California sued over bond program that sends more money to fix facilities in wealthy school districts – Westside Connect

Report on Legal Challenge to California’s School Facility Funding Program and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Inequitable Funding and a Failure to Meet Global Standards

A lawsuit has been filed against the State of California, alleging that its School Facility Program for subsidizing school construction creates profound inequalities, undermining progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The legal action, Miliani R. v. State of California, contends that the state’s reliance on local property wealth to fund school renovations systematically disadvantages students in low-wealth communities. This practice directly contravenes the principles of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by creating a system where district wealth, rather than student need, determines the quality of educational infrastructure.

Systemic Disparities and the Violation of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The core of the lawsuit is the argument that California’s funding model perpetuates and deepens systemic inequality, a direct challenge to the aims of SDG 10. The system disproportionately harms districts with a high concentration of low-income students, English learners, and Black, Hispanic, and Native American students.

Case Study in Disparity: Lynwood vs. Sunnyvale

The experiences of Superintendent Gudiel Crosthwaite, who has led both Lynwood Unified (a low-wealth district) and Sunnyvale School District (a high-wealth district), illustrate the stark contrast:

• Lynwood Unified: Characterized by one of the lowest amounts of taxable property per student, the district struggles to address failing infrastructure, including inadequate HVAC systems in extreme heat. A recent $80 million bond will be insufficient for renovation needs and will cost property owners $50 per $100,000 of assessed value.
• Sunnyvale School District: Located in Silicon Valley with one of the highest amounts of taxable property per student, the district boasts modern, well-equipped facilities. A recent $214 million bond for further upgrades will cost homeowners only $15 per $100,000 of assessed value.

This disparity highlights how the state’s matching grant formula benefits wealthier districts that can raise larger bonds, thereby receiving a greater share of state funds and exacerbating the inequality the SDGs seek to eliminate.

Impact on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The lawsuit details how inadequate facilities create learning environments that fail to meet the standards for safety and effectiveness outlined in SDG Target 4.a, which calls for building and upgrading education facilities to be safe, inclusive, and effective. Furthermore, the conditions present direct risks to student health, undermining SDG 3.

Documented Facility Deficiencies in Low-Wealth Districts

The 39-page declaration outlines numerous examples of deplorable conditions across plaintiff districts:

1. Health and Safety Hazards (SDG 3):
   • Leaking portables at Lincoln Elementary in Salinas, exposing children to puddles and black mold.
   • Poor ventilation and malfunctioning air conditioning at Coachella Valley High, creating unhealthy conditions during extreme temperatures.
   • Buckets used to catch rain in classrooms across Lynwood Unified.
2. Barriers to Quality Education (SDG 4):
   • Outdated and inadequate science labs at Edison High School in Stockton, limiting instruction.
   • Cramped cafeterias and a lack of shaded outdoor spaces in Lynwood, forcing students into rain or sun.
   • Unusable athletic fields and playgrounds closed due to safety hazards in Stockton and Coachella.

Legal Framework and the Pursuit of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The lawsuit seeks to hold state institutions accountable for creating and maintaining a discriminatory system, aligning with the objectives of SDG 16 to develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. It builds upon the legal precedent of Serrano v. Priest, which addressed inequities in school operational funding but did not extend to capital expenses.

Call for Institutional Reform

The plaintiffs, a coalition of students, parents, teachers, and organizations, are demanding a complete overhaul of the School Facility Program. The lawsuit argues that minor adjustments, such as those in the recent Proposition 2 bond measure, have failed to alter the systemic inequities. The existing “first-come, first-served” matching system continues to favor wealthy districts with the resources to apply for funds quickly. The legal action demands that the court order the Legislature and Governor to create a new system based on student need and equity, thereby ensuring the state’s institutions fulfill their constitutional promise of an equitable education for all students and align their policies with global sustainable development commitments.

Analysis of SDGs in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The entire article revolves around the quality of the educational environment. It argues that rundown, unsafe, and poorly equipped school buildings in low-wealth districts prevent students from receiving a quality education, directly connecting to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • A central theme of the article is the vast inequality in school facilities between wealthy and poor districts. The lawsuit explicitly charges that the state’s funding system “perpetuates vast inequalities” and disproportionately harms “low-income students, English learners, and Black, Hispanic and Native American students.” This directly addresses the goal of reducing inequality within a country.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article describes numerous health and safety hazards in schools, such as “black mold,” “poor ventilation,” “scorching sun” due to lack of shade, and “rats.” These conditions pose a direct threat to the physical health and well-being of students and staff, linking the issue to the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article is about a lawsuit filed against the state of California to reform its School Facility Program. This action represents a pursuit of justice and an effort to build more effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The lawsuit challenges a state policy that is argued to be inequitable and discriminatory in its effects, connecting to the goal of providing access to justice and reforming institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • This target is directly addressed. The article details the failure to provide safe and effective learning environments, citing examples like “leaking” portables, “malfunctioning air conditioning,” “outdated science labs,” and “playgrounds closed because of safety hazards.” The lawsuit’s goal is to overhaul the funding system to enable the upgrading of these facilities.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The article highlights that the current system creates exclusionary conditions for students based on their economic status and ethnicity. It states that property-poor districts, which suffer from the funding formula, “disproportionately enroll low-income students, English learners, and Black, Hispanic and Native American students,” thus preventing their full inclusion in an equitable educational system.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • The lawsuit described in the article aims to eliminate a state policy (the School Facility Program’s funding formula) that results in unequal opportunities and outcomes for students. The article quotes the lawsuit saying, “It is district wealth, not student need, that too often dictates whether students have access to safe, functional facilities,” pointing to a policy that needs reform to ensure equal opportunity.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Disparity in per-student state funding for facilities.
   • The article explicitly mentions this as an indicator, citing a UC Berkeley study that found “districts with the most assessed value per student on average received two and a half times more state funding than districts… with the least state funding per student.” Measuring the reduction of this funding gap would indicate progress towards Target 10.3.
2. Condition of physical school infrastructure.
   • The article implies several indicators by describing the deplorable conditions. Progress could be measured by tracking the proportion of schools with:
     • Functional and safe HVAC systems (addressing “poor ventilation and malfunctioning air conditioning”).
     • Buildings free from leaks and mold (addressing “portables that leak” and “black mold”).
     • Modern and functional instructional spaces (addressing “outdated science labs”).
     • Safe outdoor and indoor common areas (addressing “playgrounds closed because of safety hazards” and “cramped cafeterias”).

     Tracking improvements in these areas would measure progress toward Target 4.a.

3. Disparity in local fundraising capacity.
   • The article implies this indicator by contrasting the tax base in different districts. It compares Lynwood, with “one of the lowest amounts of taxable property per student,” to Sunnyvale, with “one of the highest.” The disparity in the tax rates required to pass bonds ($50 per $100,000 in Lynwood vs. $15 per $100,000 in Sunnyvale) is a clear metric of this inequality. A more equitable state funding formula would aim to mitigate the impact of this disparity, which could be measured over time.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: westsideconnect.com