Local School Facility Bond Measures
In a Nut Shell
The 2018-19 California State Budget is a record high $201 billion dollars.
Newly Elected Governor Newsom is proposing a 2019-20 budget of $209 billion.
At the same time, the legislature is looking for new ways to spend a $16 billion dollar surplus.
There is no surplus. California's State and Local debt totals an estimated $1.3 trillion dollars.
California "Local" School Facility Bond Debt is $168 billion.
This does not include other property based taxes, fees and special assessments such as Parcel Taxes, State School Facility Bonds, Developer Fees or Mello Roos.
Since Prop 13 passed in 1978, which reduced property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms by about 57%, the Legislature has looked for new ways to increase revenues to pay for school facilities.
In 2000 voters approved Prop 39 The School Facilities Local Vote Act, which reduced the threshold required to pass school district bond issues from a two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote, to a 55% simple majority vote. Since the passage of Prop 39, local school facility bond debt has skyrocketed.
The lower threshold of 55% is an option. Local school boards representing communities that rejected Proposition 39 are allowed by state law to honor the two-thirds vote threshold for tax measures.
Education Lobbyists are now trying to lower the threshold to pass Parcel Taxes from two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority, to a (55%) simple majority.
Why is this important?
Debt incurred by local school districts will effect the ability of Cities and Counties to raise revenue. As such, Cities and counties cannot afford to ignore the actions of local school boards. To protect taxpayers, and preserve the financial stability of the local government they represent, City and County elected leaders have a fiscal obligation to be engaged in local school board actions.
In 2016 the Capistrano Unified School District put Measure M, an $889 million dollar school facility bond on the ballot. All the Cities within CUSDs' boundaries were caught by surprise. Local elected leaders had no idea until a community member informed them. The Politics from July 2016 until election day were ugly. The District threatened to sue City elected leaders that opposed the measure.
Measure M, $889 Million General Obligation School Facility Bond Measure
Tax $41.81 per $100 of assessed value.
The Measure was defeated:
CUSD is trying again in 2020.
1. Cities and Counties must follow local school board actions. They should actively work with their local school districts to ensure that citizen's are not overtaxed at the local level, and that any bond money that is approved will be spent appropriately. The mis-use of Prop 39 bond funds is rampant, and there is no real oversight.
2. All taxes must require a 2/3 vote to pass. Citizens should work to restore a 2/3 supermajority vote on all school bond measures.
3. Oversight of Prop 39 School Facility Bonds needs to be stronger. The mis-use of Prop 39 bond funds is rampant, and there is no real oversight. The funds are being used for short-term operation expenses instead of Capital improvements, and funds are also going to consultant fees and expenses, and employee compensation.
4. Citizens must work to get politics out of Public Education. Districts spend a lot of their education dollars on lobbyists. Lobbyists that in fact; are not lobbying for the benefit of dollars going to students, they are lobbying for positions that will provide greater revenue streams for salaries, pensions and benefits for public employees and for education dollars that can be spent on businesses that serve public education. These same dollars then fund the politicians that write the laws that favor bad policy like Prop 39's change from a 2/3 vote to a simple majority.
5. Under the State's 2018-19 5- year Infrastructure Plan $55 billion of the $61 billion in funds is allocated to High Speed Rail. Not a single penny is allocated to K-12 Public Education. Defund High Speed Rail, and use that money for California's number one constitutionally mandated spending priority... public education.
6. Under "Local Control" it no longer makes sense to have large "unified" school districts. Cities and County's should consider breaking up these political machines that are often larger and more powerful than the cities within their boundaries.
7. There is an effort to overturn Prop 13 and to lower the vote on parcel taxes to a simple majority. If they are successful taxpayers will have five separate taxes on property to benefit schools (most requiring a simple majority to pass):
Local School Facility Bonds
State School Facility Bonds,
Using Classroom Dollars to Fund Political Advocacy
One of the reasons schools there is one party rule in the State of California is the politicization of our public education system. The amount of money laundered through a districts budget that is funneled to political campaigns is staggering. It is the reason our public schools are broke.
