Prop. 2: The Public School System & the Taxpayer

Proposition 2 asks voters to approve additional funding for public school infrastructure. But with a state budget that already spends its highest percentage on education, will incurring more debt solve the identified problems?

 Proposition 2, if passed, would give approval for the state to sell a bond for $10 billion, and use the funds to improve public school and community college campuses. The money would go to projects like the renovation and new construction of public schools, as well as community college campus purchases like equipment, land, or new construction as well. School districts would apply for state funding on a first come, first served basis.[1] The state would pay 45 to 50% of the cost of new construction, and 35 to 40% of the cost of renovation, using the state issued bond, while the school districts would pay the remaining costs through local bonds that they would also have to get approved by voters at a later date.[2]

 There are two larger topics of discussion at play in this proposition – the first is the discussion of state funding, specifically through the use of a bond, and the second is the discussion of the public school system in California, especially as it relates to infrastructure.

How California Funds Education

California’s public school system gets most of its funding from the state government, which allocates money to K-12 education in the General Fund. The General Fund is paid for by tax revenue, so for instances, taxes collected on income, sales, and property. The most prominent source is income taxes – so the taxes you pay on an annual basis from your job are most of what the government uses to pay for programs from the General Fund. So, in California, a majority of public education programs are funded by the state, through the annual budget process, which itself is funded largely by income tax revenue, which is the income taxes that you and I pay to the state each year.[3]

 Prior to 1978, most public-school funding was actually done using property tax revenue. However, in 1978 voters passed Proposition 13 which limited the property tax rate to 1% of property value, plus any additional rate necessary to cover funding for voter-approved bonds.[4] As a result of this change, revenue from property taxes decreased since it was capped at just 1 percent, and so California schools began to rely on income and sales tax revenues.[5]

 California can also fund certain initiatives, like infrastructure programs, through the sale of bonds. Let me pull out my accounting knowledge for a minute here to explain a bond. A bond is a type of debt that the government sells to investors to fund specific programs upfront. Essentially, what the government is doing, is it’s selling a piece of paper to an investor, and in return the investor is giving the state money, and the state is then required to pay that money back over time. The government sells the bond and gets the dollar value to spend. Then, the bond is paid back over time, with interest applied, similar to the way you would pay back a mortgage.

 Where does this money come from to repay the bond? The government pays back this bond also from the General Fund, which I just explained is part of the state budget and is funded mostly by income taxes that you pay. The government covers the additional cost of the debt by increasing tax rates, so they can increase personal income tax rates, sales tax rates, and property rates to a small extent.[6] To put it simply, this proposition is seeking for the voters’ approval for the government to take out a loan.

 Most bonds have to be voted on, and school bonds require a 55% majority vote to pass. As a brief side note – other types of bonds not related to schools, like public infrastructure, require a 2/3rds majority vote to pass, but Proposition 39 was passed back in 2000 which lowered the threshold for bonds related to schools to just a 55% vote in order to pass.[7] There’s actually another proposition on our ballot this election that relates to this threshold, that we will be covering in a future episode, but I wanted to call out that the requirements to pass a bond like the one being proposed in Prop. 2 are lower since this bond directly funds education infrastructure.

 Using bonds to fund initiatives rather than paying for the projects upfront does end up costing more money in the long run, given that the government has to pay interest on the debt as it is paid back. However, with certain projects, especially for infrastructure, projects typically require a large amount of money at the start, known as a capital outlay, to buy or improve a building or other type of asset, and then usually the labor of the project is spread over the course of several years. Bonds provide the initial financing and are paid back over time as the work is performed on the projects.[8]

The Cost Impact of Proposition 2

So, proposition 2 is putting in front of voters the option to finance school infrastructure repairs through the sale of a $10 billion bond. How much would that cost the state to repay?

