The Final Project Education

What’s the Matter with School Funding Ballot Measures?: 

What’s the Matter with School Funding Ballot Measures? Education Group 9/18/2006 James Barton Felicity Grisham Jun Jiang Eric Showen

Research Question: 

Research Question If there is a significant disconnect between the ethnic/racial makeup of the students in a school district and the ethnic/racial composition of the voters in that district, will the voters be more or less likely to pass bond and parcel tax measures on their local ballots to fund schools?

History of Public School Finance in California: A Primer: 

History of Public School Finance in California: A Primer

Early Education Funding:A Local Affair: 

Early Education Funding: A Local Affair Sources of school funding, 1968: Local property taxes: 60% State revenue: 35% Federal sources: 5% State funds issued through block grants Funding allocated at district level School boards could vote to raise local property taxes to supplement funds Only required simple majority vote

Inequity of Property Tax-based Funding: 

Inequity of Property Tax-based Funding In 1969-70, per pupil expenditures in unified districts varied from $612 to $2,414, with median of $766. Beverly Hills versus Baldwin park (1968-9) Per pupil expenditures: BH $1,232, BP $577 Assessed valuation per pupil: BH $51K, BP $3.7K

Serrano v. Priest: 

Serrano v. Priest Lawsuit challenged constitutionality of existing inequity in public school finance 1971 CA Supreme Court declared system of public school finance unconstitutional (Serrano I) and in 1976 mandated that funding level be equalized in six years (Serrano II) Mandated 'Serrano band' All CA public schools must be funded equally within $100 range (band adjusted yearly according to inflation)

Legislature’s Response to Serrano: 

Legislature’s Response to Serrano Limited the rate of local revenue a district could receive from property taxes and distributed the excess among poorer districts. Discontent among residents in wealthier districts served as impetus for Prop. 13. Superior Court judge ruled in 1983 that mandates of Serrano had been met. After series of appeals, case closed in 1989.

Proposition 98 (passed 1988): 

Proposition 98 (passed 1988) Mandated annual state spending on education be the lesser of: 39% of General Fund revenues Previous year’s education spending adjusted for growth in General Fund and enrollment Previous year’s education spending adjusted for growth in per capita income and enrollment Provision for suspension in times of economic crisis This occurred in 2004-2005

Funding Trends in Past 20 Years : 

Funding Trends in Past 20 Years Serrano, Prop. 13, Prop. 98, and preponderance of categorical aid programs have led to 'leveling down' Prop. 98  revenue ceiling (in addition to floor) 'Mindless equalization'—Michael Kirst Concurrent trend of state legislature usurping power from local districts Little funding for infrastructure or capital improvements in past 40 years Since Serrano was closed in 1986, funding across districts has become increasingly inequitable

Slide10: 

Slide11: 

Key Terms: 

Key Terms Two types of districts Revenue Limit Basic Aid Categorical Spending

Basic Aid Districts: 

Basic Aid Districts Only 60-70 districts statewide Largely concentrated in Marin, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties 3.3% of CA public school students As result, academics and education policy experts have generally chosen to overlooked these districts Property tax revenues exceed per pupil funding threshold mandated by state Keep difference Receive only baseline guaranteed funding from state (negligible), plus categorical grants

Revenue Limit Districts: 

Revenue Limit Districts - vast majority of CA’s 1000 districts and 6.4 million public school students Local property taxes do not meet per pupil education spending threshold (as largely determined by Prop. 98) Receive additional funding from state’s General Fund to make up difference HOWEVER, funding formulas are antiquated and flawed

Categorical Aid Programs: 

Categorical Aid Programs In 2001-2, there were 124 categorically funded programs in state education Target students with unique needs Once implemented, difficult to modify and nearly impossible to eliminate Over one-third of education funds are categorically earmarked by state or federal government Not subject to general revenue limit funding prescribed by Serrano However, may be challenged in future court cases

Other Sources of Funding: 

Other Sources of Funding Particularly when adjusted for cost of living, CA school funding is well below national average. Alternatives to state andamp; federal finance system: Statewide bonds Education foundations Local parcel taxes Local general obligation bonds

Parcel Taxes: 

Parcel Taxes Non ad-valorem assessment on each property within a particular district School board and administration explain what new revenue will be used for when placing on ballot Generally for education programs—not construction or renovation Include sunset clause, after which new parcel tax must be passed by voters if district is interested Many parcel taxes include opt-out clauses, particularly for elderly Requires 2/3 voter approval in all cases, as per Prop. 13

