When we look at the state of our school facilities across California we find some are shiny and new while others were built 40-50 years ago with little renovations. Some schools are pouring money into patching up the current facilities and cutting the funding of arts programs. Other districts have even delayed new curriculum adoptions to address unexpected issues with facilities. Why are some public school districts in California able to renovate every 15-20 years while others are using bandaid solutions to keep the buildings from falling down?
Many of California’s schools have suffered from funding deficits regarding improving facilities. It seems some affluent or highly populous areas are able to raise money through local measures and fundraising. These schools benefit from the ability of their communities to donate or pass bonds to fund school improvement efforts. Unfortunately, the smaller, highly impoverished areas have continued to fall into disrepair. Even if the community would like to see improvements there is not enough capital within the community to make them happen. The issue becomes another example of equal vs. equality. In the 2018-2019 school year, 58% of the funding for California’s schools came from the state (Murphy & Paluch, 2019). The state has recognized the issue of inequality and has made efforts to address it with the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). This helps provide funding for additional programs and supports for struggling school communities, but does not address the issue of aging school facilities directly.
What should be done to ensure students are able to learn in a safe and appropriate environment without cutting educational programs in rural and low-income communities?
I believe the best option for communities such as these is to appeal to the state for additional funding dedicated to school modernization. The state attempted to pass a proposition to tackle the situation in March of 2020, but the voters in California denied it (Fensterwald, 2019). One of the issues with getting voter approval of propositions regarding additional funding for schools is that many times the government leaders see it as an opportunity to get other initiatives passed. These related initiatives are attached to the proposition making voters unsure of what exactly is being accomplished with the money. In this case, the state added additional conditions to the 2020 Proposition 13 and caused voters to deny the funding of school modernization (Fensterwald, 2020). This, combined with the economic uncertainty in early 2020, stopped funding from the state to reach schools in desperate need of modernization.
The issue of inequity is broad and complicated. School facilities is one very visible way to see these inequities. It is important that we continue to analyze the issues that cause some students to receive a better education than others in our state. It is important that we educate the public and come up with ethical and feasible solutions. We need to do everything we can to make sure that politics and misconceptions do not hinder the purpose of providing for our students.
Fensterwald, J. (2019). Achieving Fair Funding for School Modernization in California: A
Case Study [Video file]. Retrieved from
Fensterwald, J. (2020, March 17). Post-Prop. 13: Why a likely winner may end up California election’s big loser. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2020/post-prop-13-why-a-likely-winner-may-end-up-
california-elections-big-loser/624734
Murphy, P., & Paluch, J. (2019, March 12). Financing California’s Public Schools. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-public-schools/
Comments
Post a Comment