians (82 percent) want school spending decisions to reside at the local level, and Californians have a higher opinion of their local leaders than they do of their state leaders.

California’s state leaders should take the hint.

There is widespread support for local taxation to benefit local schools with local control. Today, communities cannot exercise that political will, because Prop 13 set the passage threshold for local revenue measures at two-thirds, a threshold higher than a Senate filibuster. If Sacramento lowers the barriers, restoring to local communities the power to tax themselves in support of local schools, California’s local voters will happily take action.

Yes, but… what about equity?

The advantages of local taxation are obvious…  if you happen to live in a wealthy community. On the other hand, if you live in a community with a small tax base, local taxation is not obviously helpful. To be clear: Simply lowering the passage threshold for local taxes could recreate the kinds of structural funding inequities that led to the Serrano vs. Priest case.

Are there ways to unblock local taxation and also preserve equitable access to funding for all communities?

Yes. Here is one: Create a state-level obligation to equitably match qualifying local education taxes. The goal of this approach would be to ensure that every public school has equitable access to local funding, regardless of the tax base in the district it calls home.

Districts would be expected to win the support of their community in the form of local taxes. Districts with a low tax base per student would receive support from the state. Every dollar the community commits to education in the form of local taxes for public schools would be matched with money from the state fund. How much money from the state fund? It would depend on the community’s local funding capacity. Each district’s tax collections for education would be matched at a level sufficient to add up to at least the funding power per student of the average district in the state. Models drafted for the Education Excellence Committee in 2007 estimated that equalizing funding power might require a tenfold match in communities with a very low tax base per student. A district that enjoys a high tax base per student, by contrast, would not need or receive matching funds from the state.

Could it work? Here are some examples of the devilish details.

What form of local taxation ought to be permitted?

The Education Excellence Committee, citing the historical connection between property taxes and schools, suggested using a form of property surtax. The Think Long Committee suggested changing the mix to include taxes on services and other sources.

How should local tax measures for schools be authorized?

Some, citing Proposition 39 as a precedent, believe a local ballot measure would be appropriate or necessary. Others (myself included) believe that this responsibility should be returned to the jurisdiction of school boards.

Where would the money for a state matching fund come from?

It would be dealt from the top of the state general fund. That is, payment of matching fund obligations would become the state’s first order-of-payment responsibility after meeting its debt obligations.

Should there be a limit on the amount that a community would be permitted to raise through local taxes for its schools?

Yes. It is important to establish a limit in order to avoid unintentionally creating open-ended obligations for matching funds. Such a limit could usefully be expressed in terms that help build the public’s understanding of their investment in education. For example, the limit could be set to an amount equal to 10 percent of the community’s average weighted funding per student in the prior year. As confidence in the system develops, the limit could be adjusted.

If local funding for schools is eased, should state strings be attached?

Yes, with restraint. For example, the state could insist that local taxes for education be equitably used for the support of all public school students in a community on a weighted-pupil basis. Local funds also should not be allowed to become a football in the conflict over charter school funding. Transparency requirements would also make sense.

Could this actually be done? Is it politically feasible? What about Proposition 13?

No one knows, because it has not been tried or deeply examined. But look at the PPIC poll numbers above: Californians do not appear to want state solutions, but they agree about the problem and express confidence in local action and local leadership.

Why bring this up now? Shouldn’t we be focused on passing the revenue-related ballot measures that would support education?

Funding for education in California is pitifully out of whack with the rest of the nation. If California’s voters can muster statewide political will to equitably add school funding through Sacramento, let’s do it. But the survey doesn’t look good, does it? The next serious evaluation of education finance reform options should take a hard look at making local funding options a serious part of the solution.

Jeff Camp is the primary author of Ed100.org, a primer on education reform options in California. Since leaving a career at Microsoft to work for education change, Jeff has served on multiple education reform committees including the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. He chairs the Education Circle of Full Circle Fund, an engaged philanthropy organization cultivating the next generation of community leaders and driving lasting social change in the Bay Area and beyond. A visual summary of Ed100 can be found here.

Share Article

Comments are closed

Join the conversation by going to Edsource's Twitter or Facebook pages. If you do not have a social media account, you can learn how to create a Twitter account here and a Facebook account here.

