Proposition 3 The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026

July 16, 2026 0 Comments

Proposition 3—the “California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026”—is sold as a way to protect schools and health care by keeping higher tax rates on top earners going forever. It sounds noble: “This measure will prevent billions in cuts to schools and health care by extending existing taxes on the wealthiest Californians.” But when you look at what’s actually happened since these taxes started in 2012, and how the system really works on the ground, it’s hard to see this as anything but more of the same broken model.

Here’s why I’m voting NO, laid out in four simple points.

1. More money hasn’t fixed basic outcomes

Since 2012, California has poured tens of billions into schools thanks to Prop 30 and Prop 55. K–12 and community college funding shot up, per‑student spending climbed, and the state bragged about “historic investments” in education. The initiative itself boasts that the tax “has raised more than $104 billion for schools and other essential services.”

But what do we see in the classroom?

  • Reading scores are still weak. On national assessments, only roughly a third of kids hit “Proficient” in reading.
  • Math and science scores lag too, and the pandemic wiped out a lot of the modest gains that had been made.
  • College professors are openly complaining that students arrive unable to read and write at the level that used to be routine.

And it’s not just a vague feeling. Recent reports from faculty across the country—and here in California—make it clear: incoming college students are struggling with basic literacy and focus in a way that’s different from past decades. As one summary put it, “College professors are reporting that their students are no longer capable of reading or writing the kinds of complex texts that used to be routine assignments.”

Some professors describe students who can’t handle a 20‑page article, can’t follow a multi‑paragraph argument, or rely on AI summaries instead of reading the original assignment. Others say class discussions and essay quality have dropped because students haven’t built the stamina to sit with dense material. One recent article described the situation starkly: “Gen Zers are arriving at college unable to even read a sentence—professors warn it could lead to a generation of anxious and lonely graduates.”

So the pattern is pretty clear: spending is way up, but core skills are not. The tax money kept schools from collapsing during the recession, sure. But it hasn’t delivered a big, lasting jump in basic academic performance—especially compared to what people graduating around 1980 experienced.

If the system can’t show strong improvement after more than a decade of extra cash, doubling down with permanent taxes doesn’t suddenly make it smarter.

2. Standards have fallen while social promotion rose

When you went to school, you could actually fail. You could be held back. You could be told “you’re not graduating” if you didn’t meet minimum standards. That reality pushed a lot of kids to step up. There were gates you had to pass through.

Over time, the system shifted away from that. Research and policy talk started focusing on “social promotion” and how retention supposedly hurt self‑esteem. One summary of the history puts it this way: “In the 1970’s, promotion of all was encouraged based on research that showed negative effects on children’s self-esteem when they were retained.”

The result?

  • Students are routinely moved forward by age, even when they haven’t mastered basics.
  • Grade retention is rare, and graduation is more about collecting credits than demonstrating proficiency.
  • The message becomes: “Everyone moves on somehow,” instead of “You have to meet clear academic standards.”

That hurts the very kids who are motivated and capable. Classes slow down to accommodate those who aren’t prepared. Diplomas don’t mean what they used to. And by the time these students hit college, professors see a generation that has been pushed through without ever truly being required to read, write, or do math at a solid level.

Prop 3 doesn’t touch this problem. It doesn’t tighten standards, restore meaningful promotion rules, or make graduation depend on real mastery. It simply feeds more money into a system that has already lowered expectations.

3. Permanent taxes lock in a broken model

Prop 3 isn’t just “keep things going a bit longer.” It makes the high‑earner tax increases permanent.

The initiative is honest about its goal: “Provides permanent funding for schools and healthcare by extending existing tax on high incomes.” In other words, the extra 1–3 percent on top income brackets that were sold as temporary in 2012 and then extended in 2016 would now be locked in for good.

That means:

  • No built‑in sunset to force a rethink.
  • No automatic return to lower rates if the system doesn’t improve.
  • A permanent, structural bet that “more money” is the answer, even though outcomes don’t back that up.

For someone who cares about limited government and accountability, that’s a problem. Taxes that were supposed to be emergency measures have become the new normal. Now Prop 3 wants to freeze that higher level into place without fixing the underlying issues in how schools are run or how kids are taught.

If a model is failing, you don’t pour concrete around it. You fix it or replace it.

4. The “use it or lose it” game encourages waste

This one is personal. You’ve seen it.

California school districts often live under a “spend it or lose it” rule of thumb: if they don’t use all their money this year, it can hurt what they get next year. The message from the budget side is basically: “If you didn’t need it, we won’t give you as much.”

So what happens?

  • Districts rush to spend down leftovers before the fiscal year ends.
  • Maintenance crews get called out to do work that isn’t actually needed—projects done just to “dwindle the money.”
  • Money goes into cosmetic improvements, padded contracts, and last‑minute purchases instead of careful long‑term planning.

You’ve done that kind of maintenance yourself, not because the schools needed it, but because the budget rules practically demanded it. That’s not education. That’s gaming the system.

Prop 3 doesn’t fix this incentive. It doesn’t allow more thoughtful saving or multi‑year planning. It doesn’t penalize waste or reward efficiency. It just dumps more cash into a structure that already pressures districts to spend every dime, whether it’s truly needed or not.

From a taxpayer’s point of view, that’s infuriating. From a constitutionalist’s point of view, it’s exactly what happens when government grows without tight guardrails: the priority becomes protecting its own budget cycle, not delivering results.

Putting it all together

So here’s where I land:

  • We’ve had more than a decade of these higher taxes.
  • Funding is way up.
  • Reading, math, and science skills are not clearly better than they were for students who graduated in 1980.
  • Standards have fallen; social promotion is common; professors are now saying “students can’t read.”
  • The finance rules reward burning money on unneeded projects just to keep future allocations safe.
  • And Prop 3’s answer is to make the same tax structure permanent.

I’m not against schools. I’m not against teachers. I’m not against kids having support. But I am against locking in a system that has proved it will spend more without truly demanding more from itself or from students.

If we want real improvement, we need hard conversations about standards, promotion, curriculum, literacy instruction, and how districts are allowed to use—or save—money. Prop 3 lets Sacramento skip that conversation and just say, “Keep the money flowing.”

For me, that’s a NO.

Leave a Reply