 The payments would be broken out over 35 years, bringing the annual cost to $500 million each year.[9] Spreading the debt over time helps to reduce the amount that it will take to repay it each year – given that the $500 million figure is just a fraction of a percentage of the total General Fund budget – but by issuing a bond, the total cost is actually far more than the face value of $10 billion because it is repaid back with interest. So, the total calculation for the cost impact of this bond would actually be $17.5 billion over its life of 35 years. That is a lot more than the initial $10 billion face value that voters see on the ballot!

 But there’s more to consider than even just the total $17.5 billion value here, because California is currently paying off other bonds as well that were approved in prior years. It isn’t enough to look at this one cost in isolation, but it needs to be taken into consideration alongside all the bonds currently factored into the state budget. There is currently a total of $80 billion in bonds that the state is repaying, which annually breaks down to $6 billion per year. So, to look at the big picture, the State is paying $6 billion annually toward previously issued bonds, and if both Proposition 2 passes this year, it would raise that amount to 6 and a half billion per year.[10]

The California Budget as a Whole

This brings us to a bigger question – what is the current state of the California budget as a whole? If we are currently spending $6 billion annually just on bond repayment, can we afford to pass a bond issuance like this one which will add to that annual cost?

 Back in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, we ended the year on June 30, 2023, with the General Fund in a deficit of about $5 billion. I’m sure that you know what a deficit is, but just in case you don’t like budgets or accounting, a deficit is when you have spent more money than you made, and so now you are in debt. So, California’s general fund – which is the fund that California pays for the public school system out of – was overextended by $5 billion at the end of June 2023.[11] For the next fiscal year, which ended this past June 30th, we ended the year with a $38 billion deficit.[12]

 What happened between June 2023 and June 2024 to increase the deficit by such a large amount, by $33 billion? The simple answer is that the government did not make as much money in revenue as it expected. The longer, more detailed answer consists of two parts: 1) higher revenue estimations than were actualized, and 2) an overall economic downturn.

 Usually, the state closes the budget in June, and it has most of the tax revenues already collected. Tax filings are due on April 15th, and so by the summer, the state government should have an accurate picture of revenue for the year and where the deficit, or surplus if it was a great year, stands, which then affects how to plan accordingly in the next year’s budget. In 2023, California saw intense flooding throughout the spring, and because of that, the IRS extended the filing deadline from the usual April date all the way out to November of 2023.[13] This means that when the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2023, there was a good amount of tax revenue that hadn’t yet been collected, and so this required the government to estimate how much revenue was still outstanding and they would have to spend as they closed the budget and approved the next year’s budget. It turns out, based on a report after the November deadline, that government officials overestimated how much tax revenue would be collected by $26 billion.[14]  This has created a massive problem, because right after realizing that accounting mistake, and the much higher deficit the state incurred, Governor Newsom proposed his 2024-2025 budget in January, so there was not much time between realizing the actual decline in tax revenues and when the governor’s budget proposal was due. That budget was later passed in June 2024, and the projections are estimating that by next June (2025), we will end with a $68 billion deficit.[15]

 But there is another side to the deficit as well, because the mistake in estimating tax revenues impacted the clear recognition of the deficit, but it didn’t create the deficit. The delay of the tax filing deadline to November isn’t what caused the drop in tax revenues, it just made it harder to realize and plan around. So, the second component to this budget problem is a decrease in tax revenues. Total income tax collections in 2023 were down by 25%.[16]

 Why did tax revenue drop by so much? The answer is that income taxes are heavily dependent on the economy. To pay income tax, you obviously need an income, which you get by having a job. But California’s unemployment rate has been steadily rising over the past few years, with it increasing from by 1% just in 2023,[17] and up to a total of 5.3% in February of this year.[18] In fact, in February, California had the highest unemployment rate across the country. What’s even worse is that a lot of these job losses hit high-earning areas, like mass layoffs in Silicon Valley and the tech sector. This naturally resulted in less income tax revenue as people lost high paying jobs and either were not paying taxes while unemployed or paid less taxes if they had to accept a lower-paying position.[19]

 Additionally, California continues to see a net loss in residents year over year. There has been a net decrease in the amount of residents due to people moving out of the state every year since 2000.[20] In 2022, just before California began to see a decline in tax revenues, there was a net loss of just over 341,800 residents.[21] This again would impact tax revenues, because as residents move, their income moves with them. But people aren’t all that is moving, companies are also moving their headquarters out of the state, with 352 companies moving out of California between 2018-2022.[22] This reduces the amount of corporate tax revenue the state collects as well.

