Opponents of the bill include less affluent school districts and advocacy groups, who say the proposal doesn't go far enough to close equity gaps that benefit wealthier districts.

According to a recent report: University of California, Berkeley A study by the Center on Cities and Schools found that school districts in the wealthiest areas receive $4,000 to $5,000 more per student to modernize facilities than their poorest counterparts. That's because districts receive funding based on what they can raise. Districts in wealthy areas and those with low property values ​​are limited in the amount of bonds they can raise, while wealthier districts and those in large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco can raise much more.

“We're sending the wrong message that some kids are more important than others,” said Goodiel R. Crosthwaite, superintendent of the Lynnwood Unified School District.

The public interest law firm Public Advocates had proposed a different sliding scale in which the least affluent districts, like Lynnwood, would receive 95% of the state funding and 5% of the local contribution, while the wealthiest districts would receive 95% of the local contribution and only 5% of the funding.

The company is now threatening to sue the state, arguing that the current proposed language violates students' constitutional right to a quality education.