Credit: Henry & Co. on Unsplash

Legislation to put a $13 billion school construction bond on the state ballot next year and a second bond in 2022 moved forward this week with strong support overall from the education community — and a vague promise by the bill’s author to address concerns that state building aid to school districts isn’t equitably distributed.

With $9 billion in state funding from the last state bond, in 2016, either spent or committed, Assembly Bill 48 received unanimous approval of the Senate Education Committee after a short hearing on Wednesday. But important details remain to be fleshed out before the full Senate votes later this summer and Gov. Gavin Newsom has yet to give his opinion of the proposed amount and other aspects of the bill. The size of the second bond also hasn’t been determined. School construction bonds that voters passed in 2002, 2004 and 2006 ranged from $10.4 billion to $13.1 billion.

Under the state school construction program, the state supplements the cost of construction projects that school districts and community colleges fund with bonds raised through local property taxes. The state pays half of the cost of a new school and pays for 60 percent of the cost of renovating a school or college campus.

AB 48 would include preschool facilities in next year’s next bond, and the bill’s author, Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, confirmed Wednesday that $500 million would be set aside for charter school construction — the same as in the 2016 bond, Proposition 51. There also would be money to fix water systems contaminated by levels of lead violating federal standards. But where the rest of the money would go hasn’t been set. If Prop. 51 is a guide, however, $10 billion would likely go to K-12 districts and $3 billion to community colleges.

During an EdSource webinar about the state building program on Tuesday, panelist Eric Bakke, legislative advocate for the California School Boards Association, a co-sponsor of AB 48, said he’d favor more money for modernization than for new construction — reflecting the need to repair aging buildings statewide and, in many districts, declining or stagnant student enrollment.

A study last year for the Getting Down to Facts research project, organized by the research nonprofit PACE and Stanford University, found that the current state formula favors school districts with larger tax bases, particularly for renovating schools. Higher property values enable them to issue school bonds qualifying for large state matching grants. Those districts also tend to have families with higher than average incomes and fewer low-income students.

While property values have significantly risen, especially in the Bay Area and the coast, they’ve have been slow to rebound from the recession a decade ago in the Central Valley and inland regions, limiting the ability of districts in those regions to issue bonds to cover their needs.

In “Financing School Facilities in California: A Ten-Year Perspective,” co-author Jeff Vincent, who co-directs the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley, provided extensive data about how the state allocates money for construction projects under its School Facilities Program.

He found that the bottom fifth of districts, averaging $900,000 in taxable property per student, received an average of $661 per student in modernization aid from 1998-2017. The top fifth of districts, with an average of $2.4 million in taxable property per student, averaged eight times that much — $5,361 per student.

“If the Legislature moves forward without fixing inequities in funding, it will be doing a huge disservice to school districts and children in low-wealth communities,” Vincent told EdSource.

Another challenge is the application process for state grants. Once the state qualifies districts, matching grants are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, which can disadvantage small districts without full-time staff to determine building needs and write proposals.

O’Donnell said in testimony Wednesday that his bill addresses some of the issues raised. Small districts would receive technical help and project management to navigate the application process. Requirements for the “hardship” program, providing construction aid of up to 100 percent for districts with very low property values, would be changed to potentially qualify more additional small districts.

“It’s encouraging to see some provisions in the bill that look to be equity-promoting although it’s unclear the extent to which they would make an impact,” Vincent said Wednesday.

Vincent, Bakke and representatives from school districts, teachers union and organizations representing the building trades who testified Wednesday, all agreed that state aid is needed now and want to see a state bond on the ballot as early as next March. That would coincide with the Democratic Party’s presidential primary in California.

Recognizing it’s too late to make big changes now, advocates are looking toward the second bond to revise the formula. O’Donnell said he remains open to having more discussions and improving the program. He said he left “placeholder” wording regarding the 2022 bond to allow that to happen.

But that wording doesn’t commit the Legislature to study reforming the current formula or to change it. That’s why the League of Women Voters, the ACLU and the student advocacy groups Public Advocates and the Advancement Project said they would support AB 48 only if it includes language specifically to address inequities that Vincent’s study cited.

“I have seen enough to raise concerns about equity. As the bill moves forward will you make an effort to look into these issues?” Maria Elena Durazo, D-Los Angeles, asked O’Donnell before voting to pass the bill.

Active:
Inactive:

We need your help ...

Unlike many news outlets, EdSource does not secure its content behind a paywall. We believe that informing the largest possible audience about what is working in education — and what isn't — is far more important.

Once a year, however, we ask our readers to contribute as generously as they can so that we can do justice to reporting on a topic as vast and complex as California's education system — from early education to postsecondary success.

Thanks to support from several philanthropic foundations, EdSource is participating in NewsMatch. As a result, your tax-deductible gift to EdSource will be worth three times as much to us — and allow us to do more hard hitting, high-impact reporting that makes a difference. Don’t wait. Please make a contribution now.

Share Article

Comments (3)

Leave a Reply to Jim

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. el 6 months ago6 months ago

    The other aspect of the challenge of financing these needed modernization efforts is that with first-come-first-served and the way these measures are structured and funded, districts have to front the money for their improvements with no real sense of if or when the state matching funds will come through. So for example, once your district develops plans for its project and passes its bond, construction and spending needs to start pretty much immediately. But it can … Read More

    The other aspect of the challenge of financing these needed modernization efforts is that with first-come-first-served and the way these measures are structured and funded, districts have to front the money for their improvements with no real sense of if or when the state matching funds will come through.

    So for example, once your district develops plans for its project and passes its bond, construction and spending needs to start pretty much immediately. But it can be years before your state application gets to the top of the pile for funding. So you spend the bond money you raised, and hope that the state comes up with its share eventually that can be spent on a second, related project.

    Modernization is especially important to support the new initiatives for digital learning, because the bare infrastructure built through the ’90s wasn’t set up to handle even the electrical load of the computers, let alone the various needs for networking, air conditioning, or seating arrangements that also flow from that. We also have decades of new ADA compliance rules to apply to grandfathered structures, and that work has to be done before any other functional upgrades can be applied. No funding is set aside for that, and it can be a significant obstacle to starting any project.

    Our small district has had an application in the hopper for something like 5 years IIRC.

  2. Robert Arias 6 months ago6 months ago

    We don’t need more school buildings (especially for “charter schools”).
    That money would be best spent in renovating inner city, dilapidated buildings, and use the “spare” to hire more Human Resources (e.g. instructional aides).

  3. Jim 6 months ago6 months ago

    If they really want to make a positive impact they should prioritize districts which are “rightsized” for projected enrollment. Too many districts are keeping open too many schools and this may be the incentive to fix some and close others.