 Lastly, on top of rising unemployment and an increase in both residents and companies moving out of the state, income tax revenue is also affected by the stock market. This is because California collects capital gains taxes. In 2022 there was a market downturn, which lowered the amount of capital gains for investors, thus also reducing the taxes paid on those investments. Additionally, there are capital gains loss carryovers that individuals can carry forward into future years, and so even as the market has fluctuated back up at some points since 2022, that hasn’t necessarily translated into higher capital gains tax revenues for the state.[23]

 Overall, the General Fund is heavily dependent on tax revenues, specifically on income tax revenues, and with an unstable economic situation, heavy job losses and residents moving out of the state, those revenues have been falling. And yet, our expenditures continue to increase, especially through more bond proposals like Proposition 2, and as such, the result is a massive, multibillion dollar deficit. As a matter of fact, the Legislative Analyst’s Office of California is projecting that by June 2025 our deficit will have grown to a total of $68 billion. It makes you wonder if this is the best time to be taking on $10 billion more in debt.

California’s Public School System

We now have a basic understanding of the type of funding Prop. 2 is calling for – a bond issuance – and where the state budget stands as a whole this year – which is in massive debt. But what about the public school system? This proposition speaks not just to a bond issuance, but a bond issuance meant to fund the public school system in the state, specifically related to infrastructure. It’s only fair then that we also dive into the specifics of K-12 education in California and if or why this proposition is necessary.

In the 2021-2022 fiscal year, $133 billion was spent on K-12 education. In 2022-2023, $127 billion was spent on K-12 education.[24] And for the next fiscal year, the average cost per student paid by the state of California was roughly $18,000. This is around the national average, which is $17,280 in 2024.[25] Yet, even with all of this money going toward education, California ranked in 21st place in 2024 for per student spending for K-12 education, coming in behind states like New York – which spends around $33,000 per K-12 student, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut – which each spend around $26,000, Illinois – which spends about $21,000, Oregon – which spends $19,000, and several other states in between those average amounts.[26] However, as a percentage of the overall state budget, California spends more than all those states that spend more per student. For example, in 2022, New York spent about 29% of its total budget on education.[27] California on the other hand, for 2023, had a General Fund budget of $225.9 billion, and allocated $129.2 billion to K-12 funding, spent a total of 57%.[28] These totals are one year apart, as they were the best I could find, but This comparison proves the point that while California spends less than other states per student, our state does still spend a massive amount of its total budget to fund education.

 How effective is this spending? If we are spending 57% of our state budget on education, and the source for that funding is largely your tax dollars, it’s important to look at how our school system is doing. Based on a study conducted by the World Population Review, California is ranked 40th out of all 50 states for quality of the public school system. This study included a combination of school quality, student safety, and student success.[29] To put some statistics behind this ranking, for 2023, 53% of all students across the state fell below the standard for English language arts proficiency, and an alarming 65% of all students fell below the standards for math, according to the outcomes of the Smarter Balanced statewide testing.[30] Not only are educational outcomes poor, but in terms of attendance, the chronic absentee rate (which is defined as missing 10% or more of school days) has risen to almost a quarter of students, compared to just 12% in 2019.[31] These statistics are pushing many families to reconsider their schooling options. In the 2022-2023 school year, California public schools experienced a decrease in enrollment for the sixth year in a row, down by about 40,000 students from the year before.[32]