One of Many Examples:
"CASH" The Coalition for Adequate School Housing (a political advocacy organization), is a great example of "Pay to Play" using education dollars to advocate for political positions that benefit big business. School Districts use classroom dollars to pay for conferences and professional development that teach districts how to get state and local facility bond measures passed.
There are 1,026 school districts in California. CUSD alone, pays thousands of dollars a month to CASH.
For example; in one month, September 2018 alone CUSD spent $1,726.00 on three conferences. Multiply this by thousands of Districts and you'll find that millions of education dollars are not reaching the classroom.
Public education is the State of California's number one constitutionally mandated spending priority. Taxpayers should demand that the State meets its obligation to our public school facilities before any money is allocated to any other infrastructure projects. Defund High Speed Rail. Save local Cities and Counties billions of taxpayer dollars that can be put back into local communities rather then repay $168 billion in local debt over the next 40 years.
The State of California has a $61 billion dollar infrastructure budget. Of the $61 billion dollar budget, only $575 million dollars is going to education. Not a single penny is allocated to K-12 facilities while $55 billion has been allocated to High Speed Rail.
The State is choosing not to fund K-12 facilities so that it can fund High Speed Rail.
2018-19 Infrastructure Budget at page 130
As you watch the CASH presentation, scroll through the list of donors that benefitted from using education dollars to advocate for political positions that made it easier for local school districts to raise revenue through increased bond debt and a simple majority vote for passage.
The answer is not more local debt.
The answer is to use existing infrastructure money to improve school facilities instead of building high speed rail.
Resources Bonds and School Facility Funding
1. The Evolution of California’s State School Finance System and Implications from Other States By Michael W. Kirst, Stanford University
2. Financing School Facilities in California Eric J. Brunner Quinnipac University October 25, 2006
3. Financing School Facilities in California: A Ten-Year Perspective Eric J. Brunner University of Connecticut Jeffrey M. Vincent University of California, Berkeley September 2018.
5. LAO: A Historical Review of Prop 98
6. A Brief Overview of the School Facility Program The Office of Public School Construction May 2016
7. California Policy Center "For the Kids: California Voters must become wary of borrowing billions more from wealthy investors for education construction." July 2015
Resources: California Budget and Per Pupil Funding
1. California Historic Budget Chart C-1 Program Expenditures by Fund (Actual Expenditures - Not the Enacted Budget)
2. Enrollment Source: National Center for Education Statistics 1969-70 to 1996-93 and Data Quest 1993 to present
3. CUSD Per Pupil Funding: CDE Current Expense of Education (data prior to 1998 is not available on CDE web site)
4. Capistrano Unified School District: Local Control Funding Formula
Resources: Capistrano Unified School District Measure M
Board Audio at 2:42:13 Trustee Amy Hanacek Question re: 2/3 vote required to pass school facilities bond.
Ballot Initiative: The Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act of 2018 would require that all local taxes be approved by a two-thirds vote of the local voter.
School Bonds will be exempt from the 2/3 vote under this initiative.
"Jack and I" - [referring to Former State Superintendent Jack O'Connell" who is a Partner at Capitol Advisors.]
CUSDWatch Comment: Right now Prop 39 Bonds (School Facility Bonds) can be passed by a simple majority.
"Capitol Advisors supports California Senator Ben Allen's proposition CSA 22 which would allow Parcel Taxes to be passed with a simple majority rather than 2/3 vote."
These are competing initiatives. But Both will probably exempt school bonds.
