Post Type

School Facilities and Modernization campaign Background

Prop 2 and the demand letter

California voters approved Proposition 2 in November 2024, authorizing $10 billion in bonds — including $4 billion for K-12 school modernization. Education advocates strongly supported the measure because California’s school facilities needs are enormous and real. But the ballot measure left the underlying distribution formula intact.

On February 21, 2024, well before Prop 2 reached the ballot, Public Advocates, along with pro bono counsel Goodwin Procter LLP—and impacted students, families, residents, and grassroots community organizations from across the state—sent a demand letter to the California governor, and various state officials and agencies, demanding them to end the state’s highly discriminatory system for funding school facilities—or face a lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Proposition 2 Bond.

California’s system of funding school facility modernization projects through local and state bonds is based on district wealth. Not only do low-wealth school districts have less access to local bond revenue compared to their wealthier neighbors, but they also have less access to state modernization bonds as a result. The current system is structured to provide all districts with a 60% state match, regardless of need, thereby advantage wealthier districts which have exponentially greater ability to raise local funds, which in turn are matched by the state in greater amounts. Districts with lower funding streams and smaller tax bases report higher levels of facility deficiencies, which directly impacts the quality of education. The result is an unequal system in which students in low-wealth districts receive an education inferior to that of their peers in higher-wealth districts in violation of California’s Equal Protection Clause.

If District A raises $10 million to modernize and repair school facilities, the state will provide $15 million in matching, which gives District A $25 million in funding.
If District B raises $80 million to modernize and repair school facilities, the state will provide $120 million in matching, which gives District B $200 million in funding.

Research shows that school facilities impact student engagement, learning, school climate, and health. School modernization needs, such as updating HVAC systems, repairing leaking roofs, upgrading electrical systems, and replacing old portables are considerable across the state—especially because California has not issued a state bond for school facilities since 2016. School facility modernization needs disproportionately impact low-income communities of color who historically have had less resources to modernize their facilities and, as such, often disproportionately experience greater levels of disrepair.

As study after study demonstrated, over the past 25 years, California’s universal 60% match for modernization funds has delivered more than 4 times as much state bond funds per student to wealthy districts as low-wealth districts. This bill provided equity in name only and treats students differently based on the wealth of their community.The complainants of our demand letter called on state leadership to take immediate action to remedy this unconstitutional school facility funding system and significantly modify

The passage of Prop 2 made the stakes higher, not lower: billions in new state funds are now poised to flow through a system that research has repeatedly shown discriminates against low-wealth districts. That’s what brought us to court.

THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE

California’s Constitution is clear: education is a fundamental right, and the state cannot operate a school system that denies basic equality of educational opportunity based on district wealth. Research confirms what students and families already know — facility conditions directly affect student health, learning, and long-term outcomes, with the greatest impacts on low-income students.Over a 24-year period (1998–2022), the wealthiest school districts received more than twice the per-pupil state modernization funding as the poorest. The financial hardship program meant to help low-wealth districts account for less than 3% of modernization funds distributed in that period.