“Theoretically all Children are Equal. Practically this can Never be So”: The History of the District Property Tax in California and the Choice of Inequality
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2020
“Theoretically all Children are Equal. Practically this can Never be So”: The History of the District Property Tax in California and the Choice of Inequality
Dealing mostly in aggregate statistics that mask important regional variations, scholars often assume that district property taxation and the resource disparities this approach to school funding creates are deeply rooted in the history of American education.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This article explores the history of district property taxation and school funding disparities in California during the 19th and 20th centuries. First, the article documents the limited use of district property taxation for school funding in California and several other Western states during the 19th century, showing that the development of school finance was more complicated than standard accounts suggest. Then, the article examines how a coalition of experts, activists, and politicians worked together during the early 20th century to promote district property taxation and institutionalize the idea that the wealth of local communities, rather than the wealth of the entire state, should determine the resources available for public schooling.
Research Design
This article draws on primary source documents from state and regional archives, including district-level funding data from nine Northern California counties, to complete a historical analysis.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The history of California's district property tax suggests the need for continued research on long-term trends in school finance and educational inequality. Popular accounts minimizing the historical role of state governments in school funding obscure how public policies, not just market forces shaping property values, create funding inequalities. In turn, these accounts communicate powerful messages about the supposed inevitability of funding disparities and the responsibility of state governments to correct them. Through increased attention to long-term trends in school funding, scholars can help popular commentators and policymakers avoid assumptions that naturalize inequality and narrow the possibilities for future funding reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amend school bill for cities. (1911, March 10). Sacramento Union, p. 2.
2.
Amendment No. 1 is assailed by Boynton. (1910, October 28). San Francisco Call, p. 4.
Bay city protest will be unheeded. (1911, February 26). Sacramento Union, p. 12.
5.
BeadieN. (2010). Education and the creation of capital in the early American republic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BeadieN. (2016). War, education and state formation: Problems of territorial and political integration in the United States, 1848-1912. Paedagogica Historica, 52, 58—75.
7.
BlackfordM. (1976). The politics of business in California, 1890-1920. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
8.
BrilliantM. (2010). The color of America has changed: How racial diversity shaped civil rights reform in California, 1941-1978. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
BrilliantM. (2012). From integrating students to redistributing dollars: The eclipse of school desegregation by school finance equalization in 1970s California. California Legal History, 7, 229—245.
10.
BrimleyV., & GarfieldR. (2008). Financing education in a climate of change (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
11.
Bureau of Education. (1918). Educational conditions in Arizona. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
12.
California Department of Public Education. (1926). Financing education in California. Sacramento, CA: Author.
13.
California Teachers Association. (1918, January). Increasing school funds. Sierra Educational News, p. 25.
14.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
ChamberlainA. (1919, February). Digest of educational bills. Sierra Educational News, pp. 76—79.
16.
Coghlan defeats Benedict measure. (1911, March 10). San Francisco Call, p. 5.
17.
Committee on Revenue and Taxation. (1906). Preliminary report of the Commission on Revenue and Taxation of the State of California. Sacramento, CA: W.W. Shannon, State Printer.
18.
Cost of education. (1927, May 1). Washington Post, p. SM3.
19.
CubberleyE. P. (1905). School funds and their apportionment: A consideration of the subject with reference to a more general equalization of both the burdens and the advantages of education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
CuttingH. C. (1899). State of Nevada biennial report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Carson City, NV.: Nevada Department of Education.
21.
DoerrD. R. (2000). California's tax machines: A history of taxing and spending in the Golden State. Sacramento, CA: California Taxpayers Association.
22.
Editorial. (1919, February). Sierra Educational News, pp. 55—56.
23.
Fall River Mills schools to close. (1915, March 8). Sacramento Union, p. 5.
24.
GuinK.GrossB.DeburgomasterS., & RozaM. (2007). Do districts fund schools fairly?Education Next, 74, 68—74.
25.
HoittI. G. (1890). Annual report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Instruction.
26.
JohnsR. L. (1969). State financing of elementary and state secondary education. In FullerE., & PearsonJ. B. (Eds.), Education in the states: Nationwide development since 1900 (pp. 175—215). Washington DC: National Education Association of the United States.
27.
KaestleC. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
28.
KaestleC., & VinovskisM. (1986). Education and social change in nineteenth-century Massachusetts. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KeppelM. (1918, December). Adequate support for elementary schools. Sierra Educational News, pp. 587—590.
30.
