Voters can settle a school funding question in a single night. Districts live with the answer for a generation.
In just three weeks, voters will decide who controls billions of dollars in school funding. In California, they will decide whether to make permanent a tax on top earners that brings in $5 billion to $15 billion a year (Legislative Analyst's Office [LAO], 2026). In Colorado, they will decide whether to give up their tax refunds to fund schools. In Florida, they will vote on a property tax cut, and in Arizona, on whether the state should tell large districts how to divide their own budgets.
I have lived on the receiving end of a ballot measure. In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, which required schools to teach English learners in classes "taught nearly all in English" and set aside $50 million a year for ten years for adults who agreed to tutor those students (LAO, 1998). That year, 1.4 million California students were English learners. For the 19 years that vote stood, I served as a principal, a coordinator, a director, and a chief academic officer in the Los Angeles Unified School District and the San Francisco Unified School District. The damage outlasted the law. Bilingual authorizations fell from more than 1,800 in 1994-95 to fewer than 700 by 2015-16 (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). When voters repealed the mandate in 2016 with 73.5% of the vote (Hopkinson, 2017), the teachers needed to rebuild were gone.
That experience has influenced how I've approached every election since. Most leaders read school funding measures as questions about how much. I read them as questions about who decides. Every measure on the November 3 ballot moves control of school dollars a little further from the people who spend them.
Who Raises It
California's Proposition 3 would make permanent the higher income tax rates on top earners that voters first approved in 2012. Roughly 40% of the revenue would go to schools and community colleges (LAO, 2026). Supporters often cite an 89/11 split, but that figure describes how the education share divides between K-12 and community colleges, not the share of the whole.
Colorado's Proposition NN would let the state keep money it currently refunds to taxpayers under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), with the first claim going to a 2% annual increase in school funding for ten years (Gonzales, 2026). Minnesota voters will decide whether to raise the annual payout from the $2.4 billion Permanent School Fund from about 2.5% to 4.5% of its value, lifting per-pupil support from about $68 to about $101 with no new taxes (Dernbach, 2026). One superintendent called it "a drop in the bucket" while her district cuts $15 million.
All three measures write funding decisions into constitutions and formulas, beyond the reach of the next legislature. They also sit beyond the reach of any school board.
Who Directs It
Arizona's Proposition 320 goes further. It would require districts with more than 7,500 students, or in counties with more than 500,000 residents, to spend at least 60% of their operating budgets on direct instruction, as defined by the state auditor general. Districts below the line would have to raise that share by half a point each year or lose classroom site funds, starting at 25% and reaching 100% after four years. The statewide figure sits at 52.1% (KVOA, 2026). The measure adds no new money. It changes who decides how existing money gets divided.
Who Shrinks It
Florida's Amendment 3 would raise the homestead exemption on non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028. School levies are exempt. A poll taken September 28 to October 1 showed 55% support, short of the 60% the amendment needs to pass (NBC6, 2026).
Some of the biggest fights never reached this ballot. Ohio's campaign to abolish property taxes, which would have erased $21 billion a year in local revenue, fell short of its signature goal and is aiming for 2027 (Tobias, 2026). Michigan's proposal to tax incomes above $500,000 to raise about $1.7 billion for schools stalled and now targets 2028 (Lohman, 2026). An Arizona measure to rein in the state's universal voucher program came off the ballot after the state Supreme Court ruled it fell short on valid signatures (Fischer, 2026). These measures are coming back.
Voters are also borrowing. New Mexico will decide on $230 million in bonds for higher education, special schools, and tribal schools, and Rhode Island on $275 million for higher education facilities (ACTE, 2026).
The Case for Voter Control
The other side has a real argument. Colorado voters wrote TABOR to keep government growth in check, and opponents of Proposition NN say those refunds belong to taxpayers (Gonzales, 2026). Supporters of Arizona's Proposition 320, including state Rep. Matt Gress, argue that more of every dollar should reach classrooms and teachers (KVOA, 2026). Florida homeowners face rising costs on every front. When voters set the terms directly, they hold the system accountable in the most direct way available.
My View
Proposition 227 taught me what that kind of accountability costs. A ballot measure cannot adjust when conditions change. It cannot see the student who needs something different, or the teacher pipeline it quietly drains. A board can revisit a decision next spring. A constitutional amendment waits for the next election cycle, and sometimes for the next generation.
Some measures on this ballot would put real money into schools, and I hope they pass. But a funding win that comes with strings attached from Sacramento, Denver, or Phoenix is still a decision made somewhere else.
Before You Vote
Pull your 2027-28 budget assumptions this week. Mark every line that depends on a measure on this ballot, a state formula, or a revenue stream voters could change. Then ask your finance team one question: if this vote goes the other way, what do we cut first? Know the answer before November 3.
