Nearly two years after California voters approved billions of dollars in bond money to repair aging schools, demand has outstripped the available funds.
In fact, by the time voters went to the polls on Election Day 2024 to cast a ballot on Proposition 2, schools had already submitted enough project applications to max out the proceeds dedicated for K-12 school modernization in that $10 billion bond.
“The backlog of need is so high that… districts that are applying now are gonna have to wait for some future bond measure,” said Sara Hinkley, who studies facilities funding at UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools.
With Proposition 2 funding out of reach for the vast majority of school projects that aren’t already underway, this year’s midterm elections offer districts another chance to seek support from local voters. But some advocates say the state’s school facilities funding formula needs to be overhauled entirely.
What is a bond?
The majority of the money California’s 10,000 schools receive from the state every year supports students, staff salaries and other day-to-day expenses.
So when districts need to fix a leaky roof, replace AC units, upgrade aging portable classrooms or swap asphalt with green space, they often rely on voters to approve new funding through statewide and local ballot measures.
First, at the statewide level, you have ballot measures such as 2024’s Proposition 2.
The passage of Proposition 2 authorized the sale of $10 billion in bonds (basically, loans) to be paid back — with interest — from the state’s general fund. California will pay about $500 million a year for 35 years to settle the debt, according to the Legislative Analyst’s office.
The legislation that put Proposition 2 on the ballot also outlined how the $10 billion bond would be divided:
- $1.5 billion for community college facilities
- $3.3 billion for new construction
- $4 billion to modernize existing school facilities
- $600 million for charter school facilities
- $600 million for facilities related to career and technical education
Another thing Proposition 2 did was carve out pots of money for schools with fewer than 2,500 students, using up to 10% of the modernization fund and new construction fund — that's $730 million in total.
The money from Proposition 2 is distributed to school districts throughout the state in matching grants, meaning districts still bear a portion of the project cost.
To do this, school districts often ask voters to approve local bonds to raise money for renovations and new construction. The debt is paid back through property tax increases for a set period of time.
Who is involved in selecting a project?
After the election, there are multiple steps before money from Proposition 2 can make its way to school construction and modernization projects.
First, California’s governor and legislature decide how many bonds will be sold each year to generate the money for school repairs and construction.
Meanwhile schools are:
- Identifying what needs to be fixed or built
- Bringing projects to their bond oversight committee and the school board for approval
- Submitting projects to two separate state agencies:
Once those agencies approve a project’s plans, a district can submit an application for funding to another state agency called the Office of Public School Construction for another round of review.
Then the State Allocation Board, which is made up of state employees, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction and lawmakers, votes to fund the projects.
As of April 29, 2026, the board has allocated $1.3 billion for 325 different modernization and new construction projects — that’s 15% of the total value of Proposition 2 designated for K-12 schools.
Many of the schools waited years for funding; the majority submitted their applications in 2022 and several date to 2021.
Hinkley, with UC Berkeley, said it’s likely many of these projects were already completed and the districts will now be reimbursed, but that’s not the case with every district.
“If you can't afford to build it without state funds, obviously you're just sitting and waiting,” Hinkley said.
A select number of projects labeled “facility hardship” move through the pipeline faster than others. These projects are often related to natural disasters such as wildfires or seismic retrofits.
How are projects selected?
The board can also take action to move additional projects through the funding pipeline.
For example, as of March, there are 298 projects worth about $1.1 billion that have been board-approved, but have not yet been funded.
The board's agenda is also a window into the unmet need for school modernization funding because it includes a list of applications for projects that exceed the funding expected to be available through Proposition 2.
The “beyond bond authority” list includes 522 modernization projects worth $1.8 billion. The first application on this list was submitted Oct. 30, 2024, less than a week before the 2024 election.
“We don't have authority to even review applications that have come in when we don't have funding authorized for them,” said Rebecca Kirk, executive officer for the Office of Public School Construction and the State Allocation Board. “And so we just place them on a list.”
Is bond funding equitable?
Not every district gets the same amount of funding to fix up their schools, nor is the money distributed based on need. Instead, research shows the existing facilities funding system favors larger, more affluent school districts.
That’s because proceeds from state bonds are distributed as matching grants — the amount of funding is limited by how much districts can first raise themselves and that, in turn, is limited by the property value in their district and voters' willingness to approve additional taxes on that property.
Brenda Rivera is an alumna of Lynwood Unified and now a teacher and parent in the district. She said one ongoing challenge is the district’s aging roofs and the rain.
“That's one thing you dread. Am I gonna come in and is my room gonna be wet?” Rivera said.
The district passed an $80 million bond in 2024. Rivera said she’s seen improvements including new paint and air-conditioning units, but that she still notices the disparities between her school and those in wealthier communities.
That’s why she joined a lawsuit filed last fall aimed at reforming how the state funds school repairs.
“I hope that we're able to even out the playing field,” Rivera said. “That our schools are something that people wanna attend.”
Public Advocates, the nonprofit firm behind the suit, is seeking to stop additional modernization funding from being distributed until the case is resolved and filed a motion in March requesting a preliminary injunction.
Alicia Virani, a senior staff attorney with the firm, said the goal is to change how the money from the current bond is distributed, not wait until a future ballot measure is passed.
“Our concern was that the low wealth districts that are facing asbestos in every classroom that are facing leaks, that are dealing with toxic mold, that they would have to wait another 10 years for any money to be distributed equitably,” Virani said.
There is a hearing in the case scheduled for May 20.
What about local bonds?
In 2024, voters approved more than $45 billion in local bond funds for K-12 schools and community colleges, including nearly $17 billion in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
The largest local bond in the state was Los Angeles Unified’s $9 billion Measure US.
The district’s head of facilities broke down the spending plan for the measure in a presentation to the committee that oversees bond spending in February.
Approximately $7.8 billion is designated for facilities, including school modernization, cafeteria upgrades and updates to early education centers. The remaining $1.2 billion is set aside for information technology upgrades, school buses and oversight.
The district committed $605 million to rebuild Marquez and Palisades Elementaries, as well as the partially damaged and independently operated Palisades Charter High School.
How to track your local district’s spending
State law lays out several accountability measures for local school district bonds including:
- Independent, annual performance audits of bond-funded projects and spending
- The creation of an independent bond oversight committee that includes:
- At least seven members
- Representatives of the business community, taxpayers, and parents. School district employees, vendors, contractors, and consultants cannot be appointed.
Search for your district’s bond oversight committee website to see upcoming agendas, summaries of past meetings, audits and other information about how the district has spent bond funding.
You can also ask your school district if they have a facilities master plan. This document is typically created with community input, over the course of months or years, to plan renovation and construction projects.
Contact LAist
Have questions? Notice something amiss or want to share a story of success? Email me or on Signal where my username is @mdale.40. For instructions on getting started with Signal, see the app's support page.