3. California Policy Center: Urgency of School Improvement Bonds Contradicted by State Department of Education Reports
4. California Policy Center: Spotlight- Capistrano Unified School District
5. California Policy Center: OCs' Measure M Treats Some Homeowners More Equally Than Others
6. California Policy Center: District has Paid Consultants over $400k to Promote Bond.
7. California Policy Center: Officials Ditch Claim about 'Benefits' of High Property Taxes
8. California Policy Center: School District's Bond Controversy Reveals Rising Concern About Pay-to-Play
Resources Capistrano Unified 2020 School Facilities Bond
1. Capistrano Unified School District: Parcel Taxes and Bonds Demystified
2. Capistrano Unified School District December 12, 2018 BOT Meeting Agenda Item #30 POTENTIAL REGIONAL BOND MEASURE UPDATE AND PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT OPINION RESEARCH – TRUE NORTH RESEARCH page 422 Board Audio at
3. July 20, 2016 CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #20 Resolution Calling for a School Bond Election Within School Facilities improvement District page 552 Board Audio at 14 minutes 14 seconds
Background on California School Facility Funding
California Education Funding Prior to 1970s' was "Local Control". Education was funded primarily from local property taxes.
After the passage of Prop 13, education was under "State Control".
In 1972 voter demands for property tax relief led to a state plan to freeze the per pupil amount that each school district could collect for general spending. That became known as a district’s “revenue limit.”
Concurrently, the landmark Serrano v. Priest court case required the state to sever the close link between local assessed property value and total school district spending. The court focused only on general-purpose operating expenditures, ignoring categorical aid and construction funds. In response to the Serrano decision, in 1976 state leaders decided to force district equalization by adjusting districts’ revenue limits, increasing them faster for low-spending districts so the gap would close over time.
The California Constitution allowed school districts to issue general obligation bonds to fund school facilities. Two -thirds of local voters (a supermajority) was required for approval.
From 1879 to 1933 The State had limited involvement in school finance of facilities. School districts financed virtually all school construction with local bonds.
Long Beach Earthquake left all the City schools in heaps and ruins.
In 1947 the State expanded it's role in school facility funding and oversight in response to Seismic Safety Concerns from the Long Beach earthquake and enrollment growth. The Legislature enacted the Field Act of 1947 and created the State Allocation Board. The State Allocation Board provided school districts with state loans for school facilities from 1949 to 1978.
California Voters Pass Prop 13.
Prop 13 removed the ability for school districts to issue local bonds. Proposition 13 also capped local property tax and virtually eliminated tax increases based on assessed valuation. After the passage of Prop 13 the State was forced to assume the primary role of funding Public Education and school facilities. The State Allocation Board began providing school districts with significant school facility grant funds.
Voters reject Proposition 4 which would have restored the authority of local governments to issue bonds if 2/3 of the voters approved it.
E.F. Hutton begins underwriting municipal Capital Appreciation Bonds.
In 1983 the Serrano court ruled that the equalization job was done. By then, the state had assumed control of approximately 80% of total school funding, leaving schools vulnerable to the volatility of the state’s sales and income-tax revenue streams.
Voters Pass Proposition 46 Local Tax Increases Allowed for Bond Repayment (1986) Proposition 46 amended the California Constitution, and restored school districts ability to issue local bonds subject to a 2/3 voter approval.
In 1988, in an effort to stabilize school funding, California Voters Passed Prop 98 which earmarked a specific portion of the State's General Fund Revenues for K-12 schools and Community Colleges ... about 40%.
The passage of Senate Bill 872 allowed school districts to begin selling Capital Appreciation Bonds.
As part of the 1996-97 Budget Act, The California Legislature created the Class Size Reduction Program. The passage of Prop 13 was blamed for the lack of funding for new facilities to keep class sizes at 20:1. Interest groups began to explore new revenue sources for school facilities.
In March 1996, Voters approve Proposition 203 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1996 This measure authorized the state to sell $3 billion in general obligation bonds for K-12 schools ($2.025 billion) and higher education facilities ($0.975 billion).
In November 1996 Voters approve Proposition 218, Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. Prop 218 constrained local governments' ability to impose fees, assessments, and taxes. This measure applied to all cities, counties, special districts, redevelopment agencies, and school districts in California.
In November 1996 voters defeated Proposition 217, Income Tax Increase (1996). Prop 217 would have (1) reinstated, beginning with the 1996 tax year, the income tax increase for higher-income taxpayers that ended last year and (2) allocated the money from this tax increase to schools and local governments.