  1. el 7 years ago7 years ago

    @SF, as I understand it, many districts do already band together to create consortiums for purchasing health care. The reality is that health care costs are through the roof no matter who is buying. I did a back of the envelope analysis once and figured that if your health insurance is going up by 10% a year, that means that for every 50 employees, the extra cost of health insurance *each year* is enough for … Read More

    @SF, as I understand it, many districts do already band together to create consortiums for purchasing health care. The reality is that health care costs are through the roof no matter who is buying. I did a back of the envelope analysis once and figured that if your health insurance is going up by 10% a year, that means that for every 50 employees, the extra cost of health insurance *each year* is enough for another FTE. (Whether this cost is shouldered by the district, by the employees, or shared will vary from district to district.) Solving health care would go a long way to providing more money to spend on educating kids.

  2. SF 7 years ago7 years ago

    Jeff, I still don't understand why there isn't a stronger push to overturn Prop 13 or at least change it so that corporations pay their fair share and then phase out for residential property owners. A few other issues that come to mind regarding school funding-- rising healthcare costs is making it difficult for districts to provide teachers in CA with decent benefit packages because they negotiate those contracts for the # of staff in their … Read More

    Jeff,
    I still don’t understand why there isn’t a stronger push to overturn Prop 13 or at least change it so that corporations pay their fair share and then phase out for residential property owners. A few other issues that come to mind regarding school funding– rising healthcare costs is making it difficult for districts to provide teachers in CA with decent benefit packages because they negotiate those contracts for the # of staff in their district. Could consolidation statewide lead to a better negotiated package for districts/teaching staff? Special education costs hugely impact districts and historically they have not received their due share from the federal govt. Another issue that needs some redesign attention with regards to school funding.

  3. el 7 years ago7 years ago

    Thank you, Jeff. That is a very good comment about spending and outcomes.   The other thing to consider, discussed in detail by Bruce Baker at School Finance 101 (for example: http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/smart-guy-gates-makes-my-list-of-dumbest-stuff-ive-ever-read/ ) is that nations account for school spending quite differently. For example, our health care costs are the highest in the world, have risen dramatically, and nearly every school employee has health insurance. In the US, this is all counted as part of our education spending … Read More

    Thank you, Jeff. That is a very good comment about spending and outcomes.
     
    The other thing to consider, discussed in detail by Bruce Baker at School Finance 101 (for example: http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/smart-guy-gates-makes-my-list-of-dumbest-stuff-ive-ever-read/ ) is that nations account for school spending quite differently. For example, our health care costs are the highest in the world, have risen dramatically, and nearly every school employee has health insurance. In the US, this is all counted as part of our education spending per student. In many other countries, that money is accounted to health care. This is just one of many differences.
     

  4. Jeff Camp 7 years ago7 years ago

    You ask whether inflation-adjusted funding per pupil has fallen in the past 30 years. It has not, but this is not the right comparison. Money is only valuable for what it can buy, and in this time period the composition of the economy and California's market for college-educated talent has changed utterly. http://www.ed100.org/talent/ Adjusting for inflation doesn't begin to capture the difference.   In this time period, knowledge and service work has shifted from about 20% of the … Read More

    You ask whether inflation-adjusted funding per pupil has fallen in the past 30 years. It has not, but this is not the right comparison. Money is only valuable for what it can buy, and in this time period the composition of the economy and California’s market for college-educated talent has changed utterly. http://www.ed100.org/talent/ Adjusting for inflation doesn’t begin to capture the difference.
     
    In this time period, knowledge and service work has shifted from about 20% of the value of our economy to about 80%. http://www.ed100.org/knowledge
     
    This transition is not just a California or US phenomenon, but a global one. As it has occurred, the gains associated with education have become more than a matter of personal consequence: educational success also drives economic success at the macro level. The economic growth of nations that are successfully educating children in increasing numbers outpace those that do not: http://www.ed100.org/international/ This has enormous implications: if an investment or change in education can move the needle in terms of what kids learn, the investment can pay for itself in economic returns. The history of economic growth in America is a mirror of the growth in economic inclusion.
     