 But even further than just statewide outcomes, let’s also narrow in on a specific district. The Los Angeles Unified School District is the largest district in the state, so you would think it should have some of the best education since it is handling so many of our state’s children. The reality is that it has even worse outcomes than the state averages. In 2022, 46% of all students were chronically absent, double the state’s average.[33] It has some of the lowest literacy rates across the country. And lastly, of all eight-graders in LA County, just 23% met standards for math, and by 11th grade this was even lower at just 19%.[34]

 These are just bad outcomes. There’s no other way to see it. Our students are not proficient in math or English by any stretch of imagination, and parents are seeing that and moving their students to charter schools or homeschools. What’s interesting is that the state ranked as having the best public school system is Massachusetts,[35] and while Massachusetts spends more per student than California does, as a state it spends significantly less of its overall budget on education than California. As mentioned earlier, California allocated 57% of its budget to education in 2023-2024. Massachusetts spent just 20% of its budget on education.[36] These outcomes are important to address, because, as mentioned earlier, California spent 57% of its budget on education, and significantly more of its budget on education than other states, which begs the question, how is that money being spent? This is especially important to understand as most critics of the California public school system say it is simply underfunded and needs more money from the state. But if we already allocate some of the highest percentages of our state budget to the school system compared to states across the country, while still maintaining poor outcomes, doesn’t it seem like there may be other issues that aren’t being addressed than just a lack of funds?

 While understanding these educational outcomes are important for raising concerns about where all of our money is going, this proposition isn’t about funding toward educational programs, this proposition is specific to infrastructure. What problems are our public-school facilities facing when it comes to infrastructure? A study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2020 found that 38% of students attend schools that fall below the minimum facility standards, including mold, pest infestations, broken water pipes, failing heating and cooling systems, and contaminated water.[37]  They also found that the data on school infrastructure is seriously lacking. Reading from the study, quote, “We recommend that the state begin collecting data to assess building capacity and needs, disaster preparedness, accessibility accommodations, and energy efficiency. Comprehensive data would also enable the state to allocate funds for school facilities in a more equitable and efficient manner.”[38] What Proposition 2 is intended for, according to the wording in the proposition, is to renovate public schools and to support both construction of new schools and new construction within existing schools, like a new gymnasium or additional classrooms.[39]

 But again, after looking at the state budget and the emphasis that the budget puts on public school funding while still maintaining poor outcomes, we have to ask the question, will proposition 2 actually address and solve these infrastructure problems, and how is it planning to do that? The answer is that we don’t really have many details. Realistically, as we just discussed, California doesn’t have the greatest track record with transparency of spending and successful program outcomes. With big programs like education, billions of dollars are poured into a problem that voters rightfully want to see resolved, but history has shown that usually the problem persists while the money disappears. The vague nature of this proposition doesn’t help with that.

 It’s hard to find any information on what infrastructure really means, and from what I could find, it varied from serious problems, like mold or contaminated water, to wanting to update ventilation systems to address minimizing COVID-19 or future pandemics. Getting rid of mold, or putting in a glorified air purifier, are two very different categories of spending. One is clearly more urgent and necessary than the other. What’s even worse is that some experts around Proposition 2 have even come out openly and said that Prop. 2 will also help to address the housing shortage for teachers.[40] What does that have to do with infrastructure or public education in general? There seems to be a wide definition of what this bill actually wants to do, and no plan in place for how the state will ensure that these $10 billion will actually be effective in reaching some sort of goal or desired outcome.

 Additionally, some more conservative groups have voiced concerns that the funds could be diverted away from actual infrastructure needs entirely, and be spent on more bureaucratic functions, like investigations, meetings, grants, and contracts all around the discussion of current facilities and improvements rather than actually getting the improvements done.[41] These criticisms don’t seem to be completely unfounded, and really, can we blame people for being skeptical when, again, 57% percent of the state budget goes toward education, yet we are constantly hearing that K-12 education is underfunded, teachers are underpaid, and schools are breaking down? There doesn’t seem to be a connection between what we’re hearing and the reality of the massive amounts of money going toward these programs every year.

Key Applications for the Voter

How are we then to think about this? We’ve looked at a lot of information from budgets to school system failures, but what are we to conclude about all of it?

 I think the first thing that needs to be said is this: you can hold two things as true at the same time.

1.     You can acknowledge that public schools need infrastructure repairs, and students should be able to go to schools that are safe for them and are a conducive learning environment. And yet, also acknowledge that,

2.     The $10 billion bond proposed in Prop. 2 is not the most effective solution to the problem, it will have negative outcomes on the taxpayer in an already high tax state, and will be spent irresponsibly by a government who has proven to us time and time again that they cannot be trusted to be transparent about spending and cannot balance a budget.

 That needs to be said, because I know with certain issues, education especially, it is a very emotional and personal issue to many people. To just say vote no on proposition 2 because it spends more money and schools already get a lot of money ignores the realities that education is important, that many teachers in the public school system feel the effects of resource constraints – and sadly, end up having to fund their classroom purchases themselves, that there are statistics proving out there are many school districts in our state that have substandard classroom environments, and that California is home to the second largest school district in the nation[42] and enrolls close to $6 million students statewide.[43] But at the same time, to just say vote yes on proposition 2 because education is important for the millions of kids in our state also ignores the realities that our government’s spending is out of control – spiraling us into a multibillion-dollar deficit, that the means by which this funding is obtained – through bonds – DOES have an impact on taxes in an already high-tax state, that there is virtually no accountability for how this money will be spent or if it will actually solve the problems it is supposed to be addressing, and that as a state we do already spend the highest percentage of our budget on public education.

 I personally come to this proposition with mixed feelings and mixed reactions, but I think the most important thing that we could do is reject surface-level fixes. Truly, we cannot settle for bandaids over big problems. Unfortunately, proposition 2 is just a bandaid. It’s throwing billions of dollars at a problem that won’t be solved by more money alone. The education system, and our state’s funding of the education system, have serious, deep-seated problems that a temporary $10 billion bond will absolutely not fix. That means the only response that is rooted in truth and in a desire to see the problems actually resolved is to demand that our legislators have to do a better job. They have to come up with better, more effective, more creative, and more targeted solutions that will change the patterns of issues we are seeing across our state. If we just keep passing bonds every four to eight years, if we just keep buying into the argument that there are bigger issues to resolve but for now the schools just really need the money, then we are just perpetuating a system that will continue to mismanage your money, and my money, without accountability and without change.

 To give you an illustration, it’s like a drug addict who begs their doctor for one more prescription – they know they have a deeper problem than their temporary withdrawals, and they know that continuing to feed their addiction just makes it worse, but they just really need that temporary high to make it to the next day. And from the drug addict’s perspective, it makes sense they would think that way. But from the doctor’s perspective, it would be malpractice for them to prescribe more drugs knowing it is killing the patient. It’s the same situation here. Of course, the school districts need the money – they are in the trenches of it, they are trying to get through the school year, they are trying to get kids in the classroom and get through the material for the year, they are facing daily challenges of lack of resources and supplies and facilities. But from the outside, for legislators to give them a solution that is just temporary and that will leave them coming back for more funds in the next election is malpractice and quite frankly a lazy answer. We as the people must demand, demand for them to do better.

What could they do? How could they address these issues?

First, they need to tighten up the spending. I am just not convinced that they simply don’t have enough money. Not when 57% percent of our budget goes toward schools. I cannot believe that. They need to go through, line by line, district by district, and track where the money is going. They need to cut unnecessary programs and outline exactly how much each program should cost, and then resolve to sticking to that budget. They cannot rely on the taxpayer to bail them out when they overspend – overspending shouldn’t even be an option!

