Dear Culver City: The Myths and Facts of Public School Funding

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece was submitted by a source unaffiliated with Culver Crescent and does not confirm the opinion of The Crescent or its writers. Click here to view the full "Dear Culver City" disclaimer.

By Darrel Menthe

It is clear from a recent letter that there are widespread misconceptions about public school funding and our school district that need to be addressed. Let me explain various issues in turn, showing as we go why additional funding is needed, and why the proposed citizens’ parcel tax initiative (Excellence for Culver City Schools) is the best way to ensure the future for our children at CCUSD.

Myth: Culver City residents keep voting for money for the schools again and again, but the situation never gets any better, so why vote for any more money for the schools?

Reality: It has been 10 years since Culver City actually increased local funding for education (Measure “K”). Measure K was a regressive flat tax of $189 per parcel regardless of the property size or value. In 2024, despite a looming fiscal crisis, district leaders chose only to ask voters to renew that flat tax at the same rate with no increase, not even an adjustment for inflation (Measure “O”).

Thus, we still have the same flat tax that produces just 2% of CCUSD’s revenue. March 2024 also saw the first school bond measure in a decade (Measure “E”), but bond money can only be used for infrastructure projects, not for operations, teachers, or staff.

So while it may feel as if Culver City has voted repeatedly to give schools more money, it is not really true. The citizens’ parcel tax initiative will be the first time in a decade that we have voted for more money to be used in the classroom. It will be the first progressive parcel tax ever, and it aims to be a permanent solution to the perennial lack of state funding.

Myth: Culver City property taxes should be more than enough to fund our schools.

Reality: Unlike most states, California does not tax real property at current market value and cannot rely on local property taxes to fund public schools. As a result of Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, real property tax assessments are based on the initial purchase price, not current market value.

Plenty of valuable properties, especially large commercial properties, have not been reassessed since the last century. This causes the worst of all possible worlds: the nominal property tax rate is relatively high, especially for younger homeowners, but the overall revenue generated is relatively low.

Because property tax revenue is so low, California cannot use property taxes alone to fund public education. California, therefore, funds its K-12 schools primarily through the Local Control Funding Formula (“LCFF”), which combines property taxes and general fund revenue.

The LCFF presently provides approximately $12,500 for each student (the exact amount per student varies by grade level and other factors). If a student crosses district lines on a permit, the money goes with the student.

Some California school districts are wealthy enough to opt out of the LCFF and essentially self-fund through property taxes alone, but Culver City is not one of them. It is notable that school districts that can self-fund always spend substantially more per student than the LCFF (e.g., $18,000 per student in Santa Monica, $30,000 per student in Palo Alto).

Other states with high costs of living, like New York and Massachusetts, also provide much more per student than California does.

Myth: CCUSD will have declining enrollment for the foreseeable future, per a report by MGT Consulting in April 2025, losing up to 800 children in the next 10 years.

Reality: Culver City’s population has remained steady at 40,000 since the 1980 census, so birthrate has been the primary factor affecting school enrollment for decades. The MGT report basically looks at that.

However, the Culver City General Plan 2045 (adopted 2025) calls for a 50% increase in population over 20 years. The MGT Report from 2025 severely discounts new residential units, noting only “74 housing units in either active construction or plan check phase within the forecasted time frame.” (MGT Report, p.9).

That is no longer remotely accurate.

The April 2026 Citywide Housing Pipeline Report produced by the Culver City Planning Department shows accelerating change: 4,473 residential units in the pipeline for construction, of which over 900 are already in construction or in plan check.

As the Chair of the Planning Commission, I watch these numbers increase every month. Culver City’s population is set to grow, and so will CCUSD’s resident student population. This natural growth will, incidentally, gradually reduce the number of spaces in Culver City schools available for interdistrict permits.

It would be a severe error to start closing schools on the theory that the student population will decrease.

Myth: We don’t know why parents who can afford private school are leaving CCUSD.

Reality: When parents with means decide to pay for private school rather than send their children to CCUSD, they almost always cite the lack of educational options at CCUSD and the additional educational resources, programming, and opportunities available at private school.

The decision in 2021 to eliminate Honors English classes at CCMS and CCHS is the most commonly noted reason for leaving CCUSD. We can best remedy the situation by providing the educational resources, programming, and opportunities that parents want at CCUSD.

When we start to do so, it will restore confidence in the public schools.

Myth: CCUSD has a $10 million structural deficit and cannot meet its reserve requirement.

