Proposition 98, which amended the State Constitution in 1988 to include a guaranteed minimum of state funding for public schools, provided relatively predictable and stabilized funding in its early years. For several years in a row, California increased its funding for public education and made headway toward reaching the national average for per-pupil funding. When California fell on hard times, approximately $3.8 billion was “borrowed” from schools to balance the state budget. Under Prop 98, those funds are still owed to the schools. The Prop 98 requirements to provide a guaranteed minimum of funding to schools and to “pay back” money borrowed from schools frustrated some leaders’ attempts to get California out of debt. Consequently, Prop 76 was created to give policy makers and the Governor more flexibility in setting funding for public education.

Entitled the “Live Within Our Means Act,” Proposition 76 would amend the State Constitution to establish a new state spending limit, grant the Governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions of Proposition 98. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has written a complete explanation of how Prop 76 would work, and we have posted an excerpt related specifically to education on the LTCC website.

While its title may be appealing, Proposition 76 seeks to achieve budget reform by focusing disproportionately on public school funding; no other State budget elements are called out for such major change. Proposition 76 would result in immediate funding cuts to public schools, and it would fundamentally change the minimum funding guarantee for schools currently found in the State Constitution. Here are the major education funding concerns posed by Proposition 76:

Schools lose $3.8 billion right away: Under current Proposition 98 requirements, the State owes schools $3.8 billion, which was taken out of the State’s education funding base. Under Prop 76, the payback period for that $3.8 billion would be stretched out over 15 years. Even worse, that money would never be restored to the base (which sets the minimum funding level for the next fiscal year). The California State PTA has calculated that this loss would be equal to a loss of $600 per student per year going forward.

Severe spending cuts could happen year after year: Under current law when spending cuts are made to education in adverse fiscal years, the funding level is guaranteed to be restored when the state’s fiscal condition improves. Proposition 76 eliminates that provision from Prop 98 and makes education vulnerable to spending cuts year after year.

Disruptive mid-year cuts are possible: Proposition 76 gives the Governor, under certain economic circumstances, the unilateral power to cut expenses (including education funds) across-the-board and possibly mid-year, regardless of the minimum guarantee and without any obligation to pay it back, once again reducing the education funding base. Mid-year cuts are the most crippling for schools, which are then forced to consider layoffs, program cuts or deficit spending that eats up reserves.

Over time, the minimum education funding level would fall under Prop 76, because there would no longer be an obligation to make up for cuts made in lean years. At a time when California’s spending for education is already well below the national average, Proposition 76 would put in place a constitutional mechanism that could actually lower education funding levels even more and keep them there permanently.

Even with Proposition 98 in place, California remains in the bottom third of the nation in per-student funding. With its recent adoption of dramatically higher academic standards, California is in the midst of evaluating how to stretch the current dollars to achieve greater student performance. The Prop 76 spending cuts would take us in the opposite direction. While there is a clear need for California to re-evaluate its budgeting and spending process, Proposition 76 is not the answer, especially for those concerned with the quality of public schools. True State budget reform requires a comprehensive and balanced review of all spending categories, not just public education. You can join with the following organizations in our community who have passed resolutions opposing Proposition 76:

Acalanes High School Parent Club
Buena Vista Elementary PTA
Burton Valley Elementary PTA
Camino Pablo Elementary PTA
Campolindo High School Parent Club
Joaquin Moraga Middle School PTA
Lafayette Elementary PTA
Las Lomas High School PTSA
Las Trampas Creek Council of PTAs
Los Perales Elementary PTA
Moraga School District Governing Board
Murwood Elementary School PTA
Parkmead Elementary PTA
Rheem Elementary PTA
Stanley Middle School PTA
Walnut Creek Intermediate PTA
Walnut Creek School District Governing Board

Remember to VOTE on November 8th!