Issue link: http://educator.cta.org/i/1546952
Our history provides a roadmap for change U N I V E R S A L P U B L I C E D U C A T I O N was the primary rea- son why the United States became the richest economy in the world in the 20th century. Yet recent decades have seen the public investment effort put into K–12 education in the U.S. lag across many measures. California specif- ically made huge investments in public education in the mid-20th century but then let anti-tax politics severely compromise this investment. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reform of 2013 — along with Propositions 30 and 55, two voter-approved progressive income tax measures CTA members organized to win — brought time-limited increases in overall education spending levels to California. Gains to student achievement and success have been large and measurable as a result. Further reforms could lock in and expand on these gains, including making permanent the revenue increases provided by Props. 30 and 55. Major legislation and events in state education funding: • 1978: Prop. 13 passes, which limited property tax revenue collected from long-term homeowners and cor- porations; it decimated a stable source of state revenues to spend on education. Before 1978, property taxes pro- vided about 60% of K–12 education funding in California, but after passage of Prop. 13, that percentage dropped to 30–35%. (The rest comes from income and sales taxes.) • 1988: Prop. 98 passes, an effort to stabilize education funding; it set a minimum guarantee of state funding yearly — typically 40% — of state general fund revenues for K–12 schools and community colleges. The problem, as noted in the report, is that the state has considered 40% to be the ceiling rather than the floor, and funding decreases when the budget faces a shortfall. • 2012: Prop. 30, backed by CTA members, passes, which raises sales taxes slightly and enacts significant revenue increases from the richest California households for the general fund and health care programs. • 2013: The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) is a policy reform that shifts spending control to local dis- tricts and provides extra money for high-needs students and districts. Prop. 30 revenues complement the LCFF; the combination of both policy changes increases the level and progressivity of public spending on education. As underscored in the report, results have been unam- biguously successful: An additional $1,000 in per-pupil LCFF spending sustained over three years produced a full grade level of improvement in math and reading. • 2016: Prop. 55 passes after CTA members organized to win; the measure extends the Prop. 30 income tax hikes, which were scheduled to expire in 2018 and will now expire in 2030. • 2026: Prop. 3 is currently on the November ballot, driven by the work of educators around the state, and seeks to make existing income tax hikes on wealthy Cali- fornians permanent. "With Prop. 30 in 2012, we took decisive action and generated revenue through a set of time-limited sales and personal income taxes," said Goldberg. " Then we did Prop. 55 in 2016, and that extended Prop. 30 taxes. "And now [we have] Prop. 3 in 2026, which will perma- nently safeguard and extend revenue generated by Props. 30 and 55." Revenue losses from Prop. 13's commercial tax breaks are large and extremely regressive. ... An estimated 80% of these losses are from the largest 8% of properties. " People didn't vote for Prop. 13 thinking Disneyland or Chevron would be paying 1978 taxes today, and that income that's not coming in would be on the backs of students and educators." — CTA President David Goldberg 31 F A L L 2 0 26