 I tried my best to read through the education budget, and I’ll be honest, it’s convoluted. You can’t even tell what half the programs are for, let alone if the amount of money being spent on them is reasonable. But that is the job of policymakers and those in government – it is their job to propose an effective budget, to balance the budget so that we aren’t in a deficit, to track where the funding is being spent and if it’s on track throughout the year, and then to investigate when things go wrong or certain programs overspend. You and I have to do that in our day to day lives with our budgets, why shouldn’t the government have to pay even closer attention to their budget, especially when their money is coming directly from US as their constituents?

 But more than the budget, our policymakers should be trying to get creative with ways to fund our education system and to make it better for parents and students overall. For example, 13 states in our country have school voucher programs.[44] Vouchers give the state funding per child directly to parents instead of giving it to school districts. Parents then choose which public or private school they want to send their child to, and the voucher pays for all or part of the tuition.[45] This works in a way to privatize the public education system so that it is driven more by the market than by government bureaucracy. The idea is that the money should follow the child, so if you are paying taxes which are being used to fund the school system, you should get a say as to where that money goes. If you want to send your child to a different school that has better teachers or programs better suited to them, then you should be able to pull out the money you are putting in and direct it to support that school. Proponents of school vouchers argue that this would also work to improve the quality of education overall, because it would drive competition among schools. Without this school choice, in a system where every child is assigned a school based simply on where they live, schools can underperform or have negative outcomes and there aren’t really any consequences.

 Think about the private market – if there is a restaurant that serves really terrible food, you probably would stop eating there and go somewhere else. And if everyone stopped eating there, then they would either go out of business, or they would have to reconsider what they are doing wrong and improve. Capitalism and the free-market drives innovation and it forces business owners to rise above their competition. If you want to stay in business, you have to be better than your competitors. The same should be true of schools. If there is a school that has really bad teachers, or the outcomes are very poor for the students there, or the school doesn’t have the resources your child needs, you should be able to move your child – and your money – to a better option. We already see this in a small way with private schools. Because so many states don’t have voucher systems, parents have to pay a lot into their child’s education if they want to send them to private school. And usually, these private schools have better outcomes and opportunities for students, because they know that if they want to continue to incentivize parents to spend thousands of dollars at the school that they have to steward that money well and produce the caliber of education the parents are looking for – or else the parents will pull the child out of the school. Public schools shouldn’t be any different. And I know some people may think, well private schools can do that, they are expensive and they charge the parents way more than the amount that public education has to pour into their schools. But the average cost per student per year at private schools in California is around $16,000.[46] Which, that is a lot of money and it is the highest across the country, but remember how much I said the state of California spends on average per student in public schools? Roughly $18,000! So, really, the only difference is that you just don’t have a choice how California spends your money and where when it comes to public schools versus private schools. Maybe if you did have that choice, it would produce better outcomes across the board for public education.

 At the end of the day, I can admit that I don’t have all of the solutions to our public school system and our state funding of it. But it is not our job as the people of the state to have every issue completely figured out before we are able to raise concerns. We have to point our representatives back to the drawing board for more effective solutions that will help our children in the school system, while still considering you as a taxpayer and citizen. Do not settle for thinking this is the only option in front of us – force them to see they need to come up with other ways to support education.

Lastly, the greatest takeaway I could leave you with is this: if you are a parent, you are the greatest advocate for your child and for their education. You have to put the needs of your child first, and you have to care about this issue for their sake. Which means that we cannot, and should not, vote yes on this proposition, knowing it will not solve the problem. We have to demand better, ultimately for their sake. Then, we have to support forms of education that will put your child first and that will give them the education they deserve. I would encourage you as a parent to support local charter schools, co-op communities, and homeschool groups to ultimately advocate for more school choice. The California public school system is failing, and you must point out that failure and do what will be best for your child. Do not let anyone use the arguments of empathy or compassion against you to guilt you into thinking you are a bad person for refusing to support more money being thrown into a failing system. Instead, feel equipped with all the facts and the knowledge that you are fighting for solutions that go deeper than temporary fixes.