    One high-level way to see the erosion of California’s investment in education over time is to compare the amount we spend on education to the total size of the economy. Over time, you would expect this fraction to increase as the economy shifts to higher-value-added activities. In fact, it has contracted. http://www.ed100.org/lowspending
     
    At the same time as this contraction has taken place in real investment in education, we have also raised the bar for what we expect education to accomplish, for example for children with special needs. http://www.ed100.org/specialneeds/
     
    You argue that there is a weak connection between education spending and outcomes. This is true. But it is more true on a marginal basis (does one dollar here or there really change anything?) than on a bigger how-do-we-want-to-invest-our-society’s-treasure basis. The collapse of California’s effective investment in education has put this state dramatically out of norm. http://www.ed100.org/californiaskimps
     
    This low level of relative investment is alarmingly different from other states and nations. It is also likely to be expensive in the long run. http://www.ed100.org/costoffailure
     
    Returning at last to my main point: if we are going to do anything to address these problems, we would be wise to be honest about where there is political will to act, and to invest. For better or worse, in California that political will is much stronger in communities than at the level of the state as a political whole.

  5. navigio 7 years ago7 years ago

    "Flash forward two decades and “equity” is being defined not about equal spending, but rather the failure to spend some amount of larger expenditures on poor students than on the children of those parents who are mostly paying the taxes that fund schools." Jeff, please take particular note of that comment. Imho, it is one reason that local taxation and equity can probably never co-exist in a state with such income disparity. Its true that not … Read More

    “Flash forward two decades and “equity” is being defined not about equal spending, but rather the failure to spend some amount of larger expenditures on poor students than on the children of those parents who are mostly paying the taxes that fund schools.”

    Jeff, please take particular note of that comment. Imho, it is one reason that local taxation and equity can probably never co-exist in a state with such income disparity. Its true that not everyone who funds schools feels that way, but I think this feeling is more prevalent than most give it credit for. And it becomes exacerbated when reduced overall funding leads to reduced serviced that force those who fund public education out of public education at a disproportionate rate.

    @jskdn – why does adequacy have to be arbitrary? Are you really implying that current education funding is adequate? Do you think libraries are relevant? Computers? Art? Sufficient staffing? Acceptable facilities? I mean we’ve even gotten to the point where people who believe teachers are the single most important factor in a child’s performance are now arguing that its too expensive to bother making sure they are the best they can be.  ?

  6. jskdn 7 years ago7 years ago

    The "moral myopia" I was referring to was the increasing the use of the Prop 13 ad valorem tax with its assessment provisions. It was about equity between taxpayers not students. I'll note that back some two decades ago, when Jonathon Kozol wrote "Savage Inequalities", it was about the vast differences in per pupil funding, where inner-city, underclass students received a fraction of what suburban districts spent on their students. Flash forward two decades and … Read More

    The “moral myopia” I was referring to was the increasing the use of the Prop 13 ad valorem tax with its assessment provisions. It was about equity between taxpayers not students. I’ll note that back some two decades ago, when Jonathon Kozol wrote “Savage Inequalities”, it was about the vast differences in per pupil funding, where inner-city, underclass students received a fraction of what suburban districts spent on their students. Flash forward two decades and “equity” is being defined not about equal spending, but rather the failure to spend some amount of larger expenditures on poor students than on the children of those parents who are mostly paying the taxes that fund schools. This whole notion of “adequacy” seems like a blank check for arbitrary determinations. Furthermore the correlation between spending and educational outcomes is decidedly weak. It’s not the money spent but rather what it bought in terms of effective education.

    Finally, are you claiming that inflation-adjusted, per-pupil funding has declined over the last 30 years?

