Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Prop 13's Impact On Schools

Video unavailable. Read transcript below.

Download this video (25.5 MB, MP4 format)

Video Transcript:

GLORIA PENNER (Host): Many critics say Prop 13, the 1978 law that limits increases in property taxes, is to blame for the decline in funding for California's schools. Today the state's schools rank near the bottom in funding when compared to the other 49 states, but pinning all the blame on Prop 13 doesn't tell the full story. Joining me to talk about the impact of Prop 13 on education is KPBS reporter Joanne Faryon, who's been investigating Prop 13 as part of our Envision San Diego series. Welcome, Joanne. JOANNE FARYON (KPBS News): Thank you, Gloria. PENNER: How is Prop 13 connected to education funding? FARYON: Well let’s go back to prior 1978, back in the day when schools needed money. More money to hire students, to pay for classrooms, supplies, and so on. They basically looked to the local taxpayer for money in the form of property taxes. And in fact, they set their budgets, went to the county assessor, the property tax rate was set, and then they collected enough money. As much money as they needed. After 1978, what happened was we couldn’t do that anymore. It was a statewide cap. One percent – that’s all the money that you got. So as a result, before 1978, before Prop 13, statewide the schools had a $9 billion budget. After Prop 13 they lost $3 billion – a third of that – overnight. PENNER: So where do the schools in San Diego get their funding today? FARYON: Great question. Well, before Prop 13 about 50 percent of their money came – more than 50 percent came from property taxes. Today, about 20 percent total budgets come from property taxes. The vast majority comes from the state. The state through a series of ballot initiatives, measures, and laws are obligated to fund schools to a certain level. There's a small fraction that comes from the federal government, and a very, very small portion that comes from state lotteries. PENNER: Well one measure you looked at to gauge the impact of Prop 13 on education was per-pupil spending. So let’s take a look at this graphic. FARYON (voiceover): Here’s a look at California’s per-pupil spending for the past four decades in comparison to other states. The last time California was at the top of the heap was 1965, when it ranked 5th. In 1978 – the year Prop 13 passed –California was 14th out of 50. The next year, the state fell to 22nd place. In 1988, California fell below the national average for the first time and never recovered. The state now ranks 43rd. PENNER: How is that decline tied to Prop 13? FARYON: Well, we can't blame everything on Prop 13. As you can see from the graph, the decline actually began prior to 1978. And there are a couple of things that happened… pretty complicated, I’ll try to simplify. In the late 60s there was a court case that basically challenged the gap between rich schools and poor schools, and forced the state to address that issue to somehow even it all out. What happened a couple years later in an effort to address that, revenue limits were placed on schools. So basically the government said you can only spend this much, not more, on schools. Then Prop 13, it was almost like the final nail – not to use a cliché – in the coffin for school budgets. And that dramatically reduced the pool of money that was available to schools. So you add all of those things together and now – and as you saw on the graph – that very sharp decline recently, well we have the recession to blame for that. If we rely on the state for our money and the state relies on income taxes and sales tax, and we have high unemployment and we have this recession going on, they have less money. So in turn they give the schools less money. PENNER: You also looked at the state of New Jersey as a comparison for property taxes and education funding. Where does New Jersey rank in terms of per-pupil funding? FARYON: They’re right at the top. PENNER: They are? FARYON: And you know what, Gloria? I heard this over and over again last year during the big budget debate. New Jersey is at the top and California is at the bottom. So we wanted to find out first of all - is it true, and why is it true? Yes, it is true. Repeatedly, county after county in New Jersey, their schools spend more per pupil than we do in California and they have among the highest property tax rates in the country. They do not have property tax caps like we do in California. In fact, in New Jersey if you're a homeowner, you will pay more than double per capita in property taxes than if you’re a homeowner in California. PENNER: But here our largest school district - our local school district, San Diego Unified – is considering putting a parcel tax proposition on the November ballot. So that’s another tax. How would that work? FARYON: That’s right. And that’s been the battle for 32 years – how to get around Prop 13. So now we have it, we all love it. But what do we do? How do we find money? So parcel tax, it’s the new idea. And there are counties up in Northern California that have supported this, some school districts. So basically they're going to ask the taxpayer in that community “Would you support paying a fixed amount of money every year and this money will go to the schools? We can pay for teacher salaries. It will go directly to the classroom.” And I believe what they're proposing is $100 a year for five years. Ana Tintocalis is actually working on this and she's going to have a special report next week about parcel taxes. PENNER: So if that parcel tax were approved, would it have to be approved by a simple majority of the voters? FARYON: No, two-thirds majority. And that’s where we go back to Prop 13 again. If you want the state or counties or the taxpayer to approve tax increases you need a two-thirds majority. There's a bit of a twist to that. Right now, I believe officials in Sacramento, politicians are looking at changing that when it comes to the parcel tax. Asking for perhaps just a 55 percent majority rather than a two-thirds. PENNER: Ok, well I thank you very much, Joanne, and we’re going to talk about your special that’s coming up that kind of sums all this up. Thank you again.

Comments

Avatar for user 'jimvsmij'

jimvsmij | April 1, 2010 at 3:15 p.m. ― 4 years ago

One question that needed to be asked when comparing New Jersey to California is how much better an education is New Jersey getting? If they are paying over 2 times as much in taxes for schools are they getting 2 times the education? I doubt it. Throwing money at something doesn't give you a better end result. My wife from Greece got a much better education at her High School with much more math, language, geography and science than most people see in college and Greece does not spend half of what California pays per student! What's with that?

I have heard teachers complaining on this radio station that they will have to go from 12 students to 24. 24 really? Really, only 24? I grew up in San Diego and went to Mira Mesa High before there was a Scripps Ranch High School and the all the Scripps Ranch kids were going to Mira Mesa. Each class has at least 35 students! All the teachers did fine.

You know what we should do... Since we pay teachers to not work for all the holidays that normal workers don't get and we also pay them for 3 months off every year, we should eliminate summer vacation and teach kids year round to get them finished with high school a year earlier. I mean, if we are paying them then they should work like everyone else.

And I don't want to hear about how teachers work harder than anyone even off the clock because most of us do as that well. All my co-workers take much of their work home and spend many hours each night trying to finish before our deadlines and, unlike teachers, we only get 2 weeks vacation a year not 3 months!

The other alternative is that we should cut the 3 months plus all the needless holidays that they take off out of their salary to balance the budget.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'socalnoni'

socalnoni | April 1, 2010 at 11:45 p.m. ― 4 years ago

Perhaps less illegals in the public school, and more Charter schools. Throwing money at problems rarely, if ever, produces the desired effects.

When the Teacher's Union starts caring more about their products (students) than keeping sub par teachers then we're talking.

Fact is California does not needs more of our tax dollars, what our state and local government need to do is spend more wisely. A state with such a bloated employee pension plan is not sustainable. Putting tax dollars in the hands which created this unionized bloat will continue to do so.

There's a reason why Ca. is broke. $12 billion per year towards illegal alien benefits is just the tip of the dysfunctional iceberg.

Sactown needs to get a clue before getting more from the private sector.

( | suggest removal )

Forgot your password?