 For the Christian, we know that God loves children, and we care for our own children and the children in our communities as a way to reflect His heart for them. We want to see them thrive, we want to provide them basic education, we want to set them up for success – that is why we care so deeply about this issue. Do not doubt your abilities as a parent! If the public school system in your district has failing outcomes and is mismanaging your money, do not be afraid to explore other options and show our government that this is not acceptable for your kids. You are most equipped through the power of the Holy Spirit to love and care for your kids, and this includes their education. And never forget as a Christian that the most important education your kids could ever receive is coming to a knowledge of Christ as LORD, putting their faith in Him, and knowing they are securely held and forever loved by their Creator and heavenly Father. Do not grow weary in that work, it is worth every dollar and minute spent on it!

 The choice rests with you. Be resolved today to vote no on proposition 2.

References:

[1] Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Proposition 2 [Ballot],” 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=2&year=2024.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Kaplan, Jonathan, and Scott Graves. “Guide to School Funding and the State Budget Process - California Budget and Policy Center.” California Budget and Policy Center, December 2022. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/california-school-funding-state-budget-process/.

[4] Gaines, Ted, Malia M. Cohen, Antonio Vazquez, Mike Schaefer, Betty T. Yee, California State Board of Equalization, and County-Assessed Properties Division. California Property Tax. California Property Tax, 2018. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf.

[5] Los Angeles Unified School District. “2019-20 SUPERINTENDENT’S FINAL BUDGET,” n.d. https://www.lausd.org/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/123/05_How%20Education%20is%20Funded%20in%20California.pdf.

[6] Vasche, David. “Frequently Asked Questions About Bond Financing.” Legislative Analyst’s Office, February 2007. https://lao.ca.gov/2007/bond_financing/bond_financing_020507.aspx#:~:text=Once%20it%20is%20time%20to,together%20in%20a%20single%20sale.

[7] Shelley, Susan. “Want Property Taxes to Go up? Why California Should Reject Ballot Measure Easing Bond Votes.” CalMatters, August 16, 2024. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/08/vote-threshold-bonds-proposition-5/.

[8] Vasche, “Frequently Asked Questions About Bond Financing.”

[9] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 2 [Ballot].”

[10] California State Government. “Overview of State Bond Debt.” November 5, 2024 Ballot, 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2024/overview-state-bond-debt-110524.pdf.

[11] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2024-25 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook,” December 7, 2023, https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4819#:~:text=We%20expect%20the%20state%20will,Deficit%20of%20Around%20$14%20Billion.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Internal Revenue Service. “IRS Provides Tax Relief for Victims of Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Landslides and Mudslides in California | Internal Revenue Service,” October 16, 2023. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-relief-for-victims-of-severe-winter-storms-flooding-landslides-and-mudslides-in-california.

[14]Legislative Analyst’s Office, “The 2024-25 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook.”

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Halbleib, Brady. “What Contributed to California’s Record $68 Billion Budget Deficit?” CBS News, December 8, 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/what-contributed-to-californias-record-68-billion-budget-deficit/.

[18] Beam, Adam. “California’s Unemployment Rate Is the Highest in the Nation. Slower Job Growth Is to Blame | AP News.” AP News, March 22, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/california-highest-unemployment-slower-job-growth-b1e4c822b33f29f819dbb024103cc843.

[19] Halbleib, “What Contributed to California’s Record $68 Billion Budget Deficit?”

[20] Johnson, Hans, and Eric McGhee. “Who’s Leaving California—and Who’s Moving In?” Public Policy Institute of California, July 10, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/#:~:text=The%20state%20has%20lost%20residents%20to%20other%20states%20every%20year%20since%202000%2C%20according%20to%20Department%20of%20Finance%20estimates.

