Across California, the most dilapidated buildings that leak, reek of mold or lack heat for winter-chilled classrooms aren't necessarily the first in line to get money to fix them.
In fact, the state doesn't provide a reliable source of income to modernize and maintain schools or build new ones.

Instead, districts rely on state and local bonds to upgrade or open new schools -- a method of raising money that's entirely subject to voter whim.

In 1998, voters passed a statewide $9.2 billion bond and another $13 billion bond in 2002.

Locally, however, some voters have been more willing to pass local bonds than others. Yet, to qualify for the majority of state bond money, districts have to raise matching funds, typically through bonds.

Because some districts are much better at passing bonds, they are more likely to get a slice of the state pie, even if that means taxpayers are carpeting suburban classrooms rather than repairing broken and unusable urban toilets.

"A district does have to have the ability and will at the local level to raise their share," said Bruce Hancock, assistant executive officer of the State Allocation Board, which distributes state bond money. "I think it's obvious that there are those districts that are more successful at it."

San Ramon is good at it. The district has passed $330 million in local bonds since 1998. It parlayed that into another $69 million in state bond money.

That's $3,194 from the state bonds for each of the 21,500 students. The money has helped offset the demands of a 9 percent enrollment increase -- 1,739 students -- since 1999.

Farther east, Tracy voters have spurned two bond measures in 2000 and 2002. The last time they passed any school bond was in 1987.

The district nonetheless has gotten about $36 million from the state using developer fees and hardship provisions for those who can't raise local cash. That's about $2,401 for each of the 15,200 students.

Yet Tracy's enrollment has increased by 20 percent since 1999, adding 3,076 students to the rolls.

It's an imperfect system that doesn't identify which school should get money first, Hancock said. It's a system that's playing catch-up after ignoring facilities for nearly two decades, meaning nearly every district needs at least some money and others need a lot more.

But it's also a system that rewards districts good at playing the state's facilities game.

"There are districts that are very good at running the business of school facilities," Hancock said. "And what about the kids who don't have those adults in their lives? That's a totally legitimate question. The solution alludes even the best."

The state Legislative Analyst's Office and other education experts have suggested a facilities funding overhaul, arguing for an annual allocation rather than a reliance on bonds. That would require getting all school buildings up to par first.

"Because we fell so far behind, we're playing catch-up now," said Duwayne Brooks, California Department of Education director of school facilities. "Once it's leveled up, then there could be a steady reliable stream of funds."