References
ACTE. (2026, October 7). 2026 election watch: State ballot measures. Association for Career and Technical Education. https://www.acteonline.org/blog/cte-policy-watch/2026-election-watch-state-ballot-measures/
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017, February 8). Bilingual teacher shortages in California: A problem likely to grow. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/bilingual-teacher-shortages-california-factsheet
Dernbach, B. Z. (2026, September 1). On the ballot: An amendment to boost Minnesota school funding. Sahan Journal. https://sahanjournal.com/education/minnesota-permanent-school-funding-ballot-amendment/
Fischer, H. (2026, August 18). 2 Arizona school voucher measures won't be on the ballot after Supreme Court rulings. KJZZ. https://www.kjzz.org/elections/2026-08-18/2-arizona-school-voucher-measures-wont-be-on-the-ballot-after-supreme-court-rulings
Gonzales, J. (2026, October 1). What Colorado voters should know about Proposition NN. Chalkbeat Colorado. https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/10/01/what-colorado-voters-should-know-about-proposition-nn-voter-guide/
Hopkinson, A. (2017, January 6). A new era for bilingual education: Explaining California's Proposition 58. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2017/a-new-era-for-bilingual-education-explaining-californias-proposition-58/574852
KVOA. (2026, September 24). Decision 2026: Arizona voters to decide on school spending rule this fall. https://www.kvoa.com/news/decision2026/decision-2026-arizona-voters-to-decide-on-school-spending-rule-this-fall/article_fee8a403-9c80-4b65-97d1-4523b276085b.html
Legislative Analyst's Office. (1998). Analysis of Proposition 227. California Secretary of State. https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/1998/primary/propositions/227analysis.htm
Legislative Analyst's Office. (2026). Proposition 3: Provides permanent funding for schools and health care by extending existing tax on high incomes. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=3&year=2026
Lohman, I. (2026, March 12). Group halts "tax the rich" ballot effort to raise funds for Michigan schools. Bridge Michigan. https://bridgemi.com/talent-education/group-halts-tax-the-rich-ballot-effort-to-raise-funds-for-michigan-schools/
NBC6. (2026, October 7). Florida Amendment 3 on property tax supported by majority of voters, poll finds. NBC Miami. https://www.nbcmiami.com/elections/majority-of-florida-voters-support-amendment-3-new-poll-finds/3869270/
Tobias, A. (2026, June 6). Ohio property tax abolition campaign drops 2026 ballot bid. Signal Cleveland. https://signalcleveland.org/ohio-property-tax-amendment-abolish-ends-2026-ballot-bid-targets-2027-election/
Let's Talk
|
DISTRICT LEADER PODCAST
The Fight In Our Schools
This week’s issue follows the money. This episode of Head of the Class follows the fights. Christina Gagnier, a former school board member, and Kristi Hirst, a former teacher and current public school parent, founded Our Schools USA, and each week they talk through the headlines shaping public education. Here they take on the greatest hits of the school board culture wars: curriculum battles, book bans, and religion in public schools. Those fights are on the ballot this November too, carried by school board candidates and new state laws taking effect nationwide. It’s the fourth episode in their series on how the midterms will shape schools at the local, state, and national levels. Find more at ourschoolsusa.org or on Instagram at @ourschoolsusa.
EDUPRENEURS NETWORK • DEEP DIVE
Value-Based Procurement in Education: Moving Beyond the Lowest Bid
Earlier this year I wrote that the lowest bid is rarely the best value, and that districts should judge partners on total cost of ownership rather than the invoice alone. That case gets harder to make when a state formula dictates what share of a budget must go to instruction, or when a ballot measure shrinks the local tax base. If you serve districts in Arizona, Florida, Colorado, or any state where this election shifts the rules, expect procurement teams to ask which budget line your work falls under before they ask what it costs. Know the answer before they do.
From the Bookshelf - Thought Leadership
"The Evolution of Thought Leadership"
In Chapter 1, The Evolution of Thought Leadership, the section "Confronting Political Realities" opens with a lesson Proposition 227 taught me long before I wrote it down: "Education is inherently political. Shifts in curriculum, funding, and policy are shaped by competing interests." I draw there on Jeannie Oakes's research on tracking, which showed how school structures can quietly reinforce inequality. Funding formulas work the same way. A spending rule or a tax change written far from the classroom decides which students get what, long after the campaign signs come down.
This week: Read "Confronting Political Realities" in Chapter 1. Then ask yourself: which competing interests are shaping the funding decisions on your state's ballot, and whose interests are missing from that conversation?
Additional Resources
Your fall escape awaits
Mountain air, city lights or somewhere new? There's still time to make your fall plans take flight with Alaska Airlines. See the fall foliage in Boston, sip cider in Seattle, or swap your flannel for a swimsuit and head to Hawai'i.
Subject to availability. Terms and conditions apply.