The Sentinel will be making recommendations leading up to the Nov. 5 election in many local races for public office and on the 10 state propositions.

Should the state of California borrow $10 billion to fund upgrades for thousands of aging public schools and community colleges?

That’s what is being asked of voters with Proposition 2, a bond measure that would provide $8.5 billion in funding for construction at TK-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges.

The last time school districts received a state funding boost for infrastructure improvements was through Prop. 51 in 2016, which authorized $9 billion in bonds. This money has now all run out, and districts are eager to start work on scores of already approved projects — totaling over $3.5 billion in estimated costs — that are awaiting funding.

The reality is that thousands of California school buildings, including many in Santa Cruz County, are in poor shape, with leaky roofs, broken air conditioning, peeling paint and other health and safety hazards. Many students attend classes in worn-out portables.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of students attend schools that don’t meet the state’s minimum safety standards. Research has shown that students who attend school in sub-standard facilities tend to have lower attendance rates, lower morale and lower achievement.

Unlike many other states, California does not pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream. Money comes entirely from state and local bonds. The state’s last school facilities bond, a $15 billion proposal in 2020, failed, leaving the state’s school repair account nearly empty.

Most major school districts in the state support Prop. 2 , which they say will provide direly needed dollars for overdue upgrades and ensure a safer learning environment for students.

The bond sets aside 10% of funding for smaller school districts, but some of these smaller districts say this isn’t enough money and doesn’t prioritize distribution based on equity and financial need.

Opponents, mainly anti-taxation advocates, say the state should include school repairs in its regular budget rather than turn to taxpayers, who are already overburdened. In addition, they argue that Prop. 2 would not directly impact students and that the state’s sliding scale for matching funds should be wider, with lower-income districts receiving a greater share of the funds.

Currently, the state doles out facilities funding through 50-50 matching grants, which means that districts that can raise a lot of money locally — usually higher-income areas — can get more state money. Affluent school districts can raise more money for repairs through local bonds because local property values are higher, generating more money through local property taxes.

Smaller and lower-income districts struggle to raise enough bond money to pay for school repairs, and often can’t pass local bonds. As a result, they rely entirely on state bond money.

The civil rights law firm Public Advocates has been pushing for a more equitable way to distribute state funding and has threatened to sue the state if it doesn’t adopt a wider sliding scale for distributing the money. Under Prop. 2’s scale, the state’s wealthiest districts would only get slightly less than its poorest.

Consider, though, that research shows modernized school facilities correlate with better test scores, higher attendance, and lower suspension rates; that there has been no new bond money going to school facilities since 2016; and there’s a massive need for modernization of old buildings and construction of new educational facilities across the state.

The League of Women Voters of California supports Prop. 2, while urging the state to create an equitable funding formula that addresses the needs of underserved students.

The Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a Yes vote on Prop. 2 because children in California deserve school facilities that are in good repair. Providing no funding would hurt all students.