Voters narrowly defeated Proposition 15, the tax measure that aimed to eliminate decades-long protections for commercial properties 鈥� dashing hopes of billions of dollars flowing into California鈥檚 cash-strapped public schools and community colleges in the coming years.
In the this election, Prop. 15 supporters said the measure would help right what they viewed as a fundamental wrong in the state鈥檚 school funding system by increasing the share of property-tax revenues going toward schools. Opponents characterized Prop. 15 as harmful to small businesses and the state鈥檚 economy at a time when the pandemic has already strained or shuttered several local businesses.
鈥淲e鈥檙e the fifth-largest economy in the world,鈥� said E. Toby Boyd, president of the California Teachers Association, the top benefactor for the Yes on 15 campaign, 鈥渁nd big corporations should be paying their fair share to invest in our students, our public schools, our families and our communities.鈥�
The measure backed by labor unions, community organizations and several of the state鈥檚 progressive leaders challenged the state鈥檚 still-popular 1978 constitutional amendment, Prop. 13, and had been slightly trailing in the vote count since election night before the Associated Press called its defeat by a 51.8% No to 48.2% Yes margin.
What happens now?
Legislative analysts projected Prop. 15 would have drawn between $6.5 billion and $11.5 billion in commercial property tax revenues, with 40% of the take going to K-12 schools and community colleges beginning in 2022-23.
So while the measure would have been a boon in the long term, any financial fruits borne out of a Prop. 15 win would not have arrived soon enough to address the immediate twin financial crises facing the state鈥檚 public schools: Tense efforts to physically reopen campuses and the state education budget鈥檚 looming cliff.
California K-12 schools and community colleges, almost a decade removed from the steep Great Recession-era cuts that resulted in more than 30,000 teacher layoffs, were slated to receive a in state funding this year 鈥� up from $81.6 billion 鈥� before the pandemic cratered the state鈥檚 budget forecast.
Faced with a potential 10% cut to the state鈥檚 main school finance artery, the Local Control Funding Formula, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature protected school budgets this year by for schools. That move held schools鈥� funding flat by delaying payments to schools into the next fiscal year 鈥� some installments coming as late as seven months 鈥� but also means the state will have to confront a potentially taller school finance cliff starting next year.
鈥淵es, Prop. 15 would鈥檝e helped in the long run, but it wouldn鈥檛 have fixed this short-term problem that the Legislature鈥檚 going to face in the coming spring,鈥� said Bruce Fuller, a professor at UC Berkeley鈥檚 Graduate School of Education.
As state education funding increased over the latter part of the decade, so too have fixed costs such as employee pension contributions and support services for growing populations of students in the state who have special needs or are English learners.
Several communities across California with the state鈥檚 permission to are engaged in fraught debates among school leaders, teachers, parents and employee unions over when and how to do so. Among the sticking points has been whether schools have the resources to implement and sustain safety measures, such as for employees. At a recent legislative hearing, state lawmakers acknowledged schools鈥� dearth of testing capacity was prolonging potential campus reopenings while noting that the state had little room in its budget to assist with local efforts.
State officials have suggested on several occasions schools tap into $5.3 billion in federal coronavirus relief funds allocated for schools this summer to for remote learning, and expand their coronavirus testing bandwidth.
鈥�(This) is not magical money that can be stretched forever,鈥� Troy Flint, spokesman for the California School Boards Association, said of the CARES Act funding, adding that schools are 鈥渋n a very perilous position鈥� financially.
鈥淎nytime there鈥檚 a new expectation or the state imposes a new requirement, it keeps pointing to that same pot of money,鈥� Flint said.
Prop. 15 is the second education-related statewide measure to face defeat this year, in part, due to the tall shadow of the landmark measure commonly referred to as the of state politics.
Voters also rejected in the March primary for school construction that, because of the state鈥檚 sequential numbering requirements for ballot measures, shared the same name as the 1978 property-tax cut: Prop. 13. Though some political observers pointed to the measure鈥檚 confusing name as a reason for its defeat, others also noted that its supporters failed to adequately communicate to voters the bond鈥檚 importance.
Despite Prop. 15鈥檚 defeat, supporters were optimistic late election night when initial returns came in, saying that the closeness of the vote suggested an appetite from voters to invest more money in public services such as K-12 education.
At the local level, school measures across the state continued to receive broad support 鈥� another sign of voters鈥� support for education funding, according to advocates. About 80% of the 60 K-12 and community college bonds on local ballots, including a $7 billion bond in Los Angeles Unified, appeared headed toward approval at press time, according to by Michael Coleman, publisher of the . Nine out of 13 parcel taxes, which require two-thirds voter approval, appeared to pass, though the votes remained too close to call in two communities.
Another attempt at an education-related tax measure in the near future seems likely, though it鈥檚 too soon to predict how a future measure would be structured. Also unclear at the moment is whether education and community advocates would again mount their own effort, similar to Prop. 15, or if the governor and Legislature would get involved.
Before the state鈥檚 budget crunch, researchers affiliated with Stanford University had calculated it would take in school funding for all of the state鈥檚 6.1 million public-school students to meet its learning standards. In recent years, some state lawmakers have wanted to . The pandemic has increased those needs, according to advocates.
Newsom endorsed Prop. 15 in September, though did not campaign for the measure. The governor also said recently that he legislation calling for higher income taxes.
Whatever the course, the road to more schools funding will likely require broad support among state leaders, education unions, advocacy groups as well as a unified message, said Carrie Hahnel, an independent education researcher and fellow with the Berkeley-based Opportunity Institute.
Without federal or state intervention, Hahnel wrote in a recent , schools are likely to face a downturn like the one they experienced nearly a decade ago. Because California鈥檚 public schools are heavily reliant on state income taxes, it makes them more susceptible to volatility amid the peaks and valleys of the state鈥檚 economy, Hahnel wrote.
In 2012, at the tail end of the recession as the state neared a similar school funding cliff, then-Gov. Jerry Brown , a quarter-cent sales tax that aimed to prop up school funding. The message then was clear: Vote yes or schools stood to lose $6 billion in cuts. It passed, 55.4% to 44.6%. That kind of support from the governor might be what it takes to put a future ballot measure over the top.
鈥淚 think we need to start from scratch and get everybody together and say what we are trying to do and how we can build this thing even if it means some compromises, some shared pain,鈥� Hahnel said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very hard to hit the business community alone.鈥�
CalMatters is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.