Don’t Be Fooled By False Narratives: Prop 15 will Help California Schools and Community Colleges, It won’t Raise Home Owner Property Taxes

For the past 42 years, two words have had the ability to almost always start an argument in California.  Those two words are, “Prop 13.”  Passed by voters in 1978, Proposition 13 requires that residential, commercial and industrial properties be taxed based on purchase price rather than current market value. Simple, right?  No, not really.

For many people in California, Prop 13 is something close to sacred.  These people will tell you that it is the only reason they can own a home, the only reason they can afford to live in California.  And any attempt to change Prop 13 is universally rejected by these folks — universally seen as a means to raise taxes and undermine home ownership.

On the flip side of the coin, others look at the history of Prop 13 as a primary reason that California schools and students have suffered.  Quite simply, by blocking the ability to tax   based on real property values, schools have been underfunded for decades. In 1978 California’s per pupil expenditures was above the national average; today it is far below. While calculations differ, California’s poor standing is clear. States like New York spend over $10,000 more per student than California. This from a state that prides itself in being a leader in science and technology. 

Proposition 15 on the November 2020 ballot offers a solution to both homeowner and education advocate concerns.  In essence, it leaves in place the tax calculation for homeowners, and for properties owned for commercial agriculture.  However, phased in over time, most commercial and industrial properties would be taxed based on market value.  Many argue that this is a fair solution given that homes often change hands, each time resetting their tax base to the current market value, while commercial and industrial properties often are held over time, sometimes for decades, allowing their tax base to stay low.  In fact, advocates of Proposition 15 claim that between $8 and $12.5 billion per year would be generated, with 40 percent distributed to school and community college districts.

You will likely see raging arguments coming in social media and in (appropriately distanced) neighborhood discussions. Expect deliberately misleading posts on social media and ads paid for by big corporate and industry groups claiming the downfall of home ownership in California. With the election still months away, posts on Facebook incorrectly declaring Californians will see soaring home property taxes are already appearing. But like all political discussions, it’s a good idea to know the facts and keep a clear head: Passing Proposition 15 could provide a long needed lift to California schools and community colleges, and it will not raise residential property taxes.

For more about Proposition 15 and 13: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)

Author: Lisa S. Romero

Publicly Subsidized Religious Instruction: The New Standard

On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in ESPINOZA ET AL. v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ET AL. The case has important implications for school choice, educational tax credits, and the separation of church and state.

US Supreme Court upholds religious liberty, forbids religious ...

A Brief Synopsis of the Case

In 2015, the Montana Legislature extended up to $150 in tax credits to any tax payer who donated to a student scholarship organization (aka Big Sky Scholarships). Families with financial hardships or children with handicaps could apply for a Big Sky Scholarship and designate a private school of choice to which Big Sky would directly send (publicly subsidized) funding. Thirteen private schools received funding and twelve of those were religious schools. Because the Montana constitution bars any “direct or indirect” aid to schools controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination” the State Supreme Court invalidated the program.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the State Supreme Court decision, ruling that the Montana Supreme Court discriminated against the parents and schools based on religion, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. According to Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, “a state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Sweeping Implications

This case has sweeping implications; 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provide educational tax credits or vouchers. Going forward, these states and any other state that provides an educational tax credit is compelled to subsidize religious schools— even if the state constitution expressly forbids it.

With this ruling, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have clearly signaled the future for the public funding of religious schools and, we should expect more rulings that further erode the separation of church and state.

Read the full decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf

Dissertating in America 2020

It is pretty much given that an overwhelming number of us have been touched by COVID-19 and by the recent demands for action on social justice in America.  With masks in place, many have marched in cities and neighborhoods for justice, and worried about our children who are marching. At home, many dining room tables are now home offices, with parents vying for internet time with their kids. In place of face-to-face interactions, learning has moved online, graduation ceremonies postponed or virtual. Millions of workers have lost jobs and businesses have closed.  Countless elders are isolated and alone in senior care homes. We all feel the impacts.

I recently spent a weekend with about 20 people who are all feeling their own set of impacts.  Each of them has passed all the prerequisites for a Doctorate in Educational Leadership and are all starting dissertations. And, they too are feeling the impact. Some planned dissertations based on classroom observations, but now they have no classrooms to observe.  Some had detailed plans for interviews with educational leaders, but now interviews must be rethought.  Others had planned up-close observations of educators, but there is no up-close now.  Some have had to rethink basic assumptions about the role of education in a just society. 

At the same time, many of these students are having to quickly adapt in other parts of their lives, perhaps learning to teach or otherwise work on line. Perhaps they spend most of their days in on-line meetings, with preschoolers in the same room, demanding, needing, and vying for attention.  Some have parents who they worry about and feel the need to care for while unable to actually visit with them. Some face lay-offs or pay-cuts, on top of feeling the sting of racial injustice in America. Their stories are compelling and left me feeling a bit of second-hand trauma. 

By its very nature, a dissertation is demanding. It requires digging deep, original thinking, and innovation.  After all, a dissertation asks the writer to establish both new research and new findings.  It is not regurgitation, but instead original research that adds to our collective knowledge. The challenge is always there, but today’s students need to stretch a bit farther and lift a bit more. In my experience, as in many other aspects of life, being brainy is a great advantage in writing a dissertation; but the real advantage is in being resilient.  Facing problems head on, and not being dissuaded.  Acknowledging adversity and finding a way through it. After spending most of the weekend on line with these students, I know they are up to the task.