A proposed $9 billion state bond for school construction projects includes multimillion-dollar project requests from districts where student enrollment has declined, a CalWatchdog investigation has found.

The measure, on the 2016 ballot, is supported in large part by a cadre of interests led by developers, architects, contractors and educators. Among the talking points from proponents is a professed $2 billion in projects that await funding, in all nearly 400 requests from districts that have been either approved or requested by districts. 

Most of the money is aimed at improving schools or building more, and in some cases for districts that are struggling to attract students.

Declining Enrollment

West Contra Costa Unified has seen enrollment dip by 2,000 students to 30,596. Voters in the Northern California district approved a $360 million bond measure in 2012. The district is asking for $47 million more in state funding.

At Los Angeles Unified, the second largest school district in the U.S. in terms of students, enrollment has dropped 12 percent since 2005 to 646,683 in 2014-15.  It has $43 million worth of requests for state funding. The number of certified staff, which includes teachers along with upper-level administrators, has also dropped at L.A. Unified, by 8 percent in the last decade.

Then there’s the case of Centinela Valley Union High School District, where voters approved bond measures in 2008 and 2010 totaling $196 million. Over that same period, district Superintendent Jose Fernandez was handed a perk-laden contract that added up to $663,000 in compensation in 2013.  Fernandez was fired last year after the package was revealed.

Enrollment in the district dropped from 8,000 to 7,878 between 2005-06 and 2014-15 as the two bond measures were passed.

Statewide, public enrollment has remained static for the last five years.

Here’s a look at the districts with recently voter-approved bonds and projects on the waiting list for state bond funds. The listing includes the margin of approval and the ballot language, as well as the dollar amount of the district’s request with the state.

RELATED – Developers Lobby Pushes Statewide Education Bond

For an interactive map of the info listed below, CLICK HERE

Oakland Unified

• 2012: $473 million approved by 84 percent of voters “to improve the quality of Oakland schools and school facilities to better prepare students for college and jobs, to upgrade science labs, classrooms, computers and technology, improve student safety and security, repair bathrooms, electrical systems, plumbing and sewer lines, improve energy efficiency and earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

West Contra Costa Unified

• 2012: $360 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to make schools safe, complete essential health/safety repairs, qualify for State matching grants, shall West Contra Costa Unified School District upgrade schools for earthquake safety and handicap accessibility, remove asbestos, upgrade science labs, restrooms, vocational classrooms, technology and energy systems to reduce costs, install lighting and security systems, and acquire, repair, construct, equipment, sites and facilities.”
• On the list: $47 million

San Ramon Unified

• 2012: $260 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to improve local elementary, middle and high school classrooms, labs and learning facilities by adding classrooms to prevent school overcrowding; upgrading fire, security and earthquake safety; updating science labs, and instructional technology infrastructure for 21st-century learning; improving energy efficiency; and renovating, constructing and equipping schools, facilities and classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.7 million

Chico Unified

• 2012: $78 million approved by 65 percent of voters. “The bond funds could be expended only for the purposes specified in the ballot measure, including: improving student access to computers and modern technology, repairing or replacing leaky roofs and plumbing systems, upgrading heating, ventilation and cooling systems.”
• On the list: $3.4 million

Clovis Unified

• 2012: $298 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to maintain excellent neighborhood schools, offset state budget cuts, and retain/attract quality teachers by: Upgrading classrooms/science labs/fire safety systems/libraries; Improving energy efficiency systems; Enhancing vocational education facilities; Fixing deteriorating roofs/plumbing/bathrooms; Ensuring handicapped accessibility; and Acquiring sites, constructing/equipping school facilities.”
• On the list: $37.7 million

Fresno Unified

• 2010: $280 million approved by 75 percent of voters “to offset state budget cuts, attract quality teachers, and repair classrooms by: Upgrading vocational education classrooms/science labs/technology/libraries; Improving security/fire safety/restrooms/plumbing/ventilation systems; Increasing handicapped access; Securing state matching funds; Replacing deteriorating portables; Preventing dropouts by improving alternative schools; Acquiring, constructing, repairing campuses/facilities/equipment.”
• On the list: $43.7 million

Washington Unified

• 2012: $22 million approved by 73 percent of voters “to better prepare Washington Union High School students for college and quality jobs, shall Washington Unified School District upgrade technology in classrooms, job-training labs, and student- support facilities; modernize science labs; rehabilitate deteriorated roofs, plumbing, electrical, lighting, ventilation; improve safety; and acquire/construct/repair instructional and athletic sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $7.4 million

