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

Proposition 3 is sold as a way to protect schools and health care by keeping higher tax rates on top earners in place permanently. The pitch sounds noble: keep the tax on high incomes, and you prevent billions in cuts to education and health programs.

But when you look at what’s actually happened since these taxes began in 2012—and how the system works today—it’s hard to see this as anything more than locking in a broken model.

Here’s why I’m voting no.

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 called it “historic investment.” The initiative itself claims the tax has raised more than $104 billion for schools and other services.

So what do we see in classrooms?

• Reading scores remain weak. On national assessments, only about a third of students score “Proficient” in reading.
• Math and science scores also lag. Pandemic disruptions erased much of the modest progress that had been made.
• College professors report that many incoming students struggle with basic literacy and focus compared to past decades—some can’t handle dense readings, follow multi-paragraph arguments, or write clear essays without heavy support.

In short: spending is way up, but core academic skills have not improved in a meaningful way.

The extra money may have kept schools from collapsing during tough years, but it hasn’t delivered the kind of lasting academic gains you’d expect after more than a decade. If the system can’t show strong results with all that funding, making the taxes permanent doesn’t suddenly make it smarter.

2. Standards have fallen while social promotion rose

In past decades, you could fail a grade. You could be held back. You could be told you weren’t graduating if you didn’t meet minimum standards. That reality pushed a lot of students to step up.

Over time, the system shifted. Research and policy began emphasizing concerns about self-esteem and the harms of retention. 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 standards.”

That approach hurts motivated, capable students. Classes slow down to accommodate those who aren’t prepared. Diplomas don’t mean what they used to. And by the time students reach college, many have been pushed through without ever truly being required to read, write, or do math at a solid level.

Proposition 3 doesn’t address this. It doesn’t tighten standards, restore meaningful promotion rules, or tie graduation to real mastery. It simply feeds more money into a system that has already lowered expectations.

3. Permanent taxes lock in a broken model

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

The initiative is clear about its goal: extend the existing tax on high incomes to provide permanent funding for schools and health care. That means the extra 1–3 percent on top income brackets—originally sold as temporary in 2012, then extended in 2016—would now be locked in indefinitely.

The consequences:

• No built-in sunset to force a rethink of the system.
• No automatic return to lower rates if outcomes don’t improve.
• A permanent bet that “more money” is the answer, even though results don’t support that claim.

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

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

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

California school districts often operate under a “spend it or lose it” dynamic: if they don’t use all their money this year, it can reduce what they get next year. The message is essentially, “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 in to do work that isn’t truly needed—projects done just to burn the budget.
• Money goes into cosmetic improvements, padded contracts, and last-minute purchases instead of careful long-term planning.

That’s not education. That’s gaming the system.

Proposition 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 adds more cash to a structure that already pressures districts to spend every dollar, whether it’s truly needed or not.

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

Bottom line

Here’s where this lands:

• 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 report students can’t read at the level they used to.
• Finance rules reward burning money on unneeded projects just to keep future allocations safe.

And Proposition 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 proven 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. Proposition 3 lets Sacramento skip that conversation and just say, “Keep the money flowing.”

For me, that’s a no.