School differences continue years after funding for capital

From And WaltersCalmness

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

In 1971, the California Supreme Court issued one of its the most important and large-scale decisions, declaring that the state State School Financing System – mainly through local taxation of property taxes – it was unconstitutional unfair.

He ruled that since there are huge differences in the amount of taxable property of a student, there were also “significant differences in the cost of a student among the school districts”, which “perpetuates the essential differences in the quality and extent of the existence of educational opportunities. For this reason the system of financing of the school before the court does not provide the treatment of the treatment of the treatment of

The decision has set out decades of political debate, especially in the legislature, because of “equalization” – bringing the cost of a student in rough capital. Four years later, the Republican legislators even maintained the adoption of the state budget, requesting more school money for their suburban areas, which rely on tax houses to compensate for the more capacity of urban schools to raise money because they can tax commercial and industrial property.

The equalization conflict is redirected by two remarkable voting measures. In 1978 Proposal 13Who dramatically restricts ownership taxes had the indirect effect of transferring the main financing of schools to the country. Proposal 98A decade later came into force, aimed at guaranteeing schools permanent share, approximately 40%of the total revenue of the state.

Another cornerstone happened in 2013 when the then government. Jerry Brown convinced the legislature to accept Formula for financing local controlwhich transforms equalization again to give schools with a large number of poor and English students additional funds to close what it was called. “Gap in achievementS “

This year, a new wrinkle appeared in the debate for eternal leveling. Senate Bill 743state -worn Senator Dave CortezDemocrat from San Jose is aimed at compensating for the ability of school districts in communities with high wealth to generate so much money from property tax that they are ranked only for state aid sums.

Those 139 ”Main areas of help“It can collect large sums of ownership taxes, as the legislature decides, after the adoption of proposal 13, to freeze existing shares of the tax pool for ownership of each county.

Cortese believes that “an antique funding formula since 1978, which has created winners and losses in the public education system over the last 45 years” and says that its measure is “to equalize and turn the consequences of past mistakes.”

His bill would set up a state education fund that will provide additional money to the non -basic areas. This cleared the Senate Education Committee this week.

Although Cortese’s measure can narrow the other gaps in the cost of students, there will still be a big difference, simply because ownership taxes remain a major factor in the financing of the school, despite the general restrictions imposed by a proposal 13 and the communities vary largely in their taxable property values.

In other words, what the Supreme Court of the State declared constitutionally unacceptable in 1971 still existed in 2025.

Complete equalization will probably require the elimination of the distribution of ownership tax in schools, replacing 100% funding from the state budget, or, as the court hinted, state taxes on ownership for schools and then allocate these receipts equally.

Both would be a major political endeavor because changes in school finance inevitably create winners and loser. Meanwhile, the equalization of a student’s funding has undergone a revision as the needs of students vary so widely.

The formula for financing local control of Brown is an expression of this revision, declaring that some children need more educational attention than others if the difference in achievement is to be closed, which also means more financial support.

However, in the last 12 years, Brown’s step from strict equalization has not reduced the stubborn gap significantly so far.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.