Orland Unified

• 2008: $21.9 million approved by 56 percent of voters for new construction and modernization.
• On the list: $1.8 million

Eureka City Unified

• 2014: $49.75 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to upgrade every school site and help improve education by: upgrading career technical/job training classrooms; investing in technology/science labs; repairing aging classrooms; qualifying local schools for matching state funds; and constructing/acquiring facilities, classrooms, sites and equipment.”
• On the list: $364,590

Los Angeles Unified

• 2008: $7 billion approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve student health, safety and educational quality, shall the Los Angeles Unified School District: continue repair/upgrade of aging/deteriorating classrooms, restrooms; upgrade fire/earthquake safety; reduce asbestos, lead paint, air pollution, water quality hazards; build/upgrade specialized classrooms students need to meet job/college requirements; improve classroom Internet access.”
• On the list: $43.6 million

Centinela Valley Union High School District

• 2010: $98 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to protect students from earthquakes; remove asbestos, lead paint, and other safety hazards from schools; and improve learning and academic achievement, shall the Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair, acquire, and construct local schools, sites, and facilities, including libraries, classrooms, science labs, and academic academies; and replace aging plumbing, heating, electrical, and school security systems.”
• 2008: $98 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education/student safety/reduce overcrowding, shall Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair/acquire/construct local schools, sites, facilities, libraries, classrooms, science/computer labs, ensure earthquake safety, remove mold/asbestos, upgrade fire safety/security systems, leaky roofs, restrooms, plumbing/electrical/heating/cooling systems.”
• On the list: $28.3 million

Redondo Beach Unified

• 2012: $63 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to prepare students for success in high school, college, and the workforce; acquire, construct, upgrade, furnish, and equip school facilities, including career and technical facilities, improve classroom technology, and make energy efficiency improvements to reduce operating costs and put more money in classrooms.”
• 2008: $145 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, complete the renovation of local schools, make health and safety improvements, upgrade and modernize existing classrooms and school buildings, including multipurpose rooms, and improve student support facilities at the High School, including the library, computer and science labs and athletic facilities.”
• On the list: $2.4 million

Anderson Valley Unified

• 2010: $15.2 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to acquire, construct, and improve classrooms and facilities, including repairing, upgrading, and modernizing Anderson Valley Elementary, improving student access to modern technology at Anderson Valley Junior Senior High, improving energy efficiency, installing solar panels to reduce energy costs.”
• On the list: $754,796

Calistoga Joint Unified

• 2010: $42 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to renovate and improve Calistoga schools, improve school libraries, upgrade classrooms, modernize computer networks, build a new gym and a cafeteria, install solar energy systems, replace aging roofs, old heating, electrical, plumbing, cooling and ventilation systems with energy efficient systems.”
• On the list: $442, 693

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified

• 2008: $200 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “authorize the School District to issue and sell bonds of up to $200,000,000 to finance school facilities projects.”
• On the list: $5.7 million

Anaheim City School District

• 2010: $169 million approved by 64 percent of voters “for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities.”
• On the list: $5.4 million

Savanna Elementary School District

• 2012: $28.75 million approved by 59 percent of voters “in order to protect the quality of education at our schools, provide safe and modern school facilities, and complete priority school renovation that would otherwise not occur due to State budget cuts, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• 2008: $24.9 million approved by 72 percent of voters “to improve student learning and safety in neighborhood schools, shall Savanna Elementary School District rehabilitate 46-50-year old classrooms and school facilities, upgrade fire/safety/security systems, repair or replace deteriorated roofs, electrical, plumbing, restrooms, heating, and ventilation, and improve classroom technology and school libraries.”
• On the list: $6.4 million

Tustin Unified

• 2012: $135 million approved by 60 percent of voters “to better prepare students for college and high-demand jobs, improve students’ technology skills for today’s higher standards, retain qualified teachers, improve instruction and career training in science, math and skilled trades, and maintain high-quality education; shall Tustin Unified School District upgrade classrooms, science labs, equipment, instructional technology and infrastructure.”
• On the list: $12.7 million

Desert Sands Unified

• 2014: $225 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to upgrade classrooms, labs for career/technical education classes to prepare students for college/good-paying jobs in math, science, engineering, technology/ skilled trades, repair deteriorating roofs, plumbing/electrical systems, acquire, renovate, construct/equip classrooms, sites/facilities to keep pace with technology.”
• On the list: $15.5 million