General Obligation Bonds: 

General Obligation Bonds Ad-valorem payments required on properties in district Used to finance construction, renovation, purchase of capital equipment State may provide matching funds for some G.O. bonds (more $ in low-income districts) Since passage of Prop. 39 in 2000, local district school boards can choose whether 55% or 2/3 majority is necessary for passage Districts electing the 55% requirement must meet additional accountability standards

Slide19: 

State of California: 

State of California Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Calexico: 

Calexico Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Calexico Unified School DistrictSchool Funding Ballot Measures: 

3/2004 Bond Calexico Unified School District School Funding Ballot Measures

Palo Alto: 

Palo Alto Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Palo Alto Unified School DistrictSchool Funding Ballot Measures: 

Palo Alto Unified School District School Funding Ballot Measures

Santa Ana: 

Santa Ana Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Santa Ana Unified School DistrictSchool Funding Ballot Measures: 

Santa Ana Unified School District School Funding Ballot Measures

City of Orange: 

City of Orange Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Slide28: 

Orange Unified School District School Funding Ballot Measures

Fontana: 

Fontana Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Fontana Unified School DistrictSchool Funding Ballot Measures: 

Fontana Unified School District School Funding Ballot Measures

Salinas: 

Salinas Source: California Department of Education Source: U.S. Census Bureau andamp; U.C. Berkeley

Salinas Union High School DistrictSchool Funding Ballot Measures: 

Salinas Union High School District School Funding Ballot Measures

Propositions in Salinas: 

Propositions in Salinas Nov. 2000: Prop 39: 60.3% YES statewide: 53.3% Yes Nov. 2002 Prop 47: 64.2% YES statewide: 59.0% Yes March 2004 Prop 55: 53.2% YES statewide: 50.8% Yes

Propositions in Orange: 

Propositions in Orange Nov. 2000: Prop 39: 59.8% NO statewide: 53.3% Yes Nov. 2002 Prop 47: 51.6% NO statewide: 59.0% Yes March 2004 Prop 55: 60.6 % NO statewide: 50.8% Yes

Propositions: 

Propositions Proposition 39: Lowered school bond requirements to 55% local vote Proposition 47: $13,050,000,000 bond in general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 and higher education facilities Proposition 55: $12,300,000,000 bond in general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 and higher education facilities

Slide36: 

Slide37: 

Slide38: 

But could there be other factors that determine voter willingness to pass school funding measures???We sure think there might be!!! (And so do some other studies…..): 

But could there be other factors that determine voter willingness to pass school funding measures??? We sure think there might be!!! (And so do some other studies…..)

Slide40: 

YES More poor students Strength of the economy Student diversity (mixed) NOT Size of bond Size of school district . What Affects Passage of Bonds?

Or…: 

Or… Matching programs for state facilities funds (not subject to equity) Large cities Bay Area Democrat

Slide42: 

Education Level of Residents

Age Distribution of Residents: 

Age Distribution of Residents

Slide44: 

Assessment of Wealth of Residents

Slide45: 

Party Affiliation of Residents

Date of Election: 

Date of Election

Slide47: 

Maybe a Sense of Community Plays a Role…..

Slide48: 

Geographically Diverse Area

Slide49: 

Racial Disparities

Slide50: 

West Contra Costa Unified

So What Does It All Mean??: 

So What Does It All Mean?? We have reached some interesting and thought-provoking conclusions, but more research must be conducted to garner a more comprehensive picture of the relationship between student/voter ethnicity and voter propensity to pass school funding measures. How do these findings shape policy? Should they shape policy at all?

Slide52: 

Sources U.S. Census Bureau (Online) U.C. Berkeley; California Latino Demographic Databook (2003) http://ucdata.berkeley.edu:7101/new_web/latino/chapters/Chapter7.pdf#search=%22ethnicity%20of%20California%20voters%22 California Department of Education (Online) District Enrollment Information Ed-Data School Funding Database Interviews Robert Barton (9/8/2006)—Fontana USD Music Educator Henry Hawthorn (9/8/2006)—Fontana School Board Michael Kirst (9/10/2006)—Stanford School of Education Professor John Barton (9/10/2006)—Palo Alto City Council; Palo Alto School Board