A History of Public K-12 Education Financing in California

Abstract

My senior thesis takes a look at the last five decades in California’s history of public K12 education finance. In the 1970s, the amount of money schools had to spend was largely dependent on the wealth of its school district because the system was based on a collection of local property taxes. The wealthier the district, the more funding the schools receive. Then, because of major tax revolt, all state property tax rates were equalized to 1% of the property’s market value. This slightly leveled the playing field but not in the way that education supporters had hoped for. The next major change ensured that education would not suffer such dire consequences again. By guaranteeing education a certain portion of the State’s budget, California looked to bring its K-12 education back to the highest quality. Even in down economic years, California passed propositions to make sure the budget stayed healthy by increasing sales and income taxes. Within the last decade, changes have been made to help schools with the most needy students by reallocating supplemental State funds. One of the major themes in this thesis is the power of local funding. Prior to the 1970s set of Serrano cases, the discrepancies between poor and wealthy districts was incredibly large. Families in poor districts were helpless and unable to catch up with the difference in funding and education quality. Fast forward four decades later, local school districts are receiving more attention from the state and needy districts are receiving the additional funds they need to be successful. The second major theme is the power of State legislature and ballot propositions. With a number of changes, the ability to make am influence lies largely outside the hands of individual families. The State controls where K-12 education spending lies on its list of priorities and its spending percentage. Without a legislature favorable to K-12 education, local school districts would not receive the necessary attention and funding needed to provide a sustainable, healthy education that aligns with the rest of the nation. In terms of general policy conclusions, I believe the best outcome is to continue giving local districts the autonomy and capacity to spend State funds according to their own discretions. The State is already paying attention to schools with high numbers of needy students. If local districts can take full advantage of that, then the quality of education will very likely continue to improve, albeit at a slower pace because the last two major pieces of legislation have taken place in the last decade.