Prop. 2 would fund needed California school construction. Should voters say no again?

Proposition 2 on the November ballot needs support as it represents a request to invest in modernizing and expanding California’s public school system with state funds that would match local resources. It’s daunting to consider that this $10 billion bond measure would be entirely exhausted by the next presidential election cycle. But it reflects the need to maintain a physically functioning school system or suffer the consequences.

That rapid burn-down rate of the funds provided by Prop. 2 is due to the failure of voters to pass a larger bond back in 2020. That proposal’s timing could not have been worse, at the beginning of a pandemic and an economic turndown. But it set the stage for this critical vote to either start catching up with school modernization/expansion needs or let school facilities deteriorate further.

The backers of Prop. 2 appear to have gotten the memo from the voters’ spending reluctance back in 2020. They have fashioned a reasonable proposal that would direct $8.5 billion to schools from kindergarten through 12th grade and another $1.5 billion to community colleges. For K-12 schools, the largest block of money would fund much-needed modernization efforts of existing schools ($4 billion) New construction at existing or new campuses would get $3.3 billion.

Even before a single vote was for the November election, California school districts applied for an estimated $3.85 billion in state support that currently does not exist. Of these requests, $2.55 billion comes from aging school systems looking to upgrade classrooms. This reflects the slowdown of outward expansion throughout California and the need to invest in our existing communities to advance their quality of life.

School buildings have to be 25 years or older to qualify for the state’s school modernization funds, which is a reasonable requirement. So is the requirement for public approval by the local school board of the funding request and independent performance audits of each project. Prop. 2 is not a blank check, but a balanced portfolio of investments in local school infrastructure.

Earlier versions of the bond were more ambitious but lawmakers wisely Prop. 2 down into a straightforward, understandable package of school improvements that voters should comfortably support.

On the horizon, some triage will be necessary to prioritize future spending. California’s K-through-12 schools estimate as much as $100 billion in facility needs over the next 10 years. The community college system, another $27 billion. And that doesn’t even account for higher education needs that are missing from Prop. 2 altogether, those of the California State University and University of California systems.

Modernizing our aging schools needs to be an increasing priority going forward, with careful attention paid to new school construction. The Sacramento region exemplifies a mixture of future development proposals, some smart and close to job centers, some that are distant sprawl inducers that are contrary to state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would serve no state purpose to encourage disastrous local land use policies. Voters should beware of any future bonds laden with spending priorities that increase sprawl and traffic congestion.

Fortunately, Prop. 2 meets a sensible package of needs that will keep the school financing system afloat for a few important years. The heavy lifting on how to ensure wise spending on school infrastructure, however, is just over the horizon.