Reality: CCUSD is meeting its 3% reserve requirement. Meeting that requirement next year will keep us out of receivership, but it requires approximately $6 million in spending cuts.

Because 90%+ of educational spending is on labor, that means cutting teachers and staff. CCUSD used one-time COVID-era money for permanent positions that parents value, including the arts, then failed to arrange for more revenue when COVID money went away.

This kind of problem isn’t a “structural deficit.” This is a simple mismatch between what the state provides and the educational options and extracurricular programs parents want. Culver City parents don’t want the state minimum, and that will require more spending.

Myth: Reducing the number of students on interdistrict permits will increase available funding and educational opportunities for residential students.

Reality: Almost all funding for public schools is allocated per pupil. Thus, each student we lose means a pro rata reduction in funding. Nothing is gained when a student is lost.

However, when the school district shrinks, all students suffer. Fewer students means fewer electives and curriculum options at CCMS and CCHS. When the number of students who want to take a particular class falls below the minimum number of students needed to make that class section cost-effective (approx. 25 students), the class becomes unsustainable. The same thing happens to sports.

Lower enrollment also causes scheduling conflicts that prevent students from taking the classes they want. For example, if there are only enough students to support one section of AP Literature or Chemistry, instead of two or three sections, some students will not be able to make their schedules work and will have to sacrifice a class.

In sum, there are substantial benefits for all students in maintaining a middle and high school large enough to sustain a diverse offering of programs and classes.

Myth: Culver City High School has changed a lot recently, and there are far more students on permit now than in the past.

Reality: Culver City High School had 28% students on permit in 2010, according to a 2010 report to the Culver City School Board by the California State Department of Education. That is the same percentage as in the last report (2024).

The demographics for CCHS have also changed only slightly. In 2010, the figures were as follows: 37.9% Hispanic, 23.1% Black, 21.6% White, and 10% Asian. For 2026: 41.0% Hispanic, 22.9% White, 13.8% Black, 11.3% Asian, and 10.4% “two or more races.”

Myth: The proposed parcel tax initiative does not come with sufficient oversight.

Reality: The proposed Planning and Oversight Committee is the strongest oversight ever proposed for CCUSD schools. Rather than creating a fixed formula that could be easily gamed, or a toothless committee that only reviews spending after the fact, the proposed initiative:

1. Empowers a group of parents to set out specific spending goals each year before the district makes its annual budget and

2. Requires the district to meet those specific goals or explain in writing why it did not.

No tax measure in Culver City has ever had this kind of oversight before. At the same time, this model preserves the key element of democracy and accountability, the power of the elected representatives on the School Board to make final decisions.

Without that, citizens would have no recourse if the parent oversight committee fails to meet community expectations.

Myth: All taxes should require a two-thirds majority to approve.

Response: The core principle of democracy is majority rule. On what basis should a minority of less than 34% of voters be allowed to determine public school policy in California? California courts have spoken eloquently in recent years of the sovereign power of the people to propose taxes and enact them by simple majority vote.

The California Court of Appeals has side-eyed the “fundamentally undemocratic requirement of a supermajority vote” and calls the power of the citizens’ initiative “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process.” [City and County of San Francisco vs. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G, Case No. A160659 (CA Ct. App. Div. 4 2021)].

My dad still lives in a small town in New England where the entire town gathers once a year at a town meeting to approve all taxes and spending by simple majority vote.

This is as American as it gets.

Unfortunately, CCUSD’s financial situation cannot be solved by restructuring or removing students. We cannot solve problems simply by throwing money at them, of course, but if anyone believes we can solve the financial problems of our public schools without also spending more money, they are not being honest with themselves.

While financial mismanagement during the COVID era exacerbated the current crisis (those details can be discussed in a different article), the overriding problem for the future is not CCUSD’s size or structure — it is that California simply does not send CCUSD enough money per student to provide the level of education we want for our children. The proposed citizens’ parcel tax initiative is an opportunity to close the gap between what parents want and what the state provides.

I urge my fellow citizens to invest in public education, as it is to invest in democracy itself, and we should not shrink from the challenges we face today.

Darrel Menthe has two children at Culver City High School and has lived in Culver City for nearly 20 years. He currently manages the Culver City Downtown Business Improvement District, serves as the Chair of the Culver City Planning Commission and is a candidate for the Culver City Unified School District Board of Education in 2026. Menthe also volunteers on the CCUSD LCAP Community Partner Advisory Committee and the CCUSD Measure E Bond Oversight Committee and previously served on the Culver City Finance Advisory Committee.