  7. Jeff Camp 7 years ago7 years ago

    Thank you for these thoughtful responses. To recap my thesis: in California the political will to fund education is much stronger at the local level than at the state level. Today's education funding system is perfectly designed to minimize the resources for education.  It depends on taxes set at the state level (where political will is weakest) and substantially blocks communities from levying taxes on themselves in support of education. Over time, this mismatch of … Read More

    Thank you for these thoughtful responses. To recap my thesis: in California the political will to fund education is much stronger at the local level than at the state level. Today’s education funding system is perfectly designed to minimize the resources for education.  It depends on taxes set at the state level (where political will is weakest) and substantially blocks communities from levying taxes on themselves in support of education. Over time, this mismatch of policy power (Sacramento) and political will (local) has eroded funding for California schools to a dangerous level. The people of California are alarmed about the quality of education, but don’t trust Sacramento to make good use of their taxes in a way that will benefit their schools.
     
    It is time for policy leaders to consider new options. Specifically, policy leaders should design a system that empowers each community to levy local taxes for education AND ALSO directly addresses the need for equitable access to adequate funding for the education of all children. This is requirement of both fairness and law.
     
    Kimberley — You are quite right; the proposal in this post would require changes to Prop 13. I have made no claims about this being easy — only about it being necessary. How to accomplish it? Something of this magnitude would probably need to be part of an omnibus change package charged with addressing multiple challenges at once. For example, I could imagine a select committee with a mandate to prepare a bill that would be pre-cleared for fast-track consideration.
     
    El — I would be happy to discuss this proposal with you.  Email me through the address on ed100.org and we can talk it through. Your questions are important ones.
     
    Navigio — Rather than income (which at the local level is notoriously volatile), the proposal as last drafted by the Ed Excellence Committee would base its matching amount on the local tax base per student. The Think Long committee broadened the context in a useful way in my opinion. As for your broader point about equity vs. adequacy, today we can’t make too strong a claim to enjoy either.
     
    “jskdn” — You warn of the “moral myopia” of plans that are not designed for equity — I strongly agree. This proposal tackles equity head-on by including the use of means-tested matching funds.  You argue that centralized funding systems (such as that in countries that fund schools nationally) more equitable. This depends on the design of the system.  For example, the Governor’s draft budget seems to be leading toward a centralized system of student-weighted allocation of state funds.  If implemented this will be a very important step for equity. However, this does not solve the political issue exposed by the PPIC survey and 30 years of declining commitment to ed funding: people will tax themselves for the benefit of kids nearby, but show little support for funding the education system at large.
     
    A colleague recently suggested that an analogy to professional sports might help this conversation. The (relatively new) “luxury tax” system in baseball ensures that each team has a certain, guaranteed amount of funding.  The system allows teams with a lot of money to spend more than this amount, subject to a “luxury tax” that is used to boost the resources of the less well-funded teams.
     
     

  8. jskdn 7 years ago7 years ago

    It's not a little ironic to talk about increasing the opportunities for local property taxation and Prop 13. Before Prop 13 property taxation was all local, at least in theory. But the result of that local property taxation was the situation that resulted in Prop 13. There's nothing incompatible with a state-funded system, where the responsibility for funding a child's education is distributed widely and equitably among all the taxpayers of a state, except that state … Read More

    It’s not a little ironic to talk about increasing the opportunities for local property taxation and Prop 13. Before Prop 13 property taxation was all local, at least in theory. But the result of that local property taxation was the situation that resulted in Prop 13.

    There’s nothing incompatible with a state-funded system, where the responsibility for funding a child’s education is distributed widely and equitably among all the taxpayers of a state, except that state politicians tend to want assert their control by way of the purse where they ought not to. But that’s their fault. You could have a system where money is distributed by formula and the state set educational outcomes criteria, but left it to local districts to run their schools. I’ll just note that some very successful education systems in other countries are national.

    There’s also the Serrano decision, which found that students had a right to roughly equal funding of their education. That helped make local property taxation irrational because those local taxpayers paying more to their local districts then triggered the need for them to have to pay increased taxes to the state in order to equalize the funding of other districts, something Camp proposes to do again.

    Prop 39 took the most unfair tax system in the country, California’s ad valorem property tax, due to Prop 13’s assessment provisions, and increased the unfairness by expanding upon it. That didn’t seem to bother the rich tech multimillionaires that funded the Prop 39 and it’s predecessor’s campaigns and apparently this ex-tech suffers from the same moral myopia.

