The stakes are high for the upcoming election—not only because of the hotly contested presidential race, but because schools are asking voters to approve billions of dollars in spending.
The state of California is pushing for $10 billion to fund school infrastructure after failing to secure support for $15 billion four years ago. The nation’s eighth-largest district is seeking voter support for a $4.4 billion bond for improving existing school facilities and building new ones. And dozens of smaller individual districts hope residents trust them to make big investments and pay back debts on time and in full.
Districts have two distinct categories of spending: operational, for everything from salaries and benefits to curriculum materials and instructional supplies; and capital, for longer-term infrastructure projects like building a new school, replacing outdated HVAC equipment, or retrofitting an old building with more modern technology.
Capital spending typically requires districts to take out a loan in the form of a bond, which accrues interest that must be repaid, typically over one to three decades. In most states, districts must win the support of a simple majority of voters before they can borrow money by issuing a bond. A handful of states have a higher threshold of support for school bond passage, up to a two-thirds majority, meaning bonds can fail even when they have majority support.
Public support for school bonds varies widely and depends on a large number of factors, both in and out of a district’s control.
For instance, bond elections that take place at the same time as presidential elections tend to have higher turnout, which could be a boon for school districts in supportive communities. But bond elections intersecting with national elections also draw a larger number of voters who don’t know much about the local school system, said Karin Kitchens, a professor of political science and education at Virginia Tech who has published several papers examining election results for local school districts, including for bonds, tax increases, and school board seats.
The wording of the ballot question also affects outcomes, Kitchens’ research has shown. The simpler the language, the more likely it is that voters understand how supporting an initiative will affect their property taxes, or what the benefits will be.
“The more complex it is, it does get harder to understand what the outcomes are,” she said.
Most bond elections don’t happen at the same time as general elections for public office. So far this year, voters nationwide have already approved slightly more than 1,000 bonds and rejected 319, according to SchoolBondFinder, a nationwide tracking tool from the Amos Group, which sells school finance data to districts.
That’s a passage rate of 76 percent—roughly equivalent to the passage rate in a typical year, according to the SchoolBondFinder archives.
Here’s a look at a few high-profile bond elections Education Week is watching this election season.
California
$8.5 billion for K-12 districts upfront, plus another $1.5 billion for community colleges. The state would pay back the bonds at an annual pace of $500 million for 35 years, according to the state legislative analyst’s office, which would add up to a total price tag of roughly $17.5 billion. The bond must receive approval from 55 percent of voters to pass.
Districts with maintenance or construction needs would secure voter support for a local bond, then request a funding match from the state. Districts with less capacity to generate local revenue would get a larger percentage from the state, up to 100 percent. Many districts are already preparing for the passage of the state bond by placing local bonds before voters in the coming weeks.
In 2020, the last time the state asked voters to support a school construction bond, 53 percent voted in favor, falling just shy of the 55 percent needed for passage. That one was for $15 billion; state officials hope the smaller price tag will convince more voters to sign off this time. Meanwhile, the $9 billion from a 2016 bond approved by slightly more than 55 percent of voters is on the verge of being depleted.
A large chunk of the money would be snapped up almost immediately. Districts have already secured approval for $3.4 billion worth of local bonds for which they’re hoping the state will contribute matching funds from a newly passed bond.
While public school advocates are generally happy to see proposals for increased investment in public schools, some were angry earlier this year that the state hadn’t done more to ensure that districts in rural and low-income areas had the easiest path to qualifying for matching funds from the state bond. Public Advocates, a civil rights law firm, even threatened to sue over the equity concerns.
Houston
$4.4 billion upfront. All told, over the next 30 years the district would spend $8.9 billion paying back debts associated with the bond.
The nation’s eighth-largest district wants to rebuild 22 elementary and middle schools, and renovate and expand another 16. Administrators also hope to move eight other schools out of their current buildings and into existing facilities where they’ll “co-locate” with other schools.
Houston last pitched a bond to voters in 2012—$1.89 billion, which passed with 69 percent of the vote. That’s a long time between bonds for a district of Houston’s size. But the district’s financial precarity in the ensuing years made administrators wary of going out to voters during that period.
The 190,000-student Houston district has experienced a tumultuous last year under state takeover, led by a superintendent, Mike Miles, who was appointed by the Texas Education Agency.
Miles’ tenure has drawn persistent criticism from parents and advocates, who have decried efforts to impose strict evaluation standards on principals and replace libraries with discipline centers, among other measures. The state education department is also probing allegations that Miles funneled millions of public tax dollars to a Colorado charter school network he manages.
With that baggage in mind, the district may face an uphill battle in convincing voters to support a massive investment package—particularly one that will displace some schools from their current location. Some progressive groups, typically in favor of increasing funding for schools, have come out against passing the bond.
“Ultimately, our union leaders, our members, don’t feel that it’s prudent to trust someone with a long history of mismanagement with the largest bond in Texas history,” Jay Malone, a spokesperson for the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation, which represents thousands of school workers in the Houston area, said in a statement earlier this month.
Kansas City, Kansas
$180 million.
This is the second time this year that the district has asked voters to support a bond. In April, 58 percent of voters rejected a proposed $420 million bond.
The average age of middle school buildings slated for replacement as part of the district’s facilities plan is 102, school district officials have said. The district reports some buildings have major issues with flooding, and others are so small that portable classrooms have been essential to fit all the enrolled students.
District leaders suspect property tax hikes that would have resulted from the passage of the April bond were responsible for its failure at the ballot box. This time, they’ve made sure to highlight that, while property taxes will rise slightly as a result of the bond, those increases will be offset by decreased costs elsewhere, including the library fund.