Val Verde Unified

• 2012: $178 million approved by 62 percent of voters “to protect the quality of education in our local schools, relieve overcrowding and provide safe/modern schools, shall the Val Verde Unified School District update computers/technology in classrooms/science labs/libraries; provide facilities/equipment for career training/education; make funds available to attract/retain qualified teachers and protect academic instruction; construct new high school facilities to relieve overcrowding.”
• On the list: $43.9 million

Temecula Valley Unified

• 2012: $165 million approved by 64 percent of voters “in order to acquire, construct and reconstruct school facilities, and provide for supporting infrastructure at the existing school site of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

Corona-Norco Unified

• 2014: $396 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “upgrade classrooms, science lands, computers, career-training technology to support high-quality instruction in math, science, engineering, technology/skilled trades, repair/replace leaky roofs, floors, plumbing/hazardous materials where needed, address overcrowding, improve student safety/security, repair, construct, acquire, equip classrooms, facilities/sites.”
• On the list: $2.8 million

San Juan Unified

• 2012 $350 million approved by 60 percent of voters To improve the quality of education at every school, modernize aging classrooms, upgrade technology, provide 21st century learning opportunities, improve student safety and become eligible for millions in additional State dollars
• On the list: $454,883

Cajon Valley Union

• 2008: $156.5 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, upgrade and construct classrooms and joint-use gymnasiums, increase access to computers and technology, replace 50-year old schools, make safety and security improvements, improve energy efficiency, and make the District eligible for State-matching grants.”
• On the list: $2.9 million

San Diego Unified

• 2012: $2.8 billion approved by 62 percent of voters “to repair neighborhood schools and charter schools with funding the state cannot take away by: Repairing deteriorating 60-year-old classrooms, libraries, wiring, plumbing, bathrooms and leaky roofs; Removing hazardous mold, asbestos, and lead; Upgrading fire safety systems/doors; Upgrading classroom instructional technology, labs and vocational education classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.2 million

San Marcos Unified

• 2010: $287 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools, repair aging, deteriorating classrooms/schools, attract quality teachers and offset State cuts by: removing asbestos, lead paint, repairing roofs, plumbing, wiring; preventing overcrowding; upgrading instructional technology, libraries, science labs; improving seismic, fire and student safety; and improving disabled access.”
• On the list: $36.9 million

Stockton Unified

• 2014: $114 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to increase student access to computers; maintain and upgrade educational technology; upgrade classroom security systems for increased student safety; upgrade technology servers, routers, switches and storage area networks; and significantly reduce borrowing costs.”
• 2012: $156 million approved by 74 percent of voters “in order to repair, equip, acquire and construct classrooms, school facilities, playgrounds and athletic fields; replace portables with permanent classrooms; and reduce overall borrowing costs.”
• 2008: $464.5 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education and student access to computers and technology, renovate science labs, repair restrooms, modernize and upgrade schools and classrooms throughout the District, construct additional classrooms and facilities, replace outdated temporary portable classrooms with permanent classrooms, and qualify the District for millions in State matching funds.”
• On the list: $9.3 million

Belmont-Redwood Shores School District

• 2014: $48 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to add elementary and middle school classrooms and science labs for math, science, reading and writing programs, relieve school overcrowding, provide updated classroom computers and instructional technology for quality 21st Century education, repair, construct, acquire classrooms, facilities and equipment, add restrooms to accommodate growing student enrollment.”
• 2010: $25 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to continue quality education/prevent classroom overcrowding, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores School District repair/replace leaking roofs, provide additional classrooms for science, math, general instruction, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/ facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/safety codes, improve disabled access, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, safety/security systems.”
• 2010: $35 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to continue quality education, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District (SFID) repair/replace leaking roofs, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/ safety codes, improve disabled access, provide science classrooms/additional classrooms to prevent overcrowding, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and security systems.”
• On the list: $6.2 million

Burlingame Elementary School District

• 2012: $56 approved by 67 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools by modernizing science labs, upgrading instructional technology/computers, adding classrooms/reopening an existing school to reduce current overcrowding, upgrading classrooms to meet current safety codes, renovating heating and electrical systems to save money.”
• On the list: $1.5 million