    Replies

    • edfundwonk 7 years ago7 years ago

  9. el 7 years ago7 years ago

    I've read this a few times and I understand it less each time.   School districts can and do pass local taxes now to support local schools. Indeed, compare Piedmont and Oakland, as a recent teen guest blogger did, and you'll see it writ large. Regardless of what the polls say, the idea that Californians will happily vote to tax themselves for local uses is not borne out by the facts; otherwise, we would have a strange … Read More

    I’ve read this a few times and I understand it less each time.
     
    School districts can and do pass local taxes now to support local schools. Indeed, compare Piedmont and Oakland, as a recent teen guest blogger did, and you’ll see it writ large. Regardless of what the polls say, the idea that Californians will happily vote to tax themselves for local uses is not borne out by the facts; otherwise, we would have a strange patchwork of revenue sources, but no shortage of revenue. Not all proposals pass; and what you don’t see easily is how many communities considered a parcel tax and then concluded that the effort would cost too much with too low a likelihood of success.
     
    This new scheme, which would match funds, would make the gaming calculus even weirder, as navigio ably points out. Someone else could vote to take tax money away from my community?
     
    For better or worse, we’ve decided to maintain California as one large state rather than breaking into regional sub-states. As such, we share certain responsibilities, including educating *all* of our children. Not one kind of education for kids in Piedmont and something entirely poorer for kids in Barstow.

  10. navigio 7 years ago7 years ago

    If Im reading this correctly, its essentially a sliding scale, income-based matching grant. It is an interesting idea, however, take a look at how many districts did not pass a parcel tax in the past few years, and maybe more importantly, which kinds of districts did. The 'burden' for many of these parcel taxes would have been relatively low, yet they failed nonetheless. And the groups working against those are the same ones who would … Read More

    If Im reading this correctly, its essentially a sliding scale, income-based matching grant. It is an interesting idea, however, take a look at how many districts did not pass a parcel tax in the past few years, and maybe more importantly, which kinds of districts did. The ‘burden’ for many of these parcel taxes would have been relatively low, yet they failed nonetheless. And the groups working against those are the same ones who would strangle local funding ability in this proposed mechanism, disproportionately so for districts that need it most. There is a real and non-neglibile group of people who dont believe in equity (in access or in funding). Not because they are mean, but because thats how they feel the world works. Some dont even believe education should be publicly funded.
     
    Personally, I would love to see the discussion move from the question of equity instead to one of adequacy. Making sure kids are equally deprived of the resources needed for a quality education isnt helping anybody, except maybe for those who’d rather the discussion never became about quality.

  11. ted lempert 7 years ago7 years ago

    Jeff, you are raising a really important issue. Funding for public education is abysmal in California. Allowing communities to invest in their local schools is something Children Now supports.  We especially appreciate you pointing out that we need to implement strategies to mitigate potential funding inequities throughout the state so as to not disadvantage communities that have a smaller tax base. You are raising the kind of strategies that are needed to help prioritize kids!
     

  12. Kimberley 7 years ago7 years ago

    To JIMH - please look at this site for answers to your questions about state spending, which has gone from approx. $103 billion to $82 billion in the last 4 years:  http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120203_Budget_Chartbook.pdf Most of the spending goes to:  public education, colleges, universities, prisons, CALWorks, MediCal and other local services. To Jeff Camp:  Thank you for putting forward a thoughtful proposal.  I have some questions and issues.  I lived in Maryland where we had limits on property tax … Read More

    To JIMH – please look at this site for answers to your questions about state spending, which has gone from approx. $103 billion to $82 billion in the last 4 years:  http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120203_Budget_Chartbook.pdf
    Most of the spending goes to:  public education, colleges, universities, prisons, CALWorks, MediCal and other local services.

    To Jeff Camp:  Thank you for putting forward a thoughtful proposal.  I have some questions and issues.  I lived in Maryland where we had limits on property tax that were not as draconian and reactive as Prop. 13 (Assessments every 3 years, max. value increase – 20%, phased in over 3 years).  We also had county income taxes that predominantly went to the schools and because the cities had their own income tax, a greater proportion of property tax went to schools than the proportion of property tax in California (at least in San Diego, where only 43% of property tax revenue goes to schools.)  A similar program was set up at the state level to help poorer school districts. 
    Here are some issues of concern:  Prop. 13 states 2/3 vote to raise taxes, plus no ad valorem tax.  So, wouldn’t we need a constitutional amendment to change the 2/3 requirement?  And, assuming we did that, what hurdles would need to be cleared in order for a community to impose a school district income tax?  I have posed this question to electeds in Sacramento, including former Budget Committee Chair Denise Ducheny and Tom Torlakson and never got a straight answer.  Thank you again for your advocacy.

