Seeing teachers last week picketing in downtown Sebastopol and other teachers filling seats in front of school board meetings in Windsor, Cloverdale and Healdsburg reminds us we are beginning another school budget cycle. And this being Valentine’s Day also reminds us that our most cherished sweethearts are our children. There’s no better treat we could give our children and their teachers than more support for local education.
Are we really skimping on school support and teacher salaries, as the Sebastopol teachers claimed with banners that read “You can’t put students first if you put teachers last”? Is it true California teachers are the worst paid in the entire United States? Are local taxpayers willing to spend more on teacher salaries? And, if so, where can that money come from?
As always, in matters of public funding and balancing government spending, the answers are not so simple. A few history lessons and timely reminders might help everyone’s understanding about how California has become one of the lowest ranked states in the nation for school and teacher support.
Once upon a time, California and its schools were the envy of the nation. That was before the economy was wrecked by rampant inflation and runaway property taxes in the late 1970s. A taxpayer revolt led to Prop. 13, which froze property taxes to 1 percent annually.
Before that local schools were supported by local property taxes. Schools with high property values were well funded, but schools in low-property-value districts, like inner cities or remote rural areas, fared poorly.
Several court cases (Serano vs. Priest) and voter propositions (Prop. 13, Prop. 4 and Prop. 98) led to the transfer from reliable local property tax funding to more volatile state control.
Whether today’s school parents, property owners and local teachers know it or not, they have inherited a funding formula that has led to the largest class sizes in the country. According to multiple sets of data combining cost of living, tax levels and actual teacher pay, California schools receive only 72 percent of the national average for public education funding.
The average per pupil expenditure last year was $10,786, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. While Sonoma County students and classrooms receive close to this amount, the figure does not account for the higher cost of living. The average Sebastopol teacher is reported to be earning $66,000, plus benefits. That’s a pretty good wage for Mississippi or Minnesota but not so good in our Bay Area.
A recent independent study, partly sponsored by EdSource.org, found schools lacking $22 billion in essential per year funding. That would be on top of the $97.2 billion already allocated to California schools. The missing money would equal $120 per pupil. Nobody knows where that much money could come from.
Because most local school funding control was lost over 40 years ago, most answers must now come from Sacramento. One emerging suggestion is to revisit Prop. 13. If commercial property and other income properties were taxed at higher levels than the 1 percent annual increment, billions of dollars would be available to fund schools the way they once were.
There’s a reason California is the only state where local school districts depend on special parcel taxes. California has become a low-property-tax state with a high cost of living. Local property taxes that once went directly to local school districts now go to Sacramento. No one has to be told that not all of those taxes get returned.
There are 4,000 teachers teaching 70,000 students in 179 schools in Sonoma County. They all share some dismal statistics, such as having among the largest class sizes in the nation and the highest impact from unpaid pension funds.
With a new administration in Sacramento and lots of teachers ready to march, this could be the year we take concrete steps to deliver loving Valentine’s to all our students and classrooms by next year.
— Rollie Atkinson