KeppelM. (1919, March). State plus local school support. Sierra Educational News, p. 121.
31.
LeachmanM.MastersonK., & FigueroaE. (2017). A Punishing Decade for School Funding. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
32.
MartinI. (2008). The permanent tax revolt: How the property tax transformed American politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
MehrotraA. J. (2013). Making the American fiscal state: Law, politics, and the rise of progressive taxation, 1877-1929. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MetzgerW. E. (1965). A history of state and local support of Nebraska public schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
35.
MitchellW. (1890). First biennial report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Bismarck, ND: Department of Public Instruction.
36.
Nebraska Special Commission on Revenue and Taxation. (1914). State of Nebraska report of the Special Commission on Revenue and Taxation. Lincoln, NE: Woodruff Press.
37.
NethertonF. J. (1895). Biennial report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the years 1893-94 for Territory of Arizona. Mesa, AZ: Territorial Superintendent of Public Instruction.
38.
New bill increases public school funds. (1915, June 12). Mariposa Gazette, p. 1.
39.
Notes and comment. (1919, January). Sierra Educational News, p. 47.
40.
PhelpsC. L. (1918, May). Points on school taxation and control. Sierra Educational News, pp. 259—261.
41.
PlehnC. C. (n.d.). Expenditures for schools. Carl C. Plehn Papers (Carton 1). Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA.
42.
PritchettH. S. (1922). The rising cost of education. American Law School Review, 51, 171—190.
43.
Report of the Proceedings of the Bar Association of Arkansas (1916). Little Rock, AR: Bar Association of Arkansas.
44.
Report of the Special Legislative Committee on Education. (1920). Sacramento, CA: J.M. Cremin, State Printer.
45.
ReynoldsM. A. (1997). Politics and Indiana's public schools during the Civil War Era, 1850-1875 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
46.
RomeroS.HealyJ., & TurkewitzJ. (2018, April 26). Teachers in Arizona and Colorado walk out over education funding. The New York Times, p. A14.
47.
RyanJ. (2010). Five Miles Away, A World Apart: One City, Two Schools, and the Story of Educational Opportunity in Modern America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
Sacramento would gain school funds. (1911, March 9). Sacramento Union, p. 3.
49.
School department. (1912, September 23). San Jose Municipal Record, pp. 8—9.
50.
Schools may run only eight months. (1915, January 30). Healdsburg Enterprise, p. 3.
51.
ScottM. (1959). San Francisco Bay Area: A metropolis in perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
52.
ScribnerC. (2016). The fight for local control: Schools, suburbs, and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
53.
SearsJ. B., & CubberleyE. P. (1924). The cost of education in California: A report reviewed and presented by The Educational Finance Inquiry Commission. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
54.
SelfR. (2003). American Babylon: Race and the struggle for postwar Oakland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
S.F. schools face $104,000 deficit. (1915, January 5). Los Angeles Herald, p. 1.
57.
Shortage in school funds to be topic. (1915, April 9). Sacramento Union, p. 1.
58.
South is beaten in school fight. (1911, March 10). Los Angeles Herald, p. 6.
59.
SracicP. A. (2006). San Antonio v. Rodriguez and the pursuit of equal education. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
60.
State meetings. (1920, January). Sierra Educational News, p. 25.
61.
SteffesT. (2012). Schools, society, and state: A new education to govern modern America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
SwettJ. (1911). Public education in California: Its origin and development, with personal reminiscences of half a century. New York, NY: American Book Company.
63.
TalbertW. (1918). Are we spending too much money on our schools?California Taxpayers’ Journal, 14, 22.
64.
Teachers and poll tax. (1915, April 23). Red Bluff Daily News, p. 2.
65.
Teachers must wait for part of salary till July. (1915, April 17). Sacramento Union, p. 9.
66.
TeafordJ. C. (2002). The rise of the states: Evolution of American state government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
The case of 17 million children. (1912). Ladies’ Home Journal, 29(8), 3.
68.
The constitutional amendments and bond propositions. (1906, November 6). Los Angeles Herald, p. 6.
69.
The county unit. (1918, January). Sierra Educational News, pp. 11—12.
WalshC. (2018). Racial taxation: Schools, segregation, and taxpayer citizenship, 1869-1973. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
72.
WestbergJ. (2017). Funding the rise of mass schooling: The social, economic, and cultural history of school finance in Sweden, 1840-1900. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
73.
WoodW. C. (1920). Twenty-ninth biennial report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Instruction.