  13. el 7 years ago7 years ago

    One of the strengths of the California system is that state money follows students wherever they attend. This means we don’t have some of the really hideous situations seen in other states where parents of homeless students are being charged with a felony for “stealing” an education from the wrong district.

  14. JIMH 7 years ago7 years ago

    Where is all of our tax money going, anyway?  Sacramento politicians spend it just like the people in Congress spend tax money, like it's a never-ending river of revenues....... What part of WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM, don't you people get anyway? Spend it on Education, for the next generation, if you want more taxpayers....Spend it on Welfare, Prisons and a bloated bureaucracy  if you want more non-producers.  Sort … Read More

    Where is all of our tax money going, anyway?  Sacramento politicians spend it just like the people in Congress spend tax money, like it’s a never-ending river of revenues…….
    What part of WE DON’T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM, don’t you people get anyway?
    Spend it on Education, for the next generation, if you want more taxpayers….Spend it on Welfare, Prisons and a bloated bureaucracy  if you want more non-producers.  Sort of a clear choice I would say.
    But to think for ONE MINUTE the left-leaning Pro-Union Legislature will stand up for something that makes fiscal sense is ludicrous…….Ain’t gonna happen, never has, never will as long as the entrenched politicians hold sway in Sacramento.
    and yes, we get it that Government Unionized jobs suck the life out of the economy.

  15. Richard Moore 7 years ago7 years ago

    This is hilarious. First let's go ask our favorite former felon, Mr. Bill Honig: "Money is no longer a problem!" Bill proclaimed after Prop 98 passed, allocating 40% of the state budget to education. Now let's ask the testing companies: Can you unpack this sentence and turn it into a multiple choice question: Create a state-level obligation to equitably match qualifying local education taxes. This means: a) Raising taxes locally raises taxes on everyone in the state. b) Increase … Read More

    This is hilarious. First let’s go ask our favorite former felon, Mr. Bill Honig: “Money is no longer a problem!” Bill proclaimed after Prop 98 passed, allocating 40% of the state budget to education.
    Now let’s ask the testing companies: Can you unpack this sentence and turn it into a multiple choice question: Create a state-level obligation to equitably match qualifying local education taxes.
    This means:
    a) Raising taxes locally raises taxes on everyone in the state.
    b) Increase spending.
    c) Increase debt.
    d) From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
    e) All of the above.
    Now let’s ask the people!

  16. Nick 7 years ago7 years ago

    I like this plan a lot, Mr. Camp. We parent advocates at Educate Our State have advocated for a very similar restructuring of public education finance. Our bipartisan group of parent advocates has found support for this restructuring from parents regardless of their political affiliation or geographical location in the state. To your point, Bea, I believe there would be Republican as well as Democratic support for local schools, and taxation that would go directly towards local … Read More

    I like this plan a lot, Mr. Camp.
    We parent advocates at Educate Our State have advocated for a very similar restructuring of public education finance. Our bipartisan group of parent advocates has found support for this restructuring from parents regardless of their political affiliation or geographical location in the state.
    To your point, Bea, I believe there would be Republican as well as Democratic support for local schools, and taxation that would go directly towards local public schools. Mr Huff and other Republicans have spoken out many times in offering their support for public school funding that goes directly to the school district and site level, and which bypasses Sacramento.

  17. Bea 7 years ago7 years ago

    Do you live in a bubble, Mr. Camp?  You assert that “Districts would be expected to win the support of their community in the form of local taxes.” Yet you do not take into account the political diversity of this state. Senators Huff, Dutton, Grove, et al., were elected by the very kinds of people who most certainly would NOT support local taxes for their neighborhood schools. Penalizing those kids is unfair.