In 1998 the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act (Senate Bill 50) was chaptered into law, establishing the SFP (School Facility Program).
The SFP provides for a wide variety of state funding, including, but not limited to, new construction, modernization, charter school facilities, career technical education facilities, seismic mitigation, facility hardship, joint-use programs, high performance attributes and assisting in the relief of overcrowding. To ensure that districts are providing adequate safe facilities to students, districts are required to receive project approvals from the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and California Department of Education (CDE) prior to submittal of a funding application.
Local school districts financed their share of school construction and modernization costs primarily with revenue raised through local general obligation (G.O.) bond elections.
The state also established developer fees covering up to 100 percent of the cost of school construction associated with new residential development.
*Note: Prop 98 was tied to the General Fund and had no ties to Special Funds and Bond Funds.
Other states have enacted variations of Proposition 13, but no state has created an education funding system that sets both a de facto floor and ceiling on total state and local property tax allocations as does the combination of Proposition 13 and Proposition 98.
November 1998 voters approved California Prop 1A, Bonds for Education aka Class Size Reduction Kindergarten- University Public Education Bond act of 1998. This measure authorizes the state to sell $9.2 billion in general obligation bonds for K-12 schools ($6.7 billion) and higher education facilities ($2.5 billion).
In November 1998 voters defeated Proposition 8, Class Size Reduction Funding (1998) which would have, among other things prevented the state from reducing funding for the existing kindergarten through grade three (K-3) class size reduction program.
In November 1998 voters passed Proposition 10 State and County Early Childhood Development Programs. Additional Tobacco Surtax Proposition 10 created a state commission to provide information and materials and to formulate guidelines for establishment of comprehensive early childhood development and smoking prevention programs. The measure also created county commissions to develop strategic plans with emphasis on new programs. The measure created a trust fund for these programs that was exempt from Proposition 98 requirement that dedicates a portion of general tax revenues to schools.
June 1998 voters defeated Proposition 223 Schools. Spending Limits on Administration. If this measure had passed it would have prohibited school districts from spending more than five percent of funds from all sources for costs of general administration, instructional resources supervision, and supervision of instruction, beginning fiscal year 1999-2000. It would have required State Board of Education to fine districts failing to comply. It would have required districts to publish percentage of funds expended on administrative costs annually, report expenditure information to State Board of Education, and undertake performance audits and fiscal efficiency reviews every five years. It would have required districts to develop systems which indicate the intended contribution of each projected expenditure to the achievement of specific performance objectives.
In March 2000, Voters rejected Proposition 26 School Facilities Local Majority Vote which would have lowered the threshold on general obligation bond measures from two-thirds down to a simple majority.
In November 2000, Voters approved Proposition 39 School Facilities Local Vote. The primary impact of Proposition 39 was to create an exception to Prop 13 by reducing the threshold required to pass Local California school district bond measures from a two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote, to a 55% simple majority vote.
Proposition 39 required districts to provide voters with a list of specific projects the bond money would be used for.
Prop 39 also required Districts to maintain indebtedness levels below statutory maximums:
Unified School Districts: 2.5% of assessed value (maintain tax rates $60 per $100,000.00 of assessed value)
Elementary & High School Districts: 1.25% of assessed value (maintain tax rates $30 per $100,000.00 of assessed value)
Prop 39 specifically disallowed "Operating Expenditures" including, but not limited to the following:
Teacher and administrator salaries and other school "operating expenses".
Maintenance, deferred or otherwise, is not one of the listed allowed uses of Proposition 39 bond funds. Maintenance isn't a capital expense. It's an operating expense.
Modernization is a term found in the Education Code. It has a specific meaning. The state is responsible for modernization. The State Allocation Board doles it out under a whole set of statutes and regulations to make sure that it is not abused.
Lease-leaseback is an abuse of Prop 39 Bond Funds. To avoid competitive bidding for its members is the lease-leaseback. Leases are operating expenses prohibited by Proposition 39.
