Property Taxes, Public Schools, and Proposition 13: Challenging the Trade-Off Between Stability and Inequity

Samantha Scott
Jun 22
2 min read

In California, a child’s future can depend more on their zip code than their potential. Wealthy neighborhoods offer high-quality schools with strong teachers and modern resources. But in low-income communities, students face overcrowded classrooms, outdated materials, and underpaid teachers.

This gap isn’t a coincidence. It’s the result of Proposition 13, a 1978 law that capped property taxes to keep homeowners from being priced out of their homes—but also severely undercut public school funding.

What Is Proposition 13?

Prop 13 capped property taxes at 1% of a home’s value and slowed tax increases. It helped protect seniors and middle-class homeowners during a time of skyrocketing housing prices. But it also slashed property tax revenue by 60% in one year, draining $7 billion from schools and local services (Christopher).

Now, California’s richest districts receive almost twice as much per student as the poorest ones (Lafortune). That difference in funding impacts everything: class size, resources, support services, and teacher quality.

How It Hurts Low-Income Schools

Prop 13 shifted school funding power from local communities to the state, leaving low-income schools with little control and fewer resources. California dropped from 5th to 47th in the nation in per-student spending (Kirby), and many schools now struggle to provide even the basics.

On top of that, low funding fuels a teacher shortage. Teachers in low-income schools often face low pay, large class sizes, and burnout. Many leave mid-year or switch districts, leaving students with less experienced educators. This constant turnover hurts learning, especially for younger students who need consistency.

Why Some Still Support It

Supporters say Prop 13 brings stability. It protects homeowners—especially seniors—from sudden tax hikes and helps families stay in their homes. And it’s true: for many Californians, that stability is essential.

But protecting homeowners shouldn't come at the cost of kids’ education. And there’s a better way.

A Path Forward

Reforming Prop 13 doesn’t mean repealing it. California can:

Reassess taxes on large commercial properties
Redistribute funds more equitably
Support school choice options for low-income students

Research shows that better school funding leads to higher graduation rates, better job outcomes, and lower poverty (Lafortune). When we invest in students, everyone benefits.

The Bottom Line

Yes, Proposition 13 offers financial stability. But it also fuels deep education inequities. California can protect homeowners and give every student a fair shot at success.

A child’s future shouldn’t be decided by their zip code. It’s time to update a system that leaves too many behind.

If you want to learn more here is a link to my full research paper: