Changing California from Oakland #3 - Education:
"If you've read either of the articles I've written on the subject (budget crisis, sales tax), you know that Prop. 13, as it stands, is a huge problem. The 1978 proposition that restructured California property tax law (effectively gutting state funding and providing massive loopholes for businesses to dodge fair payment) was largely opposed by educators and administrators alike. And they were right - California went from being at the top of national public education rankings to the bottom. So what changed? Obviously, the absence of public money played a role, but to simply blame insufficient funds is inadequate."
Part of what enabled the passage of Prop. 13 was a tremendous increase in property value (driven by an increase in state population from both other states and Mexico) and a lack of desire by the electorate to have their money pooled and distributed by the state, according to the Serrano v Priest decision. In other words, the electorate (and when I say electorate, I do not mean the population - they are very different things) did not want to finance the education system that would be required to support a larger, more diverse student body. For example, in 2003-04, in Oakland, Hispanic children attended schools with a near 56% poverty rate. Black children attended schools with over 57% poverty rates - however, white children attended schools with a rate under 19% of students in poverty.
"If you've read either of the articles I've written on the subject (budget crisis, sales tax), you know that Prop. 13, as it stands, is a huge problem. The 1978 proposition that restructured California property tax law (effectively gutting state funding and providing massive loopholes for businesses to dodge fair payment) was largely opposed by educators and administrators alike. And they were right - California went from being at the top of national public education rankings to the bottom. So what changed? Obviously, the absence of public money played a role, but to simply blame insufficient funds is inadequate."
Part of what enabled the passage of Prop. 13 was a tremendous increase in property value (driven by an increase in state population from both other states and Mexico) and a lack of desire by the electorate to have their money pooled and distributed by the state, according to the Serrano v Priest decision. In other words, the electorate (and when I say electorate, I do not mean the population - they are very different things) did not want to finance the education system that would be required to support a larger, more diverse student body. For example, in 2003-04, in Oakland, Hispanic children attended schools with a near 56% poverty rate. Black children attended schools with over 57% poverty rates - however, white children attended schools with a rate under 19% of students in poverty.