Election costs. Election costs are operating expenses that your district must pay to have its trustees elected.
"Capital Expenditures" are the only allowable expenses under Prop 39. This has been massively abused by Districts.
In November 2000 voters defeated Proposition 38 School Vouchers. State-Funded Private and Religious Education. Public School Funding. This proposition would have amended the State's Constitution and made major changes in public funding for K-12 education.
In November 2000 voters defeated Proposition 37 Fees, Taxes, New Definitions, Vote Requirements. This proposition would have amended the State Constitution, to classify as "taxes" some new charges that government otherwise could impose as "fees."
In March 2000 voters defeated Proposition 28, Repeal of "First Five: Cigarette Taxes (2000) This measure would have eliminated certain provisions of Proposition 10, including the California Children and Families First Fund and the 50 cents per pack excise tax on cigarettes and the equivalent tax on other tobacco products which were effective January 1, 1999.
In March 2000 voters approved Proposition 20 California State Lottery. Allocation for Instructional Materials. This proposition changed the way that a portion of the annual lottery revenues is distributed to public education. Basically, of the future growth in lottery funds, one-half must go to K-14 public schools and be spent on instructional materials.
In November 2002, voters approved Proposition 47 Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Acts of 2002. This measure allowed the state to issue $13.05 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 school facilities ($11.4 billion) and higher education facilities ($1.65 billion).
In November 2002 voters approved Proposition 49 After School Programs. State Grants. Initiative Statute. This proposition makes various funding changes to the state’s Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program.
In March 2004, Voters Approved Proposition 55 The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004. This measure allows the state to issue $12.3 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 school facilities ($10 billion) and higher education facilities ($2.3 billion).
Proposition 55 allowed K-12 schools to receive funding for construction and modernization (Renovation) of facilities (Capital Projects) from:
State General Obligation Bonds
Local General Obligation Bonds
Developer Fees and
Special Local Bonds (known as Mello- Roos Bonds)
Proposition 55 allowed Higher Education to fund Capital Projects through
Local General Obligation Bonds
Gifts and Grants
UC Research Revenue
In November 2004, voters defeated Proposition 65 Local Government Funds and Revenues. State Mandates. This measure would have amended the State Constitution to significantly reduce the Legislature’s authority to make changes affecting any local government’s revenues from the property tax, sales tax, and vehicle license fee. Specifically, the measure required approval by the state’s voters before a legislative measure could take effect that reduced a local government’s revenues below the amount or share it would have received based on laws in effect on January 1, 2003.
In November 2004 voters approved Proposition 1A Local Government Finance. Constitutional Amendment. This measure amended the State Constitution to significantly reduce the state’s authority over major local government revenue sources. Under the measure, with two significant exceptions, the state could not reduce local sales tax rates or alter the method of allocation, shift property taxes from local governments to schools or community colleges, or decrease VLF revenues without providing replacement funding.
In November 2005 voters defeated Proposition 76, Cap on Growth of State Budget. If the measure had passed, Proposition 76 hanged state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools' funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.
In November 2005 voters defeated Proposition 75 Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees' and organizations' political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure
In November 2005 voters defeated Proposition 74 Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. This measures increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
In June 2006 voters defeated Proposition 82, Free Half-day Public Preschool Program. If this measure had passed it would have increased taxes on incomes of over $400,000 for individuals and for couples making $800,000 in order to create and fund a preschool program for children to attend in the year prior to kindergarten.
In November 2006 voters defeated Proposition 88 Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax a statewide $50 per parcel, $470 million dollars parcel tax to fund specific K-12 education programs.
K-12 Class Size Reduction $175 million
Instructional Materials $100 million
School Safety $100 million
Facility Grants $85 million
Data System $15 million
In November 2006 voters approved Proposition 1D Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006. This measure allows the state to sell $10.4 billion of general obligation bonds for K-12 school facilities ($7.3 billion) and higher education facilities ($3.1 billion).