[21] Pelchen, Lexie. “Why Are People Leaving California? Stats That May Surprise You.” Forbes Home, March 14, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/moving-services/california-moving-statistics/.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Crofts-Pelayo, Diana. “Governor Newsom Unveils Revised State Budget, Prioritizing Balanced Solutions for a Leaner, More Efficient Government | Governor of California.” Governor of California, July 12, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/05/10/revised-state-budget-may-2024-25/.

[24] Lafortune, Julien. “Financing California’s Public Schools.” Public Policy Institute of California, December 1, 2023. https://www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-public-schools/#:~:text=One%2Dtime%20federal%20pandemic%20funds,estimates%20as%20of%20July%202023).

[25] Hanson, Melanie. “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics [2024]: Per Pupil + Total.” Education Data Initiative, July 14, 2024. https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#california.

[26] Ibid.

[27] New York Division of the Budget. “FY 2022 Executive Budget Briefing Book,” 2020. https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archive/fy22/ex/book/education.pdf.

[28] Department of Education. “Education.” Department of Education, 2023. https://ebudget.ca.gov/2023-24/pdf/Enacted/GovernorsBudget/6000.pdf.

[29] World Population Review. “Public School Rankings by State 2024,” 2024. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state.

[30] Fensterwald, John. “Flat Test Scores Leave California Far Behind pre-Covid Levels of Achievement.” EdSource, November 17, 2023. https://edsource.org/2023/flat-test-scores-leave-california-far-behind-pre-covid-levels-of-achievement/698895.

[31] Ibid.

[32] State of California Department of Finance. “Public K-12 Graded Enrollment,” October 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/public-k-12-graded-enrollment/#:~:text=State%20Enrollment,students)%2C%20enrolling%205%2C852%2C500%20students.

[33] Sand, Larry. “California’s Public School Exodus | City Journal.” City Journal, May 10, 2023. https://www.city-journal.org/article/californias-public-school-exodus.

[34] Ibid.

[35] [35] Hanson, Melanie. “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics [2024]: Per Pupil + Total.” Education Data Initiative, July 14, 2024. https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#massachussets.

[36] Budget.Mass.gov. “Enacted Budget for Statewide Summary | Summary FY24 Budget,” n.d. https://budget.digital.mass.gov/summary/fy24/enacted/.

[37] Gao, Niu, and Julien Lafortune. “Improving K-12 School Facilities in California.” Public Policy Institute of California, November 14, 2023. https://www.ppic.org/publication/improving-k-12-school-facilities-in-california/.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 2 [Ballot].”

[40] Medzerian, David. “Election 2024: Inside California’s Ballot Propositions.” USC Today, August 16, 2024. https://today.usc.edu/election-2024-inside-californias-ballot-propositions/.

[41] Martin, Dylan. “No on Prop 2: A Scam That Doesn’t Fix Schools.” Reform California, August 7, 2024. https://reformcalifornia.org/news/no-on-prop-2-a-scam-that-doesnt-fix-schools.

[42] “Los Angeles Unified School District – Center for Health Equity,” n.d. https://healthequity.ucla.edu/partners/los-angeles-unified-school-district/#:~:text=Los%20Angeles%20Unified%20School%20District%20%E2%80%93%20Center%20for%20Health%20Equity&text=Second%20largest%20in%20the%20nation,grade%20at%20over%201%2C000%20schools.

[43] State of California Department of Finance, “Public K-12 Graded Enrollment.”

[44] Wilkins, JoAnne. “50-State Comparison: Private School Choice.” Education Commission of the States, April 25, 2024. https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-private-school-choice-2024/.

[45] Ballotpedia. “School Vouchers - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/School_vouchers.

[46] Hanson, Melanie. “Average Cost of Private School [2024]: Tuition by Education Level.” Education Data Initiative, August 29, 2024. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-private-school#:~:text=Among%20private%20elementary%20schools%2C%20California,tuition%20at%20private%20secondary%20schools.