skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

CA Schools’ Long Financial Fall

Video
Video unavailable. Read transcript below.

Above: The last time California spent more money on students then most other states in the country was 45 years ago, according to government and education association statistics.

— The last time California spent more money on students than most other states in the country was 45 years ago, according to government and education association statistics.

During the past five decades the state’s per pupil education spending has plunged from a one-time high of fifth in the nation in 1965 to 43rd in 2009.

“The citizens of California used to spend 5.6 percent of our personal income on schools. Now we are spending 3 percent,” said California’s former Secretary of Education John Mockler.

“We are spending 26 billion less on our children’s education, as a percent of our income, then when Ronald Reagan was governor in 1972 – before revenue limits and Proposition 13 and all of those things passed,” Mockler, now an education consultant, said.

As part of our series on Prop 13, KPBS set out to determine why California’s per pupil education spending has dropped so dramatically when compared to other states. Prop 13 is the 1978 ballot measure that capped property taxes at 1 percent of purchase price and limited yearly increases to 2 percent.

Just how did California fall to the bottom of the heap and how much of that decline is directly attributable to Prop 13? Pinning down an answer is no easy task.

The California Department of Education, the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), all keep stats on per pupil funding. All three agencies calculate per pupil spending using different methods. But no matter which measure is used, California repeatedly ends up below the national average.

According to data compiled by the National Education Association, per pupil funding began declining prior to Prop 13. And it didn’t start its steepest decline until 1988.

“The negative effects began in 1973, before Prop. 13, when Ronald Reagan put revenue caps on public schools and no revenue caps on any other layer of government. That lasted five years previous Prop. 13,” Mockler said.

In 1977, an effort was made to correct the school’s revenue cap problem, but that fix was wiped out just one year later when Prop 13 was passed as a way to cap rapidly increasing property taxes.

“Proposition 13 essentially eliminated, or substantially reduced, the local decision-making process for funding public schools. It prohibits local districts – no matter what the people want – from asking for more property tax funds,” Mockler said.

“But that could have been replaced in many ways, but it hasn’t, because in this state we continually reduce taxes.”

Another issue impacting California’s per pupil education spending is the state’s complex education funding formula. Mockler explained it this way: typically, when there’s an increase in economic activity, local property taxes increase. In many other states this is in fact the case and schools benefit from the increase. But in California, the exact opposite happens. If we have an increase in property taxes, the state simply gives local districts less aid.

Put more simply, think of education funding as a glass of water. The state is obligated by law to keep the glass full. If property taxes fill the glass a fifth of the way, then the state pours in the remaining four-fifths. If property taxes fill it two-fifths of the way, the state can pour in less, only three-fifths.

The problem in California is that schools are drinking from a smaller glass then many other states in the country.

“When the economy in California gets a cold, the schools get pneumonia,” said Mockler.

The Envision documentary, The Legacy of Prop 13, airs Monday at 9 p.m. on KPBS Television.

Comments

Avatar for user 'wmartin46'

wmartin46 | April 4, 2010 at 3:22 p.m. ― 4 years, 7 months ago

This article is very vague in the details of education financing in California. Before anyone throws "education" spending numbers around, that person needs to do a lot of work ensuring that apples and apples are being compared. For instance, the total cost of education in the US is about 8% of the Gross Domestic Product, although the General Fund Spending for schools is only about that that amount. The difference is that capital spending, and interest on financial instruments (such as bonds) amounts up to the other half. Sadly, many public schools do not provide an accurate accounting of the total cost of educating students in their districts, so the total cost reported to the public is typically only about half (on a 30 year average) of what the real cost is. The US DoE Center For Education Statistics is one of the few organizations that realizes this cost, and they do produce statistics with the "total cost" numbers. However, the report is just one of thousands that they produce, so unless you know what to loo k for, it might elude you. The California Budget Analysts office also produces some statistics that show that California is spending about $10,000 per student on education.

What most people don't understand is that staff salaries and benefits generally eat up about 85 per cent of a school district's general fund. No matter how much money you give to these districts, they are just going to increase salaries and benefits, and hire more staff--but these school districts are not going to increase the quality of education for the students.

So .. the first, and most important thing to understand in articles like this--the author simply does not understand the finances of the nation's (or California's) schools--and confuses education quality with dollars spent. There is very little correlation between these two numbers. There is, on the other hand, high correlation between student performance, and the educational attainment/performance of the parents.

People should be asking--"what are we getting for our money?", not "why aren't we spending more?"

( | suggest removal )