Sequoia Union High School District

• 2014: $265 million in bonds approved by 65 percent of voters “to support high quality education and upgrade local high schools with funding that cannot be taken by the state by adding classrooms, science labs, and schools to avoid overcrowding, provide updated classrooms technology, labs, and career technical facilities; renovate aging classrooms and repair, construct, or acquire equipment, classrooms, and facilities”
• 2008: $165 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to create a 10 year technology fund for upgrading classroom computers; to improve energy efficiency; to build classrooms for career, technical, and vocational education courses; and to improve, expand, modernize and construct classrooms and facilities at Carlmont, Menlo-Atherton, Sequoia, and Woodside High Schools and other district sites.”
• On the list: $11.2 million

East Side Union High School District

• 2014: $113.2 million approved by 68 percent of voters “to increase student computer access; upgrade educational software; keep pace with 21st century technological innovations; and implement statewide testing requirements at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, Adult-Ed, alternative and District charter schools.”
• 2012: $120 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to upgrade computer/science labs; improve security/safety; repair, equip, and construct classrooms/facilities at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, and District adult, alternative, and charter schools; and acquire property for new schools.”
• On the list: $5 million

Franklin-McKinley School District

• 2010: $50 million approved by 70 percent of voters “to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology, maximize energy efficiency to save money, improve student learning for local elementary school students by acquiring, upgrading, constructing, equipping classrooms, sites/facilities, science/computer labs, replacing aging roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation/electrical systems, improving fire alarms, school security/earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $511,489

Rincon Valley Union School District

• 2014: $35 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to continue critical renovation, modernization and safety upgrades to District schools, add classrooms to avoid overcrowding, make needed upgrades to libraries, science and computer labs, improve access to classroom technology, improve energy efficiency to save money, and renovate, construct, acquire classrooms, sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $1.47 million

Windsor Unified School District

• 2008: $50 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to build new classrooms to relieve severe overcrowding, replace aging portables with permanent classrooms, build science labs, upgrade classroom computers and technology and to secure state matching funds.”
• On the list: $2.8 million

According to the overview, the conference version of the budget “carefully balances the need for additional public investment in child care, education, health care and other programs, with the necessity of maintaining the state’s fiscal stability through increased reserves and debt reduction.” These priorities include actions that will:

• “Benefit educational programs from pre-school through college, through:
  • “Investments of significant resources in early childhood education that will expand capacity, increase rates for services, and ensure a sound budgetary footing for the childcare program.
  • “Increased resources for K-12 education directed to the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, and more funds for educator training and adult education.
  • “Additional resources and improvements for the state’s higher education programs and segments by adopting greater support services, increasing enrollment slots for California residents, and CalGrant expansions.
• “Improve California’s health care system by increasing Medi-Cal provider rates, restoring most optional Medi-Cal benefits, and adding funding for specific specialized programs.
• “Provide resources for a new state Earned Income Tax Credit, consistent with the governor’s plan, which will provide a limited refundable tax credit for very low-income, wage-earning families.”

As detailed above, the Legislature’s version of the budget allocates total General Fund expenditures of $117.5 billion for 2015-16, which is about $2.2 billion more than Governor Jerry Brown’s May Revise. The budget includes total reserves of $5.7 billion, which includes $4.2 billion in the Prop. 2 “rainy day fund” and $1.5 billion in the regular budget reserve.

According to a prepared statement from the Assembly Democratic Caucus, the conference version of the budget “adds another $700 million over what the governor proposed for schools”:

• “Increases Prop. 98 funding for 2015-16 by $8.2 billion more than was provided in 2014-15 budget.
• “Expands Early Education funding by an ongoing amount of $577 million. In the budget year, the total cost will be $409 million, this includes:
  • “$148 million for preschool and quality rating activities within Proposition 98.
  • “$261 million for child care and preschool programs outside of Prop. 98.”

California community colleges and state universities will also receive increased funding:

• “Increases funding for the CSU by $107 million, an increase of $70 million over the May Revision. This increase will grow to about $150 million over the next few years, allowing CSU to increase enrollment and speed graduation times.
• “Provides $25 million increase for the UC, but makes the funds contingent upon UC increasing enrollment of California students by 5,000 over the next two years, capping enrollments of out of state students and only using state financial aid for in state students.
• “Increases the Cal Grant B stipend by $150, increases the number of Competitive Cal Grants awards by 16,000, eliminates the planned cut to Cal Grants for non-profit colleges, and funds the Middle Class Scholarship to cut tuition by 20 percent for CSU and UC students in the 2015-16 year.
• “Provides major increase for Community Colleges including a $38 million Cal Grant B increase for Community College Students.”

