Giving context to the externalities caused by Proposition 13 on public education, and identifying causal relationships between data are necessary components to an objective analysis of Proposition 13. Prior to implementation of Proposition 13, the state of California saw significant increases in property tax revenue collection “with the share of state and local revenues derived from property taxes increasing from 34% at the turn of the decade to 44% in 1978 (Schwartz 1998).” [1] The immediate effect of the passage of Proposition 13 on state budgets saw a sharp decrease in both state and local tax collection a year into implementation [2]. Since the 1970’s there has been a steady decline, with moderate increases from 1999-2008, in school spending as a share of the economy in California while simultaneously rising in the rest of the United States during this same time period according to the National Education Association [2]. A year prior to implementation of Proposition 13 (1977-1978), California’s school spending equaled 3.76% of the state personal income while that of the rest of the U.S. equaled 4.20%. Within the decade of implementation, California’s school spending as a percentage of income decreased, reaching “3.17% in fiscal year 1983-1984. [2] UCSD Economics professor Julian Betts states: “What all this means for spending is that starting around 1978-1979 we saw a sharp reduction in spending on schools. We fell compared to other states dramatically, and we still haven’t really caught up to other states.” [3] From 1977, in California there has been a steady growth of class sizes compared to the national average, “which have been decreasing since 1970.” [2] The shortage in funds translated to decreased spending per student in the years following passage of Proposition 13. During the 1970’s, school spending per student was almost equal to the national average. Using discount rate, “measured in 1997-1998 dollars, California spent about $100 more per capita on its public schools in 1969-1970 than did the rest of the country." [4] Since 1981-1982, California consistently has spent less per student than the rest of the U.S. as demonstrated by data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis [2] and by the Public Policy Institute of California [4]This has resulted in increased pupil-to-teacher ratios in K-12 public schools in California. Professor Betts observes that “pupil-teacher ratios start to skyrocket in the years immediately after 1978, and a huge gap opens up between pupil-teacher rations here and in the rest of the country, and we still haven’t recovered from that." [3]

  1. ^ H, McCubbins, Colin; D, McCubbins, Mathew (2010-02-03). "Proposition 13 and The California Fiscal Shell Game". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 2 (2). doi:10.5070/P2P881. ISSN 1944-4370.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b c d e Kaplan, Jonathan (June 2010). "Race to the Bottom? California's Support for Schools Lags the Nation" (PDF). calbudgetcenter.org. California Budget & Policy Center. Retrieved 9 November 2016.
  3. ^ a b Walsh, Maureen Cavanaugh, Natalie. "Sorting Out Prop 13's Impact On Education". KPBS Public Media. Retrieved 2016-11-16.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b "For Better or For Worse? School Finance Reform in California (PPIC Publication)". www.ppic.org. Retrieved 2016-11-17.