Equity advocates seek to freeze $3B in school funds

freeze school – Equity advocates behind Rodriguez v. State of California plan to ask a Superior Court judge to suspend more than $3 billion in voter-approved modernization funding so the court can rule on claims that the state’s matching system favors wealthy districts. Plain

By Friday. a packed stack of paperwork will land on Superior Court Judge Patrick McKinney’s desk—along with a request that could immediately change how California’s school-building money moves. The plaintiffs in Rodriguez v. the State of California want the court to suspend more than $3 billion of voter-approved funding to modernize school facilities until the judge hears full arguments and issues a verdict.

The case asks for something concrete: a preliminary injunction that would prevent a state agency from processing hundreds of district applications. Attorneys for the 17 plaintiffs—parents. teachers. and students. including lead plaintiff Miliani Rodriguez. a senior at Coachella Valley High School—say the current system denies low-wealth districts a fair share of modernization funding.

The state match. they argue. compounds inequality when districts with weaker property tax bases fall behind on a first-come. first-served system for funding. Without an injunction. they say. about $3 billion would be parceled out in the background while the lawsuit plays out—a process they say could take years. with a multi-week trial not yet scheduled.

It’s hard to miss why the plaintiffs are pushing for speed. In the motion for an injunction. they describe school conditions that they say cause immediate and ongoing educational harm—malfunctioning toilets. leaking roofs. failing electrical systems. and malfunctioning heating and cooling systems. They say summer heat and winter cold sap energy, limit access to academic opportunities, and drive teacher attrition.

Amy Campbell-Blair. an organizer for the True North Organizing Network and a mother of two children in Del Norte Unified. put a human face on the allegations. “I would love for state officials to come see where our students are going to school every day and the conditions for our staff. too. ” she told EdSource. “They’d see chipped tiles on the gym floor we haven’t been able to replace and when it rains. there’s mold. It’s not a great smell.”.

Campbell-Blair said she believes district officials are trying, but that the scale of needed repairs outstrips what districts can afford. “I feel like they (district officials) are doing their best,” she continued. “They have to triage. The amount of money to update and make sure everything was up to where it needed to be is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.” She said the money is beyond reach for her district.

The plaintiffs’ request also comes with a specific compromise built into their plan. They are proposing to exempt $800 million for several hundred projects already approved by the allocation board. The lawsuit does not target state funding assistance for new school construction. which analyses say does not follow the same distribution pattern that plaintiffs charge is discriminatory.

Rodriguez v. California is challenging about $3.2 billion of the $4 billion earmarked for upgrading or replacing school buildings from Proposition 2, a $10 billion bond voters approved in November 2024.

If Judge McKinney grants the injunction. it would block the state agency from processing the hundreds of district modernization applications—at least temporarily—until the court rules on the merits. If he denies it, the fight—or settlement—would shift to the next governor, because Gov. Gavin Newsom would leave office in January. In that scenario. the state would continue granting hundreds of districts hundreds of millions of dollars in building assistance while the case continues.

State attorneys say that timing matters. Attorneys representing the State Allocations Board. which oversees distribution of State Facilities Program funding. and the Office of Public School Construction opposed the motion. They argued the petition does not satisfy the legal requirements for an injunction—specifically that the motion would probably succeed on the merits and that the balance of harms would favor delay. They also said an injunction would bottle up matching money districts are counting on.

In their response, state attorneys wrote that the plaintiffs’ “blithe argument fails to recognize, and dramatically understates, the immediate and tangible harm a preliminary injunction would cause.”

Behind the courtroom fight is a long-running question about how much inequality is baked into facility funding. The state provides aid to operate most school districts through a formula that offers a uniform base amount statewide. with extra money for high-needs students. But construction and upkeep of school facilities have remained largely a local responsibility. funded by property taxes that vary widely across California.

That distinction traces back to Serrano v. Priest. The California Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s ruled that relying on local property taxes produced unconstitutionally wide disparities in per student funding when property values varied dramatically. Those Serrano decisions did not apply to school facilities’ construction and upkeep. leaving the facilities side of the system to local inequalities.

The lawsuit argues that state modernization aid, since 1998, has not corrected that imbalance. State aid has contributed limited funding—about 20% of the cost of school construction over 25 years—on a matching basis funded through state bonds. For modernization projects, the state covers 60% and local districts cover 40% for qualifying work, while new construction is split 50-50.

Plaintiffs say multiple mechanics keep wealthier districts in front. They argue that large districts and property-wealthy districts can afford in-house construction staff and consultants to line up earlier for money. They say property-poor districts wait years for funding and face escalating construction prices.

They also argue property-wealthy districts can build bigger projects at lower tax rates than property-poor districts. And they say districts with smaller tax bases are more likely to hit the state cap on tax rates for issuing bonds. limiting the size of the bonds they can issue—so many small districts can only patch up older buildings rather than replace them.

A UC Berkeley analysis by the Center for Cities+Schools reported that the wealthiest districts received 2 1/2 times the amount of state modernization aid per student than the most property-poor districts through 2023. The center also found that the disproportionate pattern continued for the first batch of projects approved under the new Prop. 2 bond.

In their writing, authors Sara Hinkly and Jeff Vincent stated: “California K-12 school facility funding remains fundamentally wealth-driven: Proposition 2’s reforms are only marginal.”

State attorneys deny discrimination. They say all districts have access to modernization money. In the latest state bond, the state also increased criteria for districts like Del Norte to apply for hardship funding that can cover the full cost of a project.

But plaintiffs’ attorneys argue the hardship program doesn’t bridge the gap enough. They say the hardship program has funded 8.4% of modernization projects since its inception. University of Miami Professor Bruce Baker, whom plaintiffs hired, agreed in a written declaration.

The plaintiffs’ legal team has emphasized a principle they say the court should enforce: “It’s a state obligation to ensure equitable access to decent school facilities for all children.”

The districts named in the lawsuit include Salinas City Elementary School District; Lynbrook Unified in Los Angeles County; Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified and Parlier Unified in Fresno County; Stockton Unified; Calexico Unified in Imperial County; and Coachella Valley Unified in Riverside County.

The plaintiffs are supported by three organizations: True North Organizing Network. an Indigenous-led nonprofit based in Eureka and Crescent City; Alianza Coachella Valley. an education justice nonprofit based in Riverside and Imperial counties; and Inland Congregations United for Change. based in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The motion describes a system that. in plaintiffs’ view. compounds inequality by operating on a first-come. first-served basis and thus discriminates against children in low-wealth districts by denying them the opportunity for an equal education. Plaintiffs argue that the “stark and enduring disparity” would continue—where “students in high-wealth districts attend modern. well‑equipped schools. while students in low-wealth districts attend facilities with unsafe and degrading conditions.”.

Judge McKinney’s decision Friday will come down not just to the facts in the lawsuit, but to competing urgency. Plaintiffs want an immediate pause so the court can decide the case before additional billions move through the system. State attorneys want applications to keep moving so districts that are counting on matching funds aren’t forced to wait.

Either way, the timing now matters for schools and students far beyond a courtroom filing. If the injunction is granted. districts will sit with unanswered funding decisions as the case proceeds toward a trial that could take weeks. and potentially years if litigated without an injunction. If it’s denied, the modernization money will continue flowing under Prop. 2 as the lawsuit drags on—until at least the next governor decides whether to press forward or reach a settlement.

Rodriguez v. State of California school modernization funding Proposition 2 State Facilities Program State Allocations Board Office of Public School Construction California education policy equitable school facilities Alameda County Superior Court Patrick McKinney Gavin Newsom Miliani Rodriguez Del Norte Unified hardship funding