Voters in California defeat measure to cut education funding
11/22/05 -- California voters showed their support for public education Nov. 8 by defeating a ballot measure that would have undercut school funding guarantees.
More than 62 percent of voters rejected Proposition 76, which was the centerpiece of Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s efforts to control state spending. It would have undercut the school funding guarantees that voters added to the state Constitution under Proposition 98.
Under Proposition 76, annual spending would have been limited to the average of the three previous years’ revenue. Any excess would have been put into a reserve or spent on specific items, such as paying off debt or improving roads.
It also would have given the governor the authority to cut the budget mid-year if revenue and spending fell out of line and the legislature was unable to close the gap.
If the measure passed, education would have faced an immediate $4 billion cut with additional cuts likely.
“We’re relieved that Californians saw Proposition 76 for what it was: an attempt to eviscerate Proposition 98 and hand the governor new authority to make bigger education funding cuts in the future,” says Scott P. Plotkin, executive director of the California School Boards Association (CSBA).
“California voters support their schools, and they expect their leaders to do the same,” Plotkin says. “With the failure of Proposition 76, we call on Gov. Schwarzenegger to work with the education community to address the real issues confronting our schools. If we truly want California students to achieve the high standards we have set for them, we need to get serious about finding out what it costs to do the job, instead of trying to eliminate minimum funding guarantees.”
CSBA also is pleased that California voters rejected another ballot measure promoted by the governor, Proposition 74, which would have lengthened the probationary period for new teachers from two to five years.
CSBA believes the measure would have added substantial costs for annual performance reviews over the longer period. Worse, it threatened to tie local administrators’ hands in assessing their teachers once they attained tenure -- and to subject the definition of “unsatisfactory performance” by teachers to collective bargaining.
“This was a difficult issue for our members because school board leaders overwhelmingly support meaningful tenure reform,” Plotkin said. “Although it was well-intentioned, Proposition 74 would not have changed the most expensive and cumbersome aspects of the present tenure system.
| Reproduced with permission from School Board News. Copyright © 2005, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. |