Existing law allows a school district governing board to sell bonds at a negotiated sale or by competitive bidding. Existing law requires the issuer of a proposed or actual new debt issue of state or local government to report specified information to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC).
This bill would require a school district governing board, prior to selling bonds, to adopt a resolution, as an agenda item at a public meeting, that includes several specified items, including, among others, express approval of the method of sale. The bill would require, after the sale of the bonds, the governing board to present and disclose the actual cost information at its next scheduled public meeting and to submit an itemized summary of the costs of the bond sale to the CDIAC. The bill would require the governing board to ensure that all necessary information and reports regarding the sale or planned sale of bonds by the school district it governs are submitted to the CDIAC in compliance with a specified provision.
Ultimately, the bill directed the state to collect additional information to get better insight on whether competitive bidding (as opposed to negotiated sales) provides lower costs to the bond issuer.
Housing prices in some areas of the state begin a dramatic four-year drop, in some regions declining 50% from their zenith, thus reducing assessed property valuation and the tax and debt limits based on it.
In February 2008 voters defeated Proposition 92 Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. If passed, this measure would have made major changes to the State Constitution and state laws relating to the California Community Colleges. It's main provisions
(1) change current minimum education funding requirement into two separate requirements: one for K-12 schools and one for community colleges,
(2) lower community college education fees from $20 per unit to $15 per unit and significantly limit the state’s authority to increase fee levels in future years, and
(3) formally establish the community colleges in the State Constitution and increase the size of the community colleges’ state governing board and the board’s administrative authority.
In May 2009 voters defeated Proposition 1C Lottery Modernization Act. If the measure had passed it would have allowed the State to borrow money from future Lottery proceeds to avoid state spending cuts. This measure was one of the major components of the plan approved by the Legislature and the Governor in February 2009 to balance the state budget. The measure makes major changes to the 1984 voter initiative that created the California Lottery. These changes could increase lottery ticket sales and allow the state to borrow $5 billion in the 2009-10 fiscal year from future lottery profits. In addition to borrowing this $5 billion, the state also could borrow more from lottery profits in future years. Under the measure, lottery profits now dedicated to schools and colleges would be used to pay back the borrowing. The measure would increase state payments to education from the state General Fund to make up for the loss of these lottery payments.
In May 2009 voters defeated Proposition 1B Education Funding. Payment Plan. If passed, this measure would have amended the State Constitution as it relates to Proposition 98, providing "supplemental education" payments in place of recent "maintenance factor" payments. The measure would have also provided greater discretion to the Legislature and Governor regarding how the payments would be distributed.
In November 2010 voters passed Proposition 26 Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges With Limited Exceptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
A YES vote on this measure means: The definition of taxes would be broadened to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, more state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters. A NO vote on this measure means: Current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes would not be changed.
In November 2012 voters approved Proposition 30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Passage of the measure allowed the state to increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget. If the measure had not passed, the State threatened to make drastic , deep cuts to education programs, would take effect in 2012-13.
In November 2012 voters defeated Proposition 38 Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. If the measure had passed, State personal income tax rates would increase for 12 years. The additional revenues would be used for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.
In November 2016 voters passed Proposition 58 English Language Education. Passage of the measure allowed Public schools greater flexibility to choose how to teach English learners, whether in English-only, bilingual, or other types of programs. If the measure had failed Public schools would still be required to teach most English learners in English-only programs.
In November 2016 voters approved Proposition 55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This measure was basically an extension of Prop 30 taxes which were income tax increases on high-income taxpayers, which are scheduled to end after 2018, would instead be extended through 2030.
In November 2016 voters defeated Proposition 53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This measure was referred to as the "No Blank Check Initiative". If passed, the measure would have required voter approval of any public infrastructure project over $2 billion dollars that was funded, owned or managed by the state.
In November 2016 voters approved Proposition 51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statutory Amendment. This authorized the State to sell $9 billion in general obligation bonds for education facilities ($7 billion for K-12 public school facilities and $2 billion for community college facilities).