Regarding health care, the new budget will restore 5 percent of the “AB97 Medi-Cal rates cut for dental care immediately and the rest of Medi-Cal services on April 1, 2016.” In addition, funding has been allocated toward Medi-Cal services for children, regardless of immigration status. Previously optional Medi-Cal benefits have been restored, and Developmental Disability Services rates are increased by 5 percent for targeted services and 2.5 percent for all other services.

Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said in a prepared statement:

“Our legislative budget is on time, balanced, and great news for schools. Our budget includes $5.7 billion in reserves, about $1 billion more than the governor’s May Revision reserves, and an additional $760 million in debt payment, along with targeted investments to ensure economic growth and the well-being of our residents. This budget increases access to higher education for California students, adds childcare options for working families, creates an earned-income tax credit for working people, and provides help for Californians dealing with the drought.”

Despite the fanfare, Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, R-San Dimas, urged caution in a release earlier this week:

“This budget deal negotiated by the legislative Democrats uses revenues projections that are higher than the governor’s May revenue projection by $3.2 billion. This is a risky move. I am afraid legislative Democrats want to spend money that may not exist and that once again will push our state into budget deficits down the road.

 

“Senate Republicans continue to press for a responsible, balanced budget. However, the ball is in the hands of the majority party in the Legislature, the Democrats. They can join the governor and Senate Republicans to continue to rebuild the Golden State’s financial health or they can continue to spend money we do not have, which ultimately would put our state financial outlook at risk.”

Both houses will vote on legislation reflecting the committee’s decisions, Senate Bill 69 and Assembly Bill 93, on Monday, June 15.

By Chris Reed

The news that Gov. Jerry Brown appears to have mostly gotten his way on school funding changes is likely to be presented as a dramatic victory for the people who believe helping struggling English learners is the key challenge facing California education.

But it’s one thing to believe that this is the key challenge, as I do, and another thing entirely to think that what’s being done in response will work or result in significant change. Why the skepticism? Here goes:

Combine unproven theory and confused governor …

1. The proposal builds off the belief that school quality is a function of school spending. If that were true, than schools would have gotten much better in the last 30 years. The 1983 “Nation at Risk” report triggered the modern education reform movement and yielded a big boost in per-pupil, inflation-adjusted spending.  It hasn’t led to the broad gains this simplistic theory would yield, and often hasn’t resulted in any progress at all.

2. Even if school officials come up with promising ways to bring improved instruction to struggling English learners, they could be undercut by Gov. Jerry Brown’s incoherent, ad hoc education policies — policies that are painful in their naiveté about what happens when school boards are “empowered.” As noted here before, the governor believes …

“… more money and ‘subsidiarity’ — essentially, smart and thoughtful local control — are the keys to improving schools. The governor was asked why he thought local control would work better than it did before the reforms triggered by the “Nation at Risk” report in the 1980s and No Child Left Behind in the 2000s, given that a key factor driving those reforms was that local control often led to a focus on adult employees instead of on students.

“Brown responded by ridiculing ‘top down’ policies that presumed people in Washington or Sacramento are wiser than ‘the teacher, the principal, the superintendent and the school board.’

“This is a talking point, not a policy. … When unions run school districts, ‘top down’ education policies are often the only way to protect the interests of students.”

… with intransigent unions and you don’t have a encouraging picture

3. Even if school officials come up with promising ways to bring improved instruction to struggling English learners, they could be undercut by the union power that Jerry Brown either ignores or is oblivious to.

The example of the Stull Act can’t be brought up enough. A 1971 state law requires that student performance be part of teacher evaluations. It doesn’t say it may be. It says it must be. Yet the law was simply ignored in most California districts until 2012, when a successful lawsuit forced Los Angeles Unified to begin, yunno, following state law.

You’ve heard of jury nullification. The is local teacher union nullification. Instead of honoring a clearly written state law, school district after school district has adopted teacher evaluation processes that routinely result in 99 percent of second-year teachers getting tenure and that conclude nearly all teachers are above average or downright great.

So when the state budget is passed on Friday, and the back-slapping begins about the new era in California education, feel free to groan. The success of the new funding formula depends on a simpleminded theory about school quality that has 30 years of history going against it. It depends on the follow-through of a governor who offers incoherent and contradictory comments about education. And it depends on the cooperation of teacher unions who have a history of not giving a damn about struggling students — at least if it means teachers will be judged on